prove me wrong on evolution

[Fade]

True to most it is a low priority.

Yes, for people who are happy to wallow in their own ignorance.

No it is not - but the theory of evolution doesn't merely rely on the genetic side of things. But i am approaching this from that side to show that there is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution. It is you rather than me that does not have the mechanism showing that macroevolution can occur - because there are no examples of it, the mechanism has never been observed to happen.

Is it just me or is this a classic example of a strawman?
Hello? Endless? *knocks on head to see if anyone is home*
Hellooooo? The mechanism for macroevolution happens to be exactly the same as microevolution because...they are one and the same.

All you have done here is present a misrepresentation of the theory of evolution, refute it, and pretend that the theory has been refuted. Classic strawman material in my book. Bravo Sir!

 

[Opethian]

I know far more about the intricate mechanisms of evolution because i have studied it to a high level. Don't forget that it wasn't too long ago that you wanted to 'start over' in our discussion when i was pointing out your errors. I know all about evolution, i think the problem (and i'm not being patronising) is that i have studied evolution from the genetics level up, whereas you are learning about it from the wide theory of evolution down. Therefore my arguements aren't being understood because they require a good knowledge of the mechanisms of genetics and recombination and the mechanisms in which evolution acts at the genetic level.
I've tried to simplify it, but it's not worked.

I'm sorry to say so but I don't think you actually grasp those intricate mechanisms, since nothing you have typed here on this forum has shown that. I am studying bio engineer and I have studied biology, biochemistry, microbiology etc... so I know quite a great deal about them. You may think you know all about evolution but in fact you know very little, or maybe you do know a lot, but you don't understand it. Next time you write something, please don't simplify it, I'm pretty sure me and a lot of other people on this forum are more than capable of understanding it.

 

[painted wolf]

JerryL- just wanted to point out that Feathers are a different mutation from hair. The study of the chicken genome showed that the mutation on the gene that turns keratin into feathers is a differnet mutation that mammals have that produces hair from the same protien.

However both are still mutations on the gene that produces keratin. So yes it isn't novel, its just a different expression of the same protien by the same basic gene.

Feather deveolpment is quite well demonstrated in the fossil reccord.

I'm still fuzzy as to when several microevolutionary steps become a macroevolutionary step.

wa:do

 

[Opethian]

I'm still fuzzy as to when several microevolutionary steps become a macroevolutionary step.

This is all relative to who is making the observations. Tbh, I dislike the terms since they're basically the same process on a different scale, and they are used by creation "scientists" to deceive people about evolution. I don't think science officially acknowledges the terms, so just talk about evolution as a whole.

 

[Endless]

I'm sorry to say so but I don't think you actually grasp those intricate mechanisms, since nothing you have typed here on this forum has shown that. I am studying bio engineer and I have studied biology, biochemistry, microbiology etc... so I know quite a great deal about them. You may think you know all about evolution but in fact you know very little, or maybe you do know a lot, but you don't understand it. Next time you write something, please don't simplify it, I'm pretty sure me and a lot of other people on this forum are more than capable of understanding it.

:biglaughon't make me laugh - you want me to talk in the technical terms and jump right in at the deep end like i first tried to do when talking about proteins? Read back and see what happened - i'm talking to people here that didn't grasp what recombination was, didn't know what constitutes a mutation, didn't understand the basics basically. So if there is no foundation you cannot build - end of story. You can try but you'll get nowhere.
Glad you have studied it to a high level. Answer me this question, by acting on existing genetic material only can natural selection cause evolution and can genetic drift acting on existing genetic material cause evolution and can mutation acting on existing genetic materia cause evolution?

 

[Ormiston]

I've never understood why so many people think evolution is so important. The story of the beginning of earth and the love of God for humanity that is shown in this section of the Bible seems to outweigh the actual need to find some kind of scientific proof of what actually happened at the beginning of the world. I find it rather like spending ones whole life trying to find Noah's Ark and never finding an actual faith. Fighting about it also seems rather pointless especially with what is going on in the world right now. Seems like a very low priority to me.

Evolution....what a waste of time! I mean, what good could possibly come from science that researches how organisms change over time!? What's next, trying to land on the moon? Or, even funnier, trying to cure disease!?

 

[JerryL]

i'm talking to people here that didn't grasp what recombination was

The change in pairings across both sides of the DNA strand. It's typically used to referr to what happens in sexual reproduction (where half of one DNA strand is combined with half of another resulting in different combinations of base-pairs than in either parent), but is also sometimes used to discuss the movements of DNA segments along a DNA strand.

didn't know what constitutes a mutation

In essence, anything which causes a change in the number or order of base-pairs in a DNA sequence. While in a purely technical world this would include the result of sexual reproduction, its use is gnerally confined to a difference between the individual donated sides of an offspring and the norm of the parent (or post-conception changes in DNA), such as those caused by replication errors (copying, deletion, inversion, etc) and insertions such as viral insertion.

understand the basics basically.

