More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

[tas8831]

...as well as the internal/external neutral synthesis of the two. Consciousness is wider than the DNA?

What is "neutral synthesis"? Is it like your farcical "nebulous DNA"?

In story of Adam and Eve, neither were born in the conventional biological way.

True.
One was made by a deity speaking dust into organic molecules making up a fully formed adult human male.
The other was 'cloned' (why Yahweh could not have made Eve from dust as well is a mystery - even more of a mystery is that Yahweh initially thought Adam would like to choose a beast as a mate... crazy stuff in the ancient middle east).
Which is to say the stories are just tall tales, and no intelligent person in the 21st century would take such tales as factual.

The bible was not taking about DNA or biological.

Not at all, since the crude people that made up the stories had no knowledge of such things.

After Adam and Eve are exiled then they used biological reproduction. What made Adam and Eve unique was free will and choice, which are connected to their brain and consciousness. The changes into Adam and Eve occurred within their consciousness and not their DNA.

Only if one is blinkered enough to think those ancient tales are based in reality.

They could produce human sons with human DNA.

But no human daughters. I guess they came from some other mythological pair.

The DNA is very conservative and based on template relationships.

Do tell!
I'm sure you can teach me all about it. I have only taught genetics at the college level for 15 years... but I am sure the self-described "scientist" who says that we say "human DNA" has been around a million years, but is "nebulous,"

The DNA is not moldable with the cells having many failsafe methods to prevent changes.

And yet we are all born with 100-200 'changes' that our parents did not possess.
But you know that, right? Being a "scientist" and all?

The first humans to form civilization, had human DNA.

Now THAT is an amazing insight!!!

This was the same human DNA shared by those who maintained the old ways of migratory herding and gathering. The difference was not in the DNA, but in in the brain and consciousness.

Your writing is very cryptic and almost child-like in content - are you claiming that there has been no changh at all in "human DNA", and also that all living humans have the 'same' DNA?

New ideas like God, has a profound influence on the evolution of human consciousness.

Cool assertion.
I'm betting, based on your track record here, that you will not even try to provide legitimate evidence for this claim.


Still waiting for you to show us where "human DNA" is in the genome, and what "nebulous DNA" is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The missing link has not been found

That's a sensationalist catchphrase. It has little to no scientific meaning. Or impact, for that matter.
The world doesn't owe us any fossils. We're lucky to have as many as we do.
We don't need any fossils to be able to establish common ancestry of species as a genetic fact, and the evolutionary process which explains how that occured, and continues to occur.

Granted, I understand the reasoning, but -- it's based on a theory

Yeah, like how medical science is based on a "theory" also. Germ theory.
Or how the workings of nuclear powerplants are based on a "theory" also. Atomic theory.



And not granted: you understanding the reasoning. You have made it abundantly clear that you don't understand the first thing about the biological mechanism.

This is why you say silly things like "finches are still finches", as if evolution requires them to become "non-finches", while in reality it would disprove the theory if that would occur.

, and along with the theory is something some call proof of the theory because of fossils changing, or genetic similarities. But again -- these things do not prove evolution of the Darwinian kind.

Nothing "proves" a theory in science. Facts "support" theories.
Theories don't deal with "proofs", they deal with evidence.

And literally all the facts support the theory and none contradicts it.
It also makes gazibillions of testable predictions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Furthermore, humans do not become finches

Evolution would be disproven if that would occur.

, there's a rather vast difference unless you want to argue there is not

The only thing between which there is a vast difference here, is between what you think/pretend evolution says and what evolution actually says.

, and interestingly enough, while it is thought that gorillas, humans, chimpanzees, etc. come from some unknown common ancestor, as of yet, chimpanzees stay chimpanzees and they are not humans.

Evolution would be disproven if chimpanzees would produce humans.

The only barely interesting thing here, is how you continue to pretend as if you have a valid argument against evolution while you can't even seem to utter a single sentence on the subject without misrepresenting it or overloading it with rookie mistakes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're the ones telling me what it states.

And you're the one who's not listening and instead doubling down on your strawmen.

 

[YoursTrue]

Because that's how evolution works. It produces variations WITHIN the taxa. Hence why humans are descended from apes, because humans are a variation of ape. Apes are descended from mammals, and are a variation of mammals. Mammals are descended from vertebrates, and are a variation of vertebrates. And vertebrates are descended from eukaryotes, and are a variation of eukaryotes.

The "x is still x" argument is not evidence against evolution. All it really does is demonstrate that you have absolutely zero knowlege of how evolution works and what evolutionary theory states.

X IS still X, no matter how the philosophical arena works it. I have really benefitted from my conversations about this, so thanks both for your insults and pointing to "information" as to why you believe evolution is the standard as to how life got here.

 

[YoursTrue]

Humans still stay primates and in the ape family.

