Is evolution as crooked as Hillary?

[Valjean]

The "missing link" is more a meme than a real issue. The term'
s from the 1800s, when little was known about evolution and many thought Darwin was portraying man as a sophisticated gorilla.
From the OED, early usage:

1862 Caledonian Mercury 11 Jan. 7/6 Until the existence of some animal was discovered which should supply the "missing link" between man and the gorilla, there was a great gap even in Mr Darwin's theory of the origin of species.

Nobody in scientific circles talks about missing links today. Every new transitional fossil discovered just creates two more missing links. It gets ridiculous pretty quickly.

 

[Kemosloby]

The "missing link" is more a meme than a real issue. The term'
s from the 1800s, when little was known about evolution and many assumed man was being portrayed as a sophisticated gorilla.
From the OED, early usage:

Nobody in scientific circles talks about missing links today. Every new transitional fossil discovered just creates two more missing links. It gets ridiculous pretty quickly.

Well they threw away the basis for evolution but kept everything that came from it. Now that is as crooked as Hillary.

 

[Sonofason]

Could it be possible that Evolution theory is just a monstrous lie based on cross breeding? The only observable facts to the regular Joe is we have seen cross breeding and know that animals can change. For the rest we would need to look at the server in Hillarys' basement.

Seriously they make such a big deal out of Evolution theory, but what good does it do? If you were building a building, and miscalculate the strength of steel, the building might fall down. But if you're wrong about Evolution theory, name one thing which would result from it.

Well, I do not believe that we can find anywhere in history anything that is as corrupt as Hillary Clinton. Please notice this is an opinion, so I have no intention of backing up or supporting this belief that I have about her. People are not calling her the "Whore of Babylon" for nothing.

With regard to science and the theory of evolution, yes there has been some corruption. There may still be some corruption going on...which for the moment I am not inclined to investigate. However, I would not be so quick to judge the theory. I personally believe that the science behind the theory of evolution is not in conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible. I could be wrong, but I don't see it that way. I would be content with my faith in God and the Bible whether evolution turns out to be true or not. I personally have not seen any evidence for the theory of evolution that has convinced me that it is true. That doesn't mean the theory is not true. It just means that I have not seen the evidence. Some people believe they have seen this evidence. I have not. And so I choose to not place my faith in the theory at this time. As you say, whether or not evolution is true has no dramatic affect on our existence. Perhaps, we could see it as a uniting theory, if we could all recognize that the meat we eat is the flesh of our distant cousins. Yes we're a bunch of cannibals. We are a murderous bunch. God save us.

Yet, I do not want to be like the atheists, demanding that something is not true, simply because they lack the evidence to recognize and be convinced that it is true. Evolution might also be true.

 

[Valjean]

Well they threw away the basis for evolution but kept everything that came from it. Now that is as crooked as Hillary.

I'm not following, Kemosloby. What do you mean when you say they threw away the basis for evolution?

Well, I do not believe that we can find anywhere in history anything that is as corrupt as Hillary Clinton. Please notice this is an opinion, so I have no intention of backing up or supporting this belief that I have about her. People are not calling her the "Whore of Babylon" for nothing.

It's Republican propaganda, Sonofason. Sunstone, I, and others have linked to fact check and analysis sites refuting all this. Did you miss these?
How, exactly is Hillary corrupt? I'm honestly interested in what people mean when they say this.

 

[Sonofason]

I'm not following, Kemosloby. What do you mean when you say they threw away the basis for evolution?
It's Republican propaganda, Sonofason. Sunstone, I, and others have linked to fact check and analysis sites refuting all this. Did you miss these?
How, exactly is Hillary corrupt? I'm honestly interested in what people mean when they say this.

She lied under oath. That is a crime.
She said no classified emails were sent or received on her private server. Classified emails on her private server were found.
Lying under oath is a crime.
Having those classified emails on a private server is a crime.
She should have been indited, but Comey has a flawed view of the statute. He believed intent was necessary to prove. That is not what the statute says. Gross negligence falls under the statute, without the necessity of proving intent. But the intent was there. Emails were deleted. Lies were told to Congress.

