If Darwin or the FBI had less than 15% of the data for a case

[Set Free]

One question, do you understand your error in regards to your claim that you made about evidence earlier? It appears that you may be the one guilty of coming up with your own definition of evidence.

The theory of evolution can and has been tested and confirmed countless times. What ideas do you have to counter it? How would that idea be tested?

Rather than avoid... present an example or define evidence and an example or definition of non-evidence, according to Subduction Zone. I don’t have the entire community at my disposal, so you will have to speak on behalf of evidence and non-evidence for your community.

I know that evolution/change occurs, so does my 6 year old. She doesn’t need a theory to prove that she changes and that most of biological life, physically changes.

I know what can be tested and repeated, I also know what cannot be tested and repeated. I do not mistake anecdotal/inference from evidence. I have no issues with anyone making their own subjective inferences to what might have occurred over billions of years without knowing, do you?

 

[Set Free]

Just about any science denier would qualify. Tell me what your beliefs are and why you have those beliefs and I can explain to you if you are a creationist or not. When you made false claims about evidence you all but shouted that you are one.

That is a rather dense definition of a creationist. Evolution theory could have occurred mostly how believed to have and it does nothing to disprove or prove natural creators. Many creationists believe evolution theory as is.

Science wouldn’t be science if nobody were a skeptic or questioned science. It’s odd that you seem to think that a lot of anecdotal evidence was actually tested and repeated. I am denying that most of it has not been observed, tested, and repeated. Let alone can even be tested over billions of years. Maybe you can show me where its been observed, repeated in a lab, that single cells of billions of years ago morphed into multicellular organisms of billions of years ago. We study today’s evidence, and have no way of studying and repeating that long ago. We only assume conditions, we only assume what cells must have been like, what cells must have been like billions of years ago. And if they’ve evolved so much from billions of years ago, we don’t have an adequate presentation of what initial cells were like billions of years ago. I will wait for your evidence that has been observed, tested, and repeated as to what occurred over billions of years ago. Unless you have a magical lense and vision to see the great length of past as to what exactly happened, with almost all species being extinct and unknown, you and no one else has observed, tested, and repeated much of anything.

There are people who don’t adhere to creationism or a lot of fundamental concepts that people claim for evolution theory. They are both unsatisfactory. You are mistaken if you think it “has” and “must” be 1 or the other, or that both cannot co-exist. Creationism vs evolution is deceptive terminology. It would really be more like creationism vs. chance. Neither of us can prove or disprove creationism and/or chance in an adequate manner. No one ever has.

 

[Set Free]

But you weren't asking me whether I thought that Darwin had perfect morals; you were asking me how I could know that Darwin never ordered Australians brought back to be stuffed. I don't see how anything you said here (most of which is true) shows that my answer to that question was unsatisfactory,

The answer is rather simple. You do not know if Charles did or didn’t. You place faith in the testimonies of humans who present Charles as not to have done that, have a natural tendency to lie, destroy, act, deceive, manipulate.

I know that if I were in a state of bias, I’d defend Charles and present him as never doing such a thing. I’d call everyone who disagrees or who have testified otherwise as liars. I would only see the cupcakes and rainbows presented for Charles as a saint.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Rather than avoid... present an example or define evidence and an example or definition of non-evidence, according to Subduction Zone. I don’t have the entire community at my disposal, so you will have to speak on behalf of evidence and non-evidence for your community.

I know that evolution/change occurs, so does my 6 year old. She doesn’t need a theory to prove that she changes and that most of biological life, physically changes.

I know what can be tested and repeated, I also know what cannot be tested and repeated. I do not mistake anecdotal/inference from evidence. I have no issues with anyone making their own subjective inferences to what might have occurred over billions of years without knowing, do you?

I already gave a response with a link. How did you miss it?

 

[sayak83]

I already gave a response with a link. How did you miss it?

She is new here. We are all piling on. Give her some leeway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is a rather dense definition of a creationist. Evolution theory could have occurred mostly how believed to have and it does nothing to disprove or prove natural creators. Many creationists believe evolution theory as is.

If that is the case they are not creationists. I do not have a problem with Christians that are not Science deniers.

Science wouldn’t be science if nobody were a skeptic or questioned science. It’s odd that you seem to think that a lot of anecdotal evidence was actually tested and repeated. I am denying that most of it has not been observed, tested, and repeated. Let alone can even be tested over billions of years. Maybe you can show me where its been observed, repeated in a lab, that single cells of billions of years ago morphed into multicellular organisms of billions of years ago. We study today’s evidence, and have no way of studying and repeating that long ago. We only assume conditions, we only assume what cells must have been like, what cells must have been like billions of years ago. And if they’ve evolved so much from billions of years ago, we don’t have an adequate presentation of what initial cells were like billions of years ago. I will wait for your evidence that has been observed, tested, and repeated as to what occurred over billions of years ago. Unless you have a magical lense and vision to see the great length of past as to what exactly happened, with almost all species being extinct and unknown, you and no one else has observed, tested, and repeated much of anything.

