Evolution has been observed... right?

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Funny how Darwin actually used it in his book title, but evolution actually says nothing about origins... Hmmm. How can you have origins of the species when you don't know how life started?

Origin of species =/= "origin of life". Have you read it?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Germs.viruses, bacteria are all simgle cell animals. Better study a little harder.

"germs" is an imprecise generic term. It's not a biological class. Viruses are not cells, and certainly aren't "single cell animals". Bacteria are... bacteria. They're not actually animals, animals are eukaryotes, bacteria are prokaryotes. Sorry, but lets try to be correct about scientific terminology. Amoeba are an excellent example of single celled animals, though.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I disagree that Wikipedia is a legitimate source.

So nothing you could actually disagree with on merits, understood.

 

[gnostic]

Germs.viruses, bacteria are all simgle cell animals.

they are not "animals".

 

[Bear Wild]

Funny how Darwin actually used it in his book title, but evolution actually says nothing about origins... Hmmm. How can you have origins of the species when you don't know how life started?

Ignorance must be bliss to you. The book is entitled "Origin of Species" not origin of life. Of course if you had actually read the book you are commenting on it would be clear what Darwin addressed and it was not the origin of life. If you are going to make statements about a book you really should become familiar with it instead of looking foolish.

 

[Bear Wild]

No gods, no masters? My personal beliefs are perhaps split. On a political level, earthly level, I am an anarchist. However on a spiritual level, I believe all Satanism is is simply anarchism. To refuse to submit to God, to be an anarchist on the spiritual level, I’m against this.
If that’s what your referencing anyways, had to look up your French

Actually you do not have to submit to Thor like you said. Respect yes but submission no.

Not sure how much you really know about Satanism, I certainly do not know enough to make an intelligent comment about those that follow Satan, but no religious path could not be pure anarchism. They could not exist in pure anarchism form for they would destroy themselves. Of course what seems anarchy to one person may seem to be a reasonable path to another. I am sure here in the forum who could help you with this concept.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The fruit flies? “many genes influence a trait” I'm not seeing any new information.


You really need to read the Bible. How could they stay that way if they were originally made vegetarians and started being meat eaters?

I do read the Bible. I just interpret it rationally and do not add idiotic things in that are not there. Nothing in the Bible says that all animals were created herbivores.

Not only that, but you totally avoided the point of my post. Speciation is a macro-evoltuionary event.

I know. I know. That was the best you had to respond with.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Anything there you specifically disagree with, or is generic wellpoisoning all you got?

I'm going for generic well poisoning for $200 Alex.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

6-aminohexanoic acid

Not off hand, but mutations often eliminate or reduce cellular systems and actions. Called antagonistic pleiotropy... a trade-off where a temporary benefit for surviving is given at the expense of systems used for other environments.

You have to do better than this. Surely you can find something on the internet that will help you.

Summoning antagonistic pleiotropy and your plus one armor isn't going to protect you from reality.

Genes controlling more than one trait does not eliminate the possibility of new information.

The evidence supports a gene duplication model followed by mutations that resulted in the genes coding for the nylon degradation enzymes.

Thanks for playing, but you lose again.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How often?

Would developing the ability to utilize a new substrate be a temporary benefit?

On the other hand, it is good to see that someone is using the internet to find something relevant to science.

 

[Valjean]

No matter how much time passes or how many tiny changes accumulate, that does not add more information.

Please explain this "added information," and why it's needed.

Genomes add, subtract or alter information with every replication.

 

[Valjean]

First, I am certainly not insulted. I have thought carefully and decided to let you explain something to me. Evolution is many small changes that occur over a long period of time. See, I did learn something. So I would like you to explain some of the small steps that may have occured to one cell animals that would lead to more complex animals. One cell animals reproduce by splitting in half and the two halves are copies of the original. See, I know a little more. So what are some small changes that could take place? Maybe some cells are a little different size or shape? That would have nothing to do with more complex animals. Maybe a cell started to split but got stuck and the two halves stayed together? Is that something that could be passed on to future generations?