Say you and others that believe as you do. As I have said, what you guys have done for me is very good, convincing me that creation and allowance of life is from God. For societal generations to produce like kinded color of hair or skin is not evolution of the Darwinian kind. Still finches stay finches.

 

[YoursTrue]

Naked mole rats and slime molds have special qualities, too. So what?
The "special qualities" of any organism can be accounted for by ordinary, familiar, observable evolutionary mechanisms. No divine guidance and magic needed.
You must realize that this is not a biological text, and "kind" is a generic term.
These writers had no knowledge of history or biology.

It's fabulous to see the unique and wonderful qualities of the various forms of creation. And despite your assertions, the unique qualities of animals and flora did not just happen to happen. These qualities are beyond mankind's imagination (including Einstein's). Oh, and they are beyond the theory of evolution as propounded by also imagination because of similar dna. Soil and air have lots and lots of nutrients as well as microbes. Let's hear the astroid theory, shall we? Or how about some shot from outer space that electrified atoms in water or soil to put them together and then they grew (evolved) to gorillas and that unknown common ancestor, ok? Once again -- thanks to so many here for the insightful conversations. Much appreciated.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you read it (with any comprehension at all) you should know that it's not just about similarities but about the exact nature of those similarities. So how do you explain the specifics? For example, if humans were made differently why is there a broken version of the gene for making egg yoke in the place in our genome we'd expect it if we evolved from egg laying ancestors? Why all the broken olfactory receptor genes, whose exact mutations lead us to conclude the same relationship between humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans we'd deduced from other evidence?

If we are a special creation, then the creator has gone to a great deal of trouble to make it look exactly like we evolved.

Everything is a special creation.

 

[YoursTrue]

I was talking about genetic similarities, not about the emergence of 'a new. different species'. Presumably you accept that the genetic similarities between, for example, an Australian aboriginal and a New Zealand Maori are due to their descent from a human common ancestor. Why then do you not accept that the genetic similarities between a human and a chimpanzee, or between a chimpanzee and a gorilla, are due to their descent from a simian common ancestor?

Here's what I accept. There were two persons created by God. They were human. Not gorillas or gorilla-types classified as the "Unknown Common Ancestor." These first TWO ONLY humans (male and female) gave birth to others and the human race multiplied by natural means. Among those offspring were persons of variances, such as darker or lighter skin which were transferred noticeably, family groups sectioning off, tribes forming.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

X IS still X, no matter how the philosophical arena works it. I have really benefitted from my conversations about this, so thanks both for your insults and pointing to "information" as to why you believe evolution is the standard as to how life got here.

I feel like you aren't really trying to understand what I wrote.

Do you understand that evolution only provides variation within the taxa or no?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Here's what I accept. There were two persons created by God. They were human. Not gorillas or gorilla-types classified as the "Unknown Common Ancestor." These first TWO ONLY humans (male and female) gave birth to others and the human race multiplied by natural means. Among those offspring were persons of variances, such as darker or lighter skin which were transferred noticeably, family groups sectioning off, tribes forming.

Do you or do you not accept that every single piece of available scientific evidence on the subject contradicts this?

 

[Valjean]

It's fabulous to see the unique and wonderful qualities of the various forms of creation. And despite your assertions, the unique qualities of animals and flora did not just happen to happen.

True -- and nobody asserts that they just happened to happen. There are known, observable, natural mechanisms by which these qualities gradually evolved.

These qualities are beyond mankind's imagination (including Einstein's). Oh, and they are beyond the theory of evolution as propounded by also imagination because of similar dna.

No imagination is necessary. The processes of evolution are automatic, and they accumulate.

DNA? DNA is replicated with reproduction. Errors occur -- mutations. Sexual reproduction also mixes whole genomes. But this is where the randomness ends. The mechanisms of evolution pick and choose the variations that produce the fittest individuals -- automatically. No conscious design or intervention is required.

Soil and air have lots and lots of nutrients as well as microbes. Let's hear the astroid theory, shall we? Or how about some shot from outer space that electrified atoms in water or soil to put them together and then they grew (evolved) to gorillas and that unknown common ancestor, ok? Once again -- thanks to so many here for the insightful conversations. Much appreciated.

Asteroid theory? Panspermia? That's just a change of venue. The question of mechanism remains.

Here's what I accept. There were two persons created by God. They were human. Not gorillas or gorilla-types classified as the "Unknown Common Ancestor." These first TWO ONLY humans (male and female) gave birth to others and the human race multiplied by natural means. Among those offspring were persons of variances, such as darker or lighter skin which were transferred noticeably, family groups sectioning off, tribes forming.

You're proposing magic again. Do you really think magic poofing is more likely than evolution by familiar, observable mechanisms? Is that rational? Where's your evidence?