Why do you keep hearing false witness against your neighbor? The evidence is not anecdotal.

There are people who don’t adhere to creationism or a lot of fundamental concepts that people claim for evolution theory. They are both unsatisfactory. You are mistaken if you think it “has” and “must” be 1 or the other, or that both cannot co-exist. Creationism vs evolution is deceptive terminology. It would really be more like creationism vs. chance. Neither of us can prove or disprove creationism and/or chance in an adequate manner. No one ever has.

Sorry but you have no understanding of evolution if you call it "chance".

 

[Subduction Zone]

She is new here. We are all piling on. Give her some leeway.

I did not appreciate the personal attack in th post. I did answer her question earlier.

 

[gnostic]

Many think that the standard evolutionary theory needs re-examined.

It has already been re-examine, continuously by biologists, for the last 158 years, with each new evidences discovered.

Newer mechanisms were discovered (Mutation, Gene Flow, Genetic Drift, Genetic Hitchhiking) added to the theory of evolution that started with Darwin’s Natural Selection. So they already gone beyond Darwin’s original theory (Natural Selection).

None of them (the alternative mechanisms) replace Natural Selection.

And as other knowledge of biology, eg microbiology, molecular biology, DNA, RNA, etc, and newer technology and techniques became available, a better understanding of biology.

Mountains of evidence for variation within the same species.

Yes, to a certain extent, which produces subspecies, but where species share common ancestry, and the entire are group together. I am not a biologist, I believe this is known as “clade”.

But no, the variations they (biologists) are talking about in evolution more than just species within the clade; the other variations are at the genus-level and family-level.

 

[Set Free]

I already gave a response with a link. How did you miss it?

Flooded with responses. Must have missed it. Will go back and read.

 

[Set Free]

I did not appreciate the personal attack in th post. I did answer her question earlier.

Have you evolved into what is referred to as the golden rule?

 

[sayak83]

I did not appreciate the personal attack in th post. I did answer her question earlier.

Cool. Peace.

 

[sayak83]

Flooded with responses. Must have missed it. Will go back and read.

Don't forget mine. It should be informative.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have you evolved into what is referred to as the golden rule?

Yes, I have not treated you as you have treated me. Perhaps I should ask if you are aware of that concept.

 

[shunyadragon]

When you quote mine one camp and exclude the other camp, who actually wrote the article you’re being dishonest.

Still waiting for you to coherently state your position and where the foundation of the science of evolution needs to be reexamined.

Please cite the other case you claim is in the article. Hint, there is none. IT does discuss some of the alternatives as to what processes of evolution are fundamental, but this is not controversial.

The dishonesty is your problem if you cannot clearly describe your case and cite the relevant points in the articles.

I consider simply arguing by web link without explanation is unethical

 

[Set Free]

Cool. You asked something regarding genes. Here is the theoretical and experimental evidence I presented showing how genes with new functions arise in organisms. Let me know what you think.

How New Genes Arise (yes they do)

Informative, thank you. You spent some time and good effort, diligently writing about how new genes and variation may arise within the same specie listed in the follow up example. I do have some questions and responses to a few things. I also agree that new genes can arise in the same species. My comment referred to genes being made out to be more powerful than I think they should be. It’s alleged that grapes have more genes than humans. Genes comprise only an estimated 1% of 3 billion A’s, G’s, T’s, and C’s that make up the human being’s genetic instruction within the chromosomes. I do enjoy examples of endogenous inheritance of information acquired in chromosomes via bacterial virus’s and/or from radiation. I believe that going beyond the genes and into the untapped DNA within chromosomes will reveal key information. (Many call this junk DNA.) The mysterious on/off switching of innate genes.

This link touches base on how I’m inclined to think, and discusses some problems with the alternative way as to how new/additional genes arose. How New Genes Arise from Scratch | Quanta Magazine Let me know what you think of this.

Nevertheless, so much more work needs to be done to conclude anything. So many variables, and unknowns. I don’t mind anyone’s subjective inference’s though, acknowledging that my own guesses would be subjective inference. We both can agree that new genes can arise.

Often it is the case that a mutation arises in the gene that slightly alters the protein such that the new variant is able to either initiate or participate in a new process to some extent along with its primary process.