True, organisms that reproduce by copying their own genomes generally produce exact clones, but then there are copy errors; mutations. In an organism with a generation time of twenty or thirty minutes, and exponential reproduction, even one error in a thousand generations would soon equal multiple mutations every minute in a population, enough to keep up with environmental change.
And it gets more complicated. Microbes "conjugate," and exchange genetic information; a sort of proto sexual reproduction. They also ingest plasmids and floating genetic fragments from dead microbes, which can be incorporated into their own codes. Then there are retroviruses, that insert snippets of their own code into another organism's genome.

There have been cases of a dog being born with two heads. If that dog had puppies, the puppies would not have two heads. The single cell that got stuck would not make more cells that are stuck. It was a mistake. A Siamese twin does not have children who are also Siamese twins. So I would like for you to explain exactly what small changes MIGHT happen to a one cell animal that it could pass on to future generations and MIGHT lead to complex animals. I will read you answer with an open mind and will carefully consider whatever you say. And I thank you for taking the time to explain this to me.

Abnormalities occur that aren't transmissible or aren't incorporated into an organism's gametes. Then there are traits that require a second copy from a sexual partner to be expressed in offspring.

 

[Valjean]

No it isn't. Its just rearranging what already exists.

Did you read post #353?

See, this is what exasperates us. We correct your misunderstandings,. We show you examples where information -- sometimes huge amounts of information -- is added or deleted, then you come back the next day and make the same erroneous claim that we corrected earlier.
Are you actually this obtuse?

 

[ratiocinator]

The fruit flies? “many genes influence a trait” I'm not seeing any new information.

So you didn't read most of the links. Don't know why I expected more. Creationists always ask for evidence and then never take any notice when they're given it.

 

[Valjean]

The fact that you keep using the phrase "new genetic code" shows you understand neither basic genetics nor evolutionary biology. (not ad hominem because my observation of your error is not an argument, my argument follows):

The genetic code is pretty well understood and established - it is the observed interaction between DNA, RNA, and amino acids. I should think that someone that repeatedly pontificates on the matter should at least understand something so basic:

THAT is the 'genetic code.' There is nothing new to be made from it.

Argument by assertion, Citation please.

The code gets altered all the time -- added to, rearranged, deleted from.
Didn't we clarify all this yesterday?

 

[ratiocinator]

I disagree that Wikipedia is a legitimate source.

That's funny from somebody who uses Answers in Genesis.

 

[Valjean]

Well, for starters, as you correctly observed a group of cells sticking together have a better chance to survive than cells on their own. Likewise, cells that develop the ability to share nutrients and proteins with other cells, thus improving the likelihood of successful "cohabitation" of cells, would further improve survivability. Eventually, these cell-groups begin to not only come together, but to actually reproduce as a mass. Once you have established a mass of cells, it further makes sense that this mass (which can now be considered a distinct life form itself) would be at an advantage if certain cells produce certain functions, and so on.
This is literally just off the top of my head. I have no idea if that's how it is theorized to work, but I would assume it is not hugely far off. It may be best to consult some cellular biologists regarding this.

There are colonial organisms, like zoöids, that can exist individually, as single cells, but can also cluster in groups. The previously independent cells in these groups sometimes specialize, and take on specific functions within the organism, becoming like tissues or organs in more complex organisms. Under other conditions, they can also dissociate and revert to individual, single cells.
Volvox - Wikipedia
Slime mold - Wikipedia

They can become very specialized, and quite complex:
Portuguese man o' war - Wikipedia

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Funny how Darwin actually used it in his book title, but evolution actually says nothing about origins... Hmmm. How can you have origins of the species when you don't know how life started?

So... your refutation of the argument that evolutionary theory doesn't actually address the origin of life is to say that the title of Darwin's book on the subject SOUNDS LIKE it does.

1) Do you genuinely believe this is a sensible argument?
2) Do you not think it is odd he would call it "Origin of Species" rather than "Origin of Life"?
3) Have you actually read the book?

 

[Valjean]

Germs.viruses, bacteria are all simgle cell animals. Better study a little harder.

Viruses aren't cells. They're not even really organisms.

 

[tas8831]

I disagree that Wikipedia is a legitimate source.

You'd better tell @Rise.