Thus, I don't care what kind of fact checking you think you have done. I have done my own fact checking, and I am convinced and certain, beyond any doubt that Hillary Clinton should already be behind bars.

 

[McBell]

So how old are you? I'm 48 and was around when everybody was looking for the "missing link". Which to my knowledge is actually still missing.

My age is irrelevant.
As is your age.

Now since you have nothing but distraction attempts to support your claims, They shall be dismissed as the baseless bold empty claims you left them as.

 

[Kemosloby]

My age is irrelevant.
As is your age.

Now since you have nothing but distraction attempts to support your claims, They shall be dismissed as the baseless bold empty claims you left them as.

Since you have all the dark dogmatic forces of evolution behind you, I guess you win.

 

[McBell]

Since you have all the dark dogmatic forces of evolution behind you, I guess you win.

Win what?
It isn't like you offered up anything other than unsubstantiated claims with no intentions substantiating them....

 

[SkepticThinker]

Actually it wouldn't look good for evolution at all.
But then, if you understood what evolution actually states, you would know that and not look foolish right now.

This ^^^

 

[SkepticThinker]

Lyrics of a song 1925 about evolution. The Bible Is True – Uncle Dave Macon (circa 1925) Evolution teaches… Man came from a monkey! I don’t believe no such a thing… Any more than a week of Sundays! Chorus… For the Bible’s true, yes, I believe it… I’ve seen enough that I can prove it… What you say, what you say… It’s bound to be that way! God made the world… And ev’rything in it… He made man perfect… And the monkey wasn’t in it! What you say, what you say… It’s bound to be that way! I’m no evolutionist… That wants the world to see… Ain’t no man from anywhere born…Can make a monkey out of me! Chorus… God made the world… And ev’rything in it… He made man perfect… And the monkey wasn’t in it! G What you say, what you say… It’s bound to be that way! Chorus… God made the world… And then he made man… Woman for his help mate… Beat that if you can! Chorus… God made the world… And ev’rything in it… Made man perfect… And the monkey wasn’t in it! What you say, what you say… It’s bound to be that way!

Your first mistake was relying on the Rolling Stones for your scientific information.

 

[McBell]

Your first mistake was relying on the Rolling Stones for your scientific information.

Oh, I bet that that was not his first mistake....

 

[Kemosloby]

Your first mistake was relying on the Rolling Stones for your scientific information.

But I backed it up with Uncle Dave Macon.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But I backed it up with Uncle Dave Macon.

Oh, I see. Carry on then.

 

[JakofHearts]

Genetic evolution isn't additive. Many simple and primitive organisms have huge genomes, much longer than ours. Many complex animals have very short genomes. It's not about accumulating information, it's about rearranging it.
And DNA and even whole genes get added or deleted from genomes all the time.

I don't even know what you're on about. Are you saying the information was already in the single cell in the primordial soup and it was merely a rearrangement which bought about the many living things we see today? This is non-scientific blabber, unless you can show me your evidence and facts to back this up.

As I stated before, there is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to the genetic code of an organism. Because this is absolutely required if you are to go from molecules to man.

 

[Valjean]

I don't even know what you're on about. Are you saying the information was already in the single cell in the primordial soup and it was merely a rearrangement which bought about the many living things we see today? This is non-scientific blabber, unless you can show me your evidence and facts to back this up.

As I stated before, there is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to the genetic code of an organism. Because this is absolutely required if you are to go from molecules to man.

Sorry, this is just, well, wrong, Jak.
Just as you can write any book with 26 letters, you can blueprint any organism with four nucleotides. It's all in the arrangement.

Segments of DNA get added to or deleted all the time, and the complexity of an organism does not depend on the size of its genome.

This "adding new genetic information" thing is a creationist meme, not biology.

 

[JakofHearts]

Sorry, this is just, well, wrong, Jak.
Just as you can write any book with 26 letters, you can blueprint any organism with four nucleotides. It's all in the arrangement.

Segments of DNA get added to or deleted all the time, and the complexity of an organism does not depend on the size of its genome.

This "adding new genetic information" thing is a creationist meme, not biology.

Then tell me since you have all the answers: can you give me an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?

 

[Valjean]

I'm not claiming to have all the answers. I'm just reiterating what I learned in 8th grade life science.
IE: this is common knowledge.