Aren’t mutations permanent alterations rather than slight alterations?
Only a handful of positive mutations are known. If cells undergo too much change, and can no longer be repaired/corrected the cells are destroyed or stop dividing.

Hence natural selection over the secondary function helps in maintenance and fixation of multiple copies of the gene in the genome when these genes are duplicated during cell replication process.

Is it reasonable to call that as natural selection doing the quality control and repair work? I think that most call it DNA doing the repair work, correct me if I am wrong. I suppose that DNA naturally does the repair work, but what is mysterious is how this multilayered quality control work and self-correction came to be, or how the program senses error in its programming, or how this correction attempt is directed.

This cause divergence between the gene copies in terms of sequence structure as well as the protein they code for.

Genetic divergence will always follow with reproductive isolation. There are multiple mechanisms which lead to reproductive isolation. Members become prevented from producing offspring, or ensure that any offspring are sterile. One reason why are from novel adaptions.

 

[Set Free]

Still waiting for you to coherently state your position and where the foundation of the science of evolution needs to be reexamined.

Please cite the other case you claim is in the article. Hint, there is none. IT does discuss some of the alternatives as to what processes of evolution are fundamental, but this is not controversial.

The dishonesty is your problem if you cannot clearly describe your case and cite the relevant points in the articles.

I consider simply arguing by web link without explanation is unethical

You’re an easy ignore.

You’ve single-handedly managed to distort and alter so many words, on top of quote mining in a few short posts it’s not even worth the effort.

 

[Set Free]

You made the same error that you made in your previous post. Not "according to Subduction Zone". I made no false accusation. I can support my claims. Just because you made an error you should not try to make this personal.

But since you do not understand what evidence is I will help you. I can find multiple sources hat will explain this to you but this is a handy one:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

You made the false claim of evidence for variation. That was wrong. The observed evidence supports the theory of evolution, therefore it is evidence for the theory. That is all that one need s to know. This article also tells us that there is no evidence for creationism. To even have evidence one must need a scientific hypothesis to start with at a minimum. Scientific hypotheses are be definition falsifiable. If one's idea is not falsifiable it is merely an ad hoc explanation and worthless in the world of science.

Easy ignore as well.

Disagreement is great, but all you had to do was provide the substance and definitions I asked for, no other finger pointing salads, and judgmental salads were ever needed. Keep talking the way you do to others and you’ll have nobody left to respond to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Easy ignore as well.

Disagreement is great, but all you had to do was provide the substance and definitions I asked for, no other finger pointing salads, and judgmental salads were ever needed. Keep talking the way you do to others and you’ll have nobody left to respond to you.

LOL! You fail at supporting your claims and put people on ignore when they point out that fact. I gave you what you asked for. If you did not understand you should have asked questions. Remember, we all know that you are the one that is wrong. We have demonstrated that in many ways. Severe cognitive dissonance is not a wise debate tactic.

 

[shunyadragon]

You’re an easy ignore.

You’ve single-handedly managed to distort and alter so many words, on top of quote mining in a few short posts it’s not even worth the effort.

No substance obfuscation by high fog index.

 

[sayak83]

Informative, thank you. You spent some time and good effort, diligently writing about how new genes and variation may arise within the same specie listed in the follow up example. I do have some questions and responses to a few things. I also agree that new genes can arise in the same species. My comment referred to genes being made out to be more powerful than I think they should be. It’s alleged that grapes have more genes than humans. Genes comprise only an estimated 1% of 3 billion A’s, G’s, T’s, and C’s that make up the human being’s genetic instruction within the chromosomes. I do enjoy examples of endogenous inheritance of information acquired in chromosomes via bacterial virus’s and/or from radiation. I believe that going beyond the genes and into the untapped DNA within chromosomes will reveal key information. (Many call this junk DNA.) The mysterious on/off switching of innate genes.

This link touches base on how I’m inclined to think, and discusses some problems with the alternative way as to how new/additional genes arose. How New Genes Arise from Scratch | Quanta Magazine Let me know what you think of this.

Nevertheless, so much more work needs to be done to conclude anything. So many variables, and unknowns. I don’t mind anyone’s subjective inference’s though, acknowledging that my own guesses would be subjective inference. We both can agree that new genes can arise.