 

[ratiocinator]

If you read it (with any comprehension at all) you should know that it's not just about similarities but about the exact nature of those similarities. So how do you explain the specifics? For example, if humans were made differently why is there a broken version of the gene for making egg yoke in the place in our genome we'd expect it if we evolved from egg laying ancestors? Why all the broken olfactory receptor genes, whose exact mutations lead us to conclude the same relationship between humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans we'd deduced from other evidence?

If we are a special creation, then the creator has gone to a great deal of trouble to make it look exactly like we evolved.

Everything is a special creation.

So, yet again, you're just going to totally ignore the actual evidence and resort to simple assertion. Unless you can answer the kind of questions I put to you (and they are just a tiny, tiny fraction of the genetic evidence) then any further claims that there is none or that "genetic similarities" do not mean that evolution happened, would look very much like a case of simply being unable to face up to the evidence and so pretending it isn't there.

 

[YoursTrue]

So, yet again, you're just going to totally ignore the actual evidence and resort to simple assertion. Unless you can answer the kind of questions I put to you (and they are just a tiny, tiny fraction of the genetic evidence) then any further claims that there is none or that "genetic similarities" do not mean that evolution happened, would look very much like a case of simply being unable to face up to the evidence and so pretending it isn't there.

I don't deny that archeologists unearth fossils and then figure what it is and when it was based on the evidence. This no longer moves or convinces me that it is what they deduce from the findings, as they classify them. Are the fossils there? Yes, of course. Do the fossils absolutely fit into the category the archeologists place them? You decide.

 

[YoursTrue]

So, yet again, you're just going to totally ignore the actual evidence and resort to simple assertion. Unless you can answer the kind of questions I put to you (and they are just a tiny, tiny fraction of the genetic evidence) then any further claims that there is none or that "genetic similarities" do not mean that evolution happened, would look very much like a case of simply being unable to face up to the evidence and so pretending it isn't there.

You are correct about my not agreeing that genetic similarities mean that evolution took place. There must have been some problem with that Unknown Common Ancestor of bonobos, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans, because the DNA composition is quite similar EXCEPT for a few small (?) but rather important differences. Do I think now that means that somehow humans evolved from that Unknown Common Ancestor? I think you know my answer by now.

 

[YoursTrue]

True -- and nobody asserts that they just happened to happen. There are known, observable, natural mechanisms by which these qualities gradually evolved.

I do not believe any longer that as in the case of Darwinian type of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

True -- and nobody asserts that they just happened to happen. There are known, observable, natural mechanisms by which these qualities gradually evolved.
No imagination is necessary. The processes of evolution are automatic, and they accumulate.

DNA? DNA is replicated with reproduction. Errors occur -- mutations. Sexual reproduction also mixes whole genomes. But this is where the randomness ends. The mechanisms of evolution pick and choose the variations that produce the fittest individuals -- automatically. No conscious design or intervention is required.
Asteroid theory? Panspermia? That's just a change of venue. The question of mechanism remains.
You're proposing magic again. Do you really think magic poofing is more likely than evolution by familiar, observable mechanisms? Is that rational? Where's your evidence?

There is mechanism in any aspect of observation. Quiite simply, that water becomes steam, or evaporation, does not mean it happened to happen. Automatically.

 

[Bear Wild]

I do not believe any longer that as in the case of Darwinian type of evolution.

So what do you believe is the case of Darwinian type evolution?

 

[Bear Wild]

You are correct about my not agreeing that genetic similarities mean that evolution took place. There must have been some problem with that Unknown Common Ancestor of bonobos, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans, because the DNA composition is quite similar EXCEPT for a few small (?) but rather important differences. Do I think now that means that somehow humans evolved from that Unknown Common Ancestor? I think you know my answer by now.

So similarities in humans that are related would not be supportive evidence that they are related? Please explain.

 

[ratiocinator]

You are correct about my not agreeing that genetic similarities mean that evolution took place. There must have been some problem with that Unknown Common Ancestor of bonobos, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans, because the DNA composition is quite similar EXCEPT for a few small (?) but rather important differences. Do I think now that means that somehow humans evolved from that Unknown Common Ancestor? I think you know my answer by now.

Yet again: it's not just about similarities. You said you'd read the article (Genesis and the Genome - pdf) but when I asked you specific questions about the actual evidence it contained (#136), you just responded with a bland assertion (#148). Now you're back misrepresenting the evidence as mere similarities again.

So, either you read the article or you didn't. If you did read it you either understood it or didn't. If you understood it you either have answers to the specifics of the evidence or you don't.

Now why would you not even attempt to address them? I suggest that if you did read, understand, and have answers, then you'd be really keen to tell everybody about how flawed the evidence is. So did you not read it, did you not understand it, or do you have no answers to it?