There's a really long molecule composed of a combinations of four types of atoms called DNA. DNA (and RNA) are the basis for all known life on Earth. Although there are many factors involved such as the nature of the system of reproduction (binary fission, budding, sexual reporduction), how that effects the earliest form (complete "adult", seed, egg), and the effects of pre and post-natal envyronment (as applicable), DNA is the big definitng characteristic and blueprint for how life morphs and functions.

Glad you have studied it to a high level.

As have the 99% of biologists, geneticists, etc who, after more than a centurty, not only agree with evolution and base their work on it, but are entirely unable to find fundamental flaw. Certainly one of the greatest accomplishmens of any scientists is to find a crack in the base model (ask the guy who discovered nutrinos had mass), and it's never been done on evolution. It is a theory which has proven itself time and time again to not only those who studied high-level texts, but those who wrote them.

Are you the greatest geneticist and molecular biologest and chemist in the world? If you are not, stop trying to appeal to your own authority. I've made repeated, specific claim and found and deatiled fault with your assertions. You've never offered any more support than "I say so", and never offered any more rebuttal than "you are ignorant".

 

[Yerda]

Answer me this question, by acting on existing genetic material only can natural selection cause evolution and can genetic drift acting on existing genetic material cause evolution and can mutation acting on existing genetic materia cause evolution?

Anything that changes the frequency of alleles in a population is causing evolution. To change it must exist.

 

[roli]

[

quote=JerryL]
As have the 99% of biologists, geneticists, etc who, after more than a centurty, not only agree with evolution and base their work on it, but are entirely unable to find fundamental flaw. Certainly one of the greatest accomplishmens of any scientists is to find a crack in the base model (ask the guy who discovered nutrinos had mass), and it's never been done on evolution. It is a theory which has proven itself time and time again to not only those who studied high-level texts, but those who wrote them

.

I would like to know your sources of the 99% becuase that is far from what I have found in my research.
I have actually read and heard more and more of these professionals are begining to scratch their heads as to the innumerable missing links, not so much with their theories but that of those through history.
Modern day scientists,biologists etc. seem to carry on with what theories and experiments have been handed down to them and building upon those.
Please explain is that micro or macro we are talking about, and the webster's definition of :
Evolution is the gradual change in the chracteristics of a population of animals and plants over successive generations,a gradual development.
Does micro eveolution occur yes,even the theists will agree,but it is the macro that is left without a case, that is if macro by defintion is the evolution of a living organism from a non - living organism then into one species ,into another an so on and so on.
That is a piece of eveolution that I would like to see taking place today,but they can't seem to find any species eveolving into another nor do they have any proof of it.
That is more of a fiction story then the bible and it would take more faith to believe in that then the the creation account.
It sounds incredibly convincing but I think lacks accuracy and verification.
I will be watching for you refrences.
Many of these scientists as well have been controlled by the governing authorities that by refuting the evolution theory could jeopardize their careers,the funding they have in place for their legitimate research eg: terminal disease etc.and tarnish their reputations.This is from several articles I have just finished reading read

Hand-in-hand with the brainwashing factor is the impact of intimidation. Supposedly, evolutionary doctrine has the endorsement of “science.” In 1966, H. J. Muller, a prominent geneticist, circulated a statement signed by 177 biologists. It asserted that evolution is a “scientific law” which is as firmly established as the rotundity of the earth. Since most folks want to be thought of as “educated,” and as they have been led to believe that “all educated people believe in evolution,” they have defected to the Darwinian camp. Most of these individuals could not cite a solitary argument in defense of evolution; they simply believe it is fact because “the scientists say so.”

 

[Fade]

Yes that's right Roli, it's all a conspiracy by the money grabbing sclientists. There is plenty of evidence for what you call 'macro' evolution. It's called the fossil record. Try your local museum if you need an authorative source.

 

[Endless]

JerryL, the truth is that you don't understand the basics. I'll prove it to you:

When i wrote 'understand the basics basically' you wrote:

There's a really long molecule composed of a combinations of four types of atoms called DNA.

You don't understand the basics because what you wrote there is totally wrong. Would anyone else here care to correct Jerry - Opethian maybe? Fade, maybe even you could correct Jerry on this one. Like i said, get a textbook or something and read up on the basics before you try and understand things that have their root in the basics. You cannot build properly without a good foundation.

And no, i'm not saying that 99% of biologists don't understand the mechanisms of evolution - they do, but it is the way in which the facts are interpreted and then how those interpretations are extrapolated in which the difference lies.

