Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dimi95]

That (how genes evolve) is a very good question that has no answer in the scientific community ……….only fanatic evolutionists from this forum seem to have an answer but none is willing to share the secret.

intron / introns

Introns are non-coding sections of an RNA transcript, or the DNA encoding it, which are spliced out, or removed, before the RNA molecule is translated into a protein.

www.nature.com

"Introns are crucial because the protein repertoire or variety is greatly enhanced by alternative splicing in which introns take partly important roles. Alternative splicing is a controlled molecular mechanism producing multiple variant proteins from a single gene in a eukaryotic cell."

Introns: The Functional Benefits of Introns in Genomes - PMC

The intron has been a big biological mystery since it was first discovered in several aspects. First, all of the completely sequenced eukaryotes harbor introns in the genomic structure, whereas no prokaryotes identified so far carry introns. Second, ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

1 Some scientist claim they evolve *mainly through* random mutation + natural selection

2 Some claim mutations + natural selection

3 Some say random mutations + genetic drift

4 Some say non random mutation + genetic drif

5 Some (most) make no strong claims and simply say I don’t know

No single scientist claims to know beyond reasonable doubt

So you are concerned with what they say , rather then trying to learn Science and find it by yourself?

This is a public discussion , nobody is hiding opinions under the table.

 

[cladking]

Which is why you are ignored, species are difficult to define for various reasons, but they can be seen under a microscope as well with the unaided eye.

Really!!!!

That's a pretty big microscope to look at rabbits and one monstrously large eye to observe rabbits. If you got them in a pile to observe the ones on the bottom would suffocate and the ones in back would be invisible to the observer.

 

[cladking]

All of your ancestors were on average more fit than most others since they reproduced successfully.

Everyone gets lucky.

I have to imagine I defy a lot of the odds.

You mustta missed the post where I suggested humans have been devolving at least since the tower of babel. Today bad characteristics favor reproduction. That doesn't mean there's such a thing as "Evolution" or "devolution" merely that our systems are insane.

 

[cladking]

I will grant you that you can't palpate a species at least with my understanding of the word, though I am curious as to why you chose that word.

Almost anything you can't touch is an abstraction. I'd rather not explain why some things that can't be palpated are not "abstraction" because it is not the topic here. The topic is that you can't not factor life out of change in species or factor individuals out of consciousness or life.

 

[cladking]

PE was introduced in 1972. Perhaps that has something to do with it.



You might want to update your knowledge a bit btw. Quite some progress has been made since the 50's. You know, like... discovery of DNA and such

I've followed (or tried to follow) all relevant experiment in biology since I first understood what the word meant.

Your arguments are rooted in ignorance. There is nothing to address. There are only false premises and strawmen to point out.

This is equivalent to gainsaying. Rather than say "no" you're saying there's nothing to say "no" to. This is evasion, not an argument.

It shows you didn't understand a word of that post and your further replies shows you have zero intention of trying.

For the reasons stated that you are ignoring I don't agree with your beliefs. You might be right but you are not defending your position but rather continually stating and restating it.

Species aren't able to adapt "suddenly" to "sudden" changes that are "too strong".

\
Ever hear of "peppered moths"?

And you make this bare claim while not even understanding how evolution actually works according to the theory.

How can you read my posts and miss everything except your opportunities to respond with what you believe?

 

[Pogo]

It is my understanding that “survival of the fittest” is not and has never meant to be “true” in a literal sense …………………fitness in this context simply means “more likely to survive” regardless if it is due to larger paws, or a specific diet or a specific behvior

I don’t think you made any controversial claim………..who in this forum disagrees and why?

@cladking who pretty much denies it exists, and the minor caveat that just survival is not the primary requirement since survival without reproducing to extend a species survival is ultimately more important.

 

[cladking]

When you have multiple independent lines of evidence all converging on the same answer (evolution), then you have something extremely solid.

"Evidence" is irrelevant in science except in hypothesis formation which is done by... ...drumroll please... ...individuals.

"Theory" is by definition an interpretation of a group of experiments called a "paradigm".

You really need to better understand the basis of science (metaphysics). Without understanding metaphysics you really don't know what you know and if you do understand you don't reach conclusions and you are aware theory will change in the future as new paradigm emerge.

 

[cladking]

@cladking who pretty much denies it exists, and the minor caveat that just survival is not the primary requirement since survival without reproducing to extend a species survival is ultimately more important.

That's not strictly true especially in humans. Behavior in homo omnisciencis is determined by beliefs so beliefs can have a larger effect on the species than procreation by ANY individual or death to any individual.

I might add that it has been shown that mutations which are one of the biggest or is the biggest driver of change in species might not be entirely "random" and even if it were the simple fact is there are many good reasons to believe "random" doesn't exist either. It is entirely within the realm of reason that the genome can be affected by consciousness either directly or indirectly. You can't just ignore consciousness and pretend it applies only to humans without ever even defining the term scientifically.

Otherwise you might end up with tens of millions of people mutilated or murdered and an economy that rewards greed, sloth, waste, and ignorance.