What do you mean by "information on the genome?" You don't need to increase information to produce new types of organism.
I think you've swallowed a false principle being promulgated by ID proponents

 

[JakofHearts]

I'm not claiming to have all the answers. I'm just reiterating what I learned in 8th grade life science.

What do you mean by "information on the genome?" You don't need to increase information to produce new types of organism.
I think you've swallowed a false principle being promulgated by ID proponents

I understood the rudiments of Darwin's theory as a child and is basically (apparently) still the level of expertise that the layman accept. The thing I didn't understand as a child was that Darwin, being more a scientist than his neo-darwinian dogmatic followers, included in his theory a way of falsifying it.

If you know a little about science you know that for a theory to be considered as worthy of further scientific evaluation it needs to at least be falsifiable. That means that you need to give an example of something that would prove your theory to be false. Else it can't be tested. Science is about ongoing re-testing and evaluation, not just looking for confirmation, but also giving equal consideration to those things that would prove one's hypothesis to be false. Darwin did just this, it was Darwin that first speculated on the possibility of irreducible complexity, not the ID folks. In Darwins time, they thought that a cell was as sophisticated as a ping pong. As science progressed it became known as an information, processing and replicating system of astonishing complexity.
So maybe you ought to jump out of 8th grade and catch up with modern day science.

And to answer your question, a fish for example doesn't have the DNA for a human foot.

 

[Valjean]

I understood the rudiments of Darwin's theory as a child and is basically (apparently) still the level of expertise that the layman accept. The thing I didn't understand as a child was that Darwin, being more a scientist than his neo-darwinian dogmatic followers, included in his theory a way of falsifying it.

In Darwin's time they didn't have a clue about genetics, geologic time, or much of an understanding of basic biology or the mechanics of evolution. The degree of complexity did seem incredible.
We've learned a lot about biology since Darwin's time; accumulated a lot of evidence and done a lot of experimentation.
I hear Darwin cited all the time by ID proponents, but not so much in scientific circles. Darwin's not a current authority on biology any more than Galen's an authority on medicine or anatomy.

If you know a little about science you know that for a theory to be considered as worthy of further scientific evaluation it needs to at least be falsifiable. That means that you need to give an example of something that would prove your theory to be false. Else it can't be tested. Science is about ongoing re-testing and evaluation, not just looking for confirmation, but also giving equal consideration to those things that would prove one's hypothesis to be false. Darwin did just this, it was Darwin that first speculated on the possibility of irreducible complexity, not the ID folks. In Darwins time, they thought that a cell was as sophisticated as a ping pong. As science progressed it became known as an information, processing and replicating system of astonishing complexity.
So maybe you ought to jump out of 8th grade and catch up with modern day science.

But evolution's eminently disprovable. Something as simple as an 80 million year old rabbit fossil could do it, to say nothing of genetic irregularities. So far, everything's turned up exactly as predicted by the theory.

The watchmaker example of irreducible complexity is a false analogy, and all the commonly cited biological examples have been debunked. (If you want to watch some simplified illustrations, they're all over YouTube).

And to answer your question, a fish for example doesn't have the DNA for a human foot.

No, there were no human foot genetic patterns at the time fish developed, but a human foot does have DNA from the fish, it's just 'switched off'.

 

[Ouroboros]

As I stated before, there is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to the genetic code of an organism. Because this is absolutely required if you are to go from molecules to man.

Uhm... Yes there is an observable process.

Step 1) Copy error, one of which is duplication of a gene. Many genes are in fact duplicated in the DNA already.

Step 2) Single codon mutation, many times it's a synonymous mutation, and sometimes it's a change to produce a different peptide (out of 20 possible).

Result) new information added, and a new protein chain is produced.

The total number of possible proteins that could be made from a gene in all its forms is in the trillions. Sorry, had to look it up, it's bigger than trillions. The potential number of proteins is 20^50,000. And why is that? Because there's only 20 "letters", and some of the longest genes have 50,000 codons. That means you can combine 20*20*20*20*20... 50,000 times. 20^50,000 is more than particles in the universe. So it's a very, very, very, very large number of possible combinations, and we only have a tiny fraction of them represented on this planet right now.