I mostly agree with what you have said here. Obviously there are multiple mechanisms by which new gene rise and doubtless many new ways by which genes arise and evolve new functionality will be discovered. The link you quoted refers to the exciting research of de-novo gene formation where non-functional segments of DNA, through mutations, acquires new functionality in protein transcription and hence become a new "gene". What this shows is that

1)Not every gene need evolve from a previous gene. Mutations can spontaneously create new genes that are then fixed by selection. That means that, while venerable gene families with long family history exist, there are new kids on the block too who join the gene population and contribute to the organism. This once for all answers the question of whether the mutations-selection process can create new information in the organism. The answer is an unambiguous yes. Notice what the article says:-


The Odds of Becoming a Gene

Scientists are testing computational approaches to determine how often random DNA sequences can be mutated into functional genes. Victor Luria, a researcher at Harvard, created a model using common estimates of the rates of mutation, recombination (another way of mixing up DNA) and natural selection. After subjecting a stretch of DNA as long as the human genome to mutation and recombination for 100 million generations, some random stretches of DNA evolved into active genes. If he were to add in natural selection, a genome of that size could generate hundreds or even thousands of new genes.

At the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution conference last month, Albà and collaborators identified hundreds of putative de novo genes in humans and chimps — ten-fold more than previous studies — using powerful new techniques for analyzing RNA. Of the 600 human-specific genes that Albà’s team found, 80 percent are entirely new, having never been identified before....

Evidence suggests that a portion of de novogenes quickly become essential. About 20 percent of new genes in fruit flies appear to be required for survival. And many others show signs of natural selection, evidence that they are doing something useful for the organism.

In humans, at least one de novo gene is active in the brain, leading some scientists to speculate such genes may have helped drive the brain’s evolution. Others are linked to cancer when mutated, suggesting they have an important function in the cell. “The fact that being misregulated can have such devastating consequences implies that the normal function is important or powerful,” said Aoife McLysaght, a geneticist at Trinity College in Dublin who identified the first human de novo genes.

Aren’t mutations permanent alterations rather than slight alterations?

Genes code for proteins which are 100—1000 chain sequence of the 21 amino acid molecules. Each amino acid is coded by 3 letters in the DNA. So if a single mutation occurs flipping one of the letters, this only changes one amino acid in that protein composed of 1000 such units. The activity of a protein depends on its three-dimensional shape, and in most (but not all) cases, alteration of one amino only slightly alters this shape. Such moderate shape change only has moderate effects (positive or negative) on the protein's function. And it is these small (usually) variations in protein activity that are selected for or against in as far as it effects the survival and reproductive fitness of the organism. Thus permanent alterations in DNA usually results in slight alterations in protein activity and it is this activity variation that is selected for or against.

Only a handful of positive mutations are known. If cells undergo too much change, and can no longer be repaired/corrected the cells are destroyed or stop dividing.

The number of positive mutations that are seen to arise are numerous. Positive mutations are not rare at all, and this also an exciting find made in the last decade. Put an organism in an environment of high stress, and the number of mutations with positive effect skyrocket. The reason is simple. The proteins perform certain functions. If the organism is in an environment where it's well adapted, most proteins are acting at optimized peak performance. But if the environment is stressful, then this implies that the proteins created by the organism's genes are not optimized to this new environment, and hence moderate mutation induced protein structure variations become more likely to improve its functions than decrease it by the logic of probability itself. In fact the frequency of beneficial mutations is so large that the same set of 6-7 mutations optimizing the fitness of yeast emerged in 40 different independently cultured yeast strains over a 1000 generation period, though in different order and at different times for each strain.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130722203041.htm

Paper
Pervasive Genetic Hitchhiking and Clonal Interference in 40 Evolving Yeast Populations

Is it reasonable to call that as natural selection doing the quality control and repair work? I think that most call it DNA doing the repair work, correct me if I am wrong. I suppose that DNA naturally does the repair work, but what is mysterious is how this multilayered quality control work and self-correction came to be, or how the program senses error in its programming, or how this correction attempt is directed.

I meant that natural selection aids in preserving and increasing the frequency of the new gene with fitness benefits among the population to which the organism having that new gene belongs. I explained the process (which a light sprinkling of algebra) in the post below. Please also the quoted post for the background. Hopefully it would be clear.

What is Evolution?

Genetic divergence will always follow with reproductive isolation. There are multiple mechanisms which lead to reproductive isolation. Members become prevented from producing offspring, or ensure that any offspring are sterile. One reason why are from novel adaptions.

Yes. Reproductive isolation will cause genetic divergence. The post I wrote was based on the studies that shows how an old gene can create a new gene with a new function without requiring reproductive isolation. There are many well studied mechanism for generating reproductive isolation. I described a particularly fascinating mechanism in the thread below (see the opening post of the thread as well).
How Speciation Happens (yes it does)


Hope these are informative. If you have other questions or concerns about evolutionary biology, please let me know.