Survival is irrelevant. The only thing relevant is what cause species to change. Try answering that without assuming the conclusion and then show experiment to support it.

 

[cladking]

And as it says in the post you are responding to, it can be measured given extreme controlled environments.

Then do it! Tell me what any individual's Survivability Quotient" is and how it was defined and measured.

Just do it! You're welcome to summarize in a sentence or two. You can't because it's an absurdity.

 

[Dimi95]

This makes no sense. The fossil record spans vast amounts of time. So gradual change most definitely can be seen in the fossil record. And it is. It is littered with transitionals and series of transitionals.

View attachment 99269

I would like to add something up if it is ok.

The procceses of fossilization itself is the evidence how organic material has been slowly replaced by inorganic materials (i.e., minerals aka stone).

So most of it, is inorganic.

Fossilized bone is generally prodominantly made of calcium phosphate. Sometimes it may contain some organic material in it, usually reduced to chemically stable hydrocarbons. In such bone containing organic material, paleontological chemists have searched for fragments of DNA but little is usually found.

Fossilized bone of 'recent' geologic age, viz. Pleistocene and/or late Cenozoic may contain more original organic material.

So when one compares ages it makes much more sense of why we find organic material in 'recent' ages.

The fossils clearly show how organic matter becomes inorganic.
We have clear evidence of Evolution by gradual change.
It becomes very clear when one can realize what the fossil record represents.

Evolution should be Science , not just a Theory in Biology.

 

[leroy]

I agree. There is nothing bizarre about my proposals. Every single individual on this forum who believes in science And most of those who understand science disagree. I believe the primary reason is that I believe and writing and the Bible are often literally correct. They simply can't agree with anyone who might be "devout" or "religious".



I'm afraid they mean it literally. They believe that those individuals having selectable qualities are most likely to survive and they will parent a new generation like them and this constant evolution in generation eventually accumulates into a new species. They came at this through "logic" rather than experiment. Even though I keep pointing out that the human mind isn't as logical as an acorn they still believe that genius fuels science and fitness fuels Evolution.

As long as they believe in such things and the omniscience of science it will prove impossible to change their minds. They ignore every argument to the contrary and they ignore Kuhn as some madman who has nothing to do with modern science because we finally got everything right.

I'm afraid they mean it literally.

Athesits / Naturalist from this forum often surprise me and support nonsense things……….. but if I where to bet ill bet that nobody is too naïve to use fitness in the literal sense of the word.

For example using the actual/literal definition of fit…..a 80 woman that smokes is probable less fit than a 80 woman that doesn’t smoke…………….. but from the point of view of evolution both are equally fit………..none can reproduce


in the context of evolution more = more likely to reproduce both mean the same.....................despite the fact that in other contexts fitness has a different meaning

 

[leroy]

intron / introns

Introns are non-coding sections of an RNA transcript, or the DNA encoding it, which are spliced out, or removed, before the RNA molecule is translated into a protein.

www.nature.com

"Introns are crucial because the protein repertoire or variety is greatly enhanced by alternative splicing in which introns take partly important roles. Alternative splicing is a controlled molecular mechanism producing multiple variant proteins from a single gene in a eukaryotic cell."

Introns: The Functional Benefits of Introns in Genomes - PMC

The intron has been a big biological mystery since it was first discovered in several aspects. First, all of the completely sequenced eukaryotes harbor introns in the genomic structure, whereas no prokaryotes identified so far carry introns. Second, ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So you are concerned with what they say , rather then trying to learn Science and find it by yourself?

This is a public discussion , nobody is hiding opinions under the table.

So you are concerned with what they say , rather then trying to learn Science and find it by yourself?

What I am trying to say is that there is no conclusive answer in the literature for how genes evolved there is controversy and healthy discussions in the scientific community but nobody claims to have a definitive answer………………….the article that you shared is just an example of this controversy

find it by yourself?

That would be awesome, If I can ever fin an answer to that question I would be rich famous and probably aiming for a noble price.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Athesits / Naturalist from this forum often surprise me and support nonsense things……….. but if I where to bet ill bet that nobody is too naïve to use fitness in the literal sense of the word.

For example using the actual/literal definition of fit…..a 80 woman that smokes is probable less fit than a 80 woman that doesn’t smoke…………….. but from the point of view of evolution both are equally fit………..none can reproduce


in the context of evolution more = more likely to reproduce both mean the same.....................despite the fact that in other contexts fitness has a different meaning

Wrong as usual. Words quite often have various different meanings that can be understood by usage or context. There is no one "right" definition for words. In an evolutionary sense "fitness" has a very different one from in a gymnasium sense. And there are more uses than just those two. One is only wrong if one tries purposefully not to understand others.

 

[leroy]

@cladking who pretty much denies it exists, and the minor caveat that just survival is not the primary requirement since survival without reproducing to extend a species survival is ultimately more important.

Would you quote a specific claim made by cladking that you think is wrong?