 

[Fade]

Many of these scientists as well have been controlled by the governing authorities that by refuting the evolution theory could jeopardize their careers,the funding they have in place for their legitimate research eg: terminal disease etc.and tarnish their reputations.This is from several articles I have just finished reading read

Of course it could jeopardize their careers. Because what investor or 'governing authority' would give money to a 'scientist' that doesn't believe in science?

It would be like Nike giving Tiger Woods millions of dollars even though he had decided to use a baseball bat instead of a golfclub. It would be great publicity but eventually they would lose out because he certainly wouldn't win any more champioinships.

 

[Opethian]

There's a really long molecule composed of a combinations of four types of atoms called DNA.

It's obvious after a sentence like this that he doesn't really understand the basics, let alone the mechanics behind DNA transcription, translation, and mutation.
The fundamental flaw is the word "atoms". DNA does not consist of simple atoms but consists of deoxyribose sugars joined with phosphate bonds (on the 3' and 5' ends of 2 joined sugars) and bases on the 1'-ends. There are 4 types of these bases in DNA: Thymine, Cytine, Adenine and Guanosine. Since DNA is usually in the form of a double strand (double helix), the bases are linked by H-bonds (from OH and H groups) and the combinations are as follows: G-C and A-T.
I would suggest reading up a bit on this stuff, it's really not difficult you just have to do the effort to look it up and read it.

 

[Opethian]

by acting on existing genetic material only can natural selection cause evolution and can genetic drift acting on existing genetic material cause evolution and can mutation acting on existing genetic materia cause evolution?

Yes, yes, yes.

It depends on how you look at it though.

1) In the first case, you have existing genetic material. Say it is a trait that is not very favorable in the current environment, so there is only a very small percentage in the population that has the trait. Now say, the environment drastically change (because of climatic change, new predator in the area etc...) and the individuals with the formerly negative trait now experience a benefit from it in the new conditions, the allele frequency in the population will drastically change. This is evolution.

2) In this case, say we have a population with a number of traits, say A B and C. Now say the species is a bird, and a number of them fly to a nearby island, yet these are only individuals with trait B and C. The allele frequency of the population on the island will be completely different, yet again evolution has occured.

3) Say mutation causes a certain gene to mutate which codes for a certain skin protein, and changes one codon so that it codes for a different amino acid in the protein. The protein will be different, have a different biochemical effect and thus the organism will be different (it will have a different skin, since we're talking skin proteins). Evolution has occured.

 

[Fade]

You don't understand the basics because what you wrote there is totally wrong. Would anyone else here care to correct Jerry - Opethian maybe? Fade, maybe even you could correct Jerry on this one. Like i said, get a textbook or something and read up on the basics before you try and understand things that have their root in the basics. You cannot build properly without a good foundation.

It's called simplification. You did ask for the basics. If he'd said nucleotides it would have been more accurate yes, but what is a nucliotide if not a compound of atoms? Care to point out some more flaws in his argument? Or is it just semantics day?

edit : Oh and kudos for being patronizing again. i'm loving it :banghead3

 

[Opethian]

It's called simplification. You did ask for the basics. If he'd said nucleotides it would have been more accurate yes, but what is a nucliotide if not a compound of atoms? Care to point out some more flaws in his argument? Or is it just semantics day?

he said 4 types of atoms, not compounds composed of atoms. But ok that could've just been a typo. I'm just reacting to this cuz I only read the last few posts and Endless asked someone to correct it.

 

[JerryL]

The fundamental flaw is the word "atoms". DNA does not consist of simple atoms but consists of deoxyribose sugars joined with phosphate bonds (on the 3' and 5' ends of 2 joined sugars) and bases on the 1'-ends. There are 4 types of these bases in DNA: Thymine, Cytine, Adenine and Guanosine. Since DNA is usually in the form of a double strand (double helix), the bases are linked by H-bonds (from OH and H groups) and the combinations are as follows: G-C and A-T.

It does seem like a bit of a semantic argument, rather than one of fundamental function.

My apologies for being imprecise. DNA is technically two molecules, not one; the molecules are composed of nucleotides (adenine (C5H5N5), guanine (C5H5N5O), uracil(C4H4N2O2), cytostine (C4H5N3O2),AND thymine(C5H6N2O2). The actual atoms involved would be Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen and Oxygen.

Now, if we've moved to "less basic" and Endless is done with "your ignorant" I have a plethora of specific fauts I've cited with his posts he has yet to address.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Jerry is my hero. And what I mean by that is, when asked for a simple answer he provided one, when then confronted with some jacka$$ saying he was not specific enough, he took care of that too.

Very well done my friend. It is entirely possible that Chuck my spare you.

B.

 

[Fade]

Oooh JerryL has successfully avoided the wrath of Chuck!
He might Round House kick your grandmother anyway, but at least you are safe.

 

[Opethian]

Any uncyclopedia readers here?