 

[leroy]

Wrong as usual. Words quite often have various different meanings that can be understood by usage or context. There is no one "right" definition for words. In an evolutionary sense "fitness" has a very different one from in a gymnasium sense. And there are more uses than just those two. One is only wrong if one tries purposefully not to understand others.

Agree, my mistake, I should have used other words rather than “actual definition”



I also appreciate the fact that for the first time in many years you were capable of

1 claiming that I am wrong

2 quote the actual words where my mistake was made.

Hopefully this becomes a trend and not just a rare exception

 

[Dimi95]

Athesits / Naturalist from this forum often surprise me and support nonsense things……….. but if I where to bet ill bet that nobody is too naïve to use fitness in the literal sense of the word.

Actualy survival of the fittest is really something interesting.
It shows that we accept whatever the conditions are so the species can survive.

The evolution of the kidneys, along with the evolution of the lungs, allowed vertebrates called amniotes to live and reproduce in terrestrial environment.

No matter the species and no matter how far you go back , we see organs like kidneys and lungs to exist in us and work together to obtain the life of our body.

You know that Cannibalism is a common ecological interaction in the animal kingdom and has been recorded in more than 1,500 species?

You are suggesting that Cannibalism is plausible only from the outside and not from the inside.

If it is from the inside , where would it be?

For example using the actual/literal definition of fit…..a 80 woman that smokes is probable less fit than a 80 woman that doesn’t smoke…………….. but from the point of view of evolution both are equally fit………..none can reproduce

This is how 'poor' your examples are.
With women and smoking.

 

[YoursTrue]

Genetic Algorithms use a very simple formula, Descent with modification and Selection, then repeat. You should recognize this by now as Darwin's basic hypothesis.

Genetics do not show evidence that Tiktaalik morphed eventually (I mean evolved) to land dwelling animals.Evidence suggesting a conclusion does not necessarily mean the conclusions some arrive at based on the evidence is true. And since I have examined much of what you all have presented over the long run, I must, by virtue of truth, leave it there, I.e., to say that the Tiktaalik was an evolutionary step from fish to apes. You may believe it; I do not go along with the conclusions any longer put forth by proponents of evolutionary theory in its entirety.

 

[YoursTrue]

I agree. There is nothing bizarre about my proposals. Every single individual on this forum who believes in science And most of those who understand science disagree. I believe the primary reason is that I believe and writing and the Bible are often literally correct. They simply can't agree with anyone who might be "devout" or "religious".



I'm afraid they mean it literally. They believe that those individuals having selectable qualities are most likely to survive and they will parent a new generation like them and this constant evolution in generation eventually accumulates into a new species. They came at this through "logic" rather than experiment. Even though I keep pointing out that the human mind isn't as logical as an acorn they still believe that genius fuels science and fitness fuels Evolution.

As long as they believe in such things and the omniscience of science it will prove impossible to change their minds. They ignore every argument to the contrary and they ignore Kuhn as some madman who has nothing to do with modern science because we finally got everything right.

I asked if apes could "Evolve" to fish, and the answer from one poster who believes in evolution was yes, as if it could happen. But then -- just as some declare that humans are fish, if apes evolved to fish, those fish would therefore be classified as apes. By evolutionists. So, humans are fish (according to evolutionary thinking), but fish are not humans. And if humans were to evolve to fish, those fish would be humans.

 

[Dimi95]

What I am trying to say is that there is no conclusive answer in the literature for how genes evolved there is controversy and healthy discussions in the scientific community but nobody claims to have a definitive answer………………….the article that you shared is just an example of this controversy

No , this is where you are wrong.
RNA creates protein and that is usefull somehow to coding new genes.
We find the evidence in the activities in which proteins are used to code genes.
We can see that in a computer language through one's and zero's.
We can compare different individual's and we can see simular sequences.

If you stretched the DNA in one cell all the way out, it would be about 2m long and all the DNA in all your cells put together would be about twice the diameter of the Solar System.

We have evidence of DNA in every branch of Science , be it formal , natural or social.

That would be awesome, If I can ever fin an answer to that question I would be rich famous and probably aiming for a noble price.

Well , we have different criterion,that's for sure.

 

[leroy]

Actualy survival of the fittest is really something interesting.
It shows that we accept whatever the conditions are so the species can survive.

The evolution of the kidneys, along with the evolution of the lungs, allowed vertebrates called amniotes to live and reproduce in terrestrial environment.

No matter the species and no matter how far you go back , we see organs like kidneys and lungs to exist in us and work together to obtain the life of our body.

You know that Cannibalism is a common ecological interaction in the animal kingdom and has been recorded in more than 1,500 species?

You are suggesting that Cannibalism is plausible only from the outside and not from the inside.

If it is from the inside , where would it be?

I had no idea about the cannibalism example and I have no idea on why is it relevant.

I would guess cannibalism is the result of an instinct , therefore it would be part of the inside of the animal ……… but who knows , none of my claims stands nor falls under the assumption that my understanding of cannibalism is correct

This is how 'poor' your examples are.
With women and smoking.

No idea on what you mean by poor………poor according to what metric?.............do you disagree with any of my claims?