The Big Bang and Evolution

[ratiocinator]

On the subject of evolution and genetics, fairly recently, the genetic mutation responsible for the classic peppered moth example of evolution has been identified.

The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable element

Here we show that the mutation event giving rise to industrial melanism in Britain was the insertion of a large, tandemly repeated, transposable element into the first intron of the gene cortex. Statistical inference based on the distribution of recombined carbonaria haplotypes indicates that this transposition event occurred around 1819, consistent with the historical record.

Also
'Jumping gene' took peppered moths to the dark side in Industrial Revolution

 

[omega2xx]

Really? What definition of "information" are you using and why do you think a mutation can't add to it?

Information would be adding a characteristic to the off spring that was not in the gene pool of the parents. For example parents with no bones could NEVER produce a kid with bones.

Humm. If you think a single mutation can change a species, I don't think you've quite grasped the theory.

If you think time will change the laws of genetics, I know you haven't grasped the theory.

Perhaps you should read up on speciation: for example, here. You could also consider that we can observe speciation over geographical distance as well as time - see Ring Species.

Perhaps you need to understand that no ring species changed the species. The salamanders remained salamanders and the gulls remained gulls. You do understand that evolution preaches a change os species, right>

You could always look for yourself: here. If reading books is more your thing, I can recommend The Making of the Fittest by Sean B. Carroll - lots of specific examples. Some time since I read it, but the mutations that led to colour vision stick in my mind.

It will not have any evidence. It will do exactly what you have done---just say it caused a change. Prove me wrong, or admit you can't. Learn to evaluate what they say and especially HOW the say it happened.

 

[ratiocinator]

Information would be adding a characteristic to the off spring that was not in the gene pool of the parents. For example parents with no bones could NEVER produce a kid with bones.

Why the utterly silly example? The theory of evolution does not suggest that such a radical change can happen in one generation and if you think that pointing out that it can't is an argument against it, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

Now, trichromatic vision is a characteristic not in the ancestor's gene pool - see:

The Evolution of Trichromatic Color Vision by Opsin Gene Duplication in New World and Old World Primates

If you think time will change the laws of genetics, I know you haven't grasped the theory.

What "laws of genetics" do you imagine I think might change?

Perhaps you need to understand that no ring species changed the species.

Right, so now you want to redefine the term species. How would you like to define it differently to the normal scientific meaning?

It will not have any evidence. It will do exactly what you have done---just say it caused a change.

So you aren't going to take any notice of scientific evidence because it's just what scientists say?

Learn to evaluate what they say and especially HOW the say it happened.

I have done. All you seem to be doing flatly contradicting all the science without offering any actual reasoning or evidence or, well, anything except for the silly examples that only show your lack of understanding.

 

[ratiocinator]

In order to deny evolution, one actually has to suppose that almost all of the world's scientists (of many different religions and none) who study these things are either idiots or in some amazing international conspiracy. And further suppose that the tiny minority who can actually see through this idiocy or conspiracy just happen to have an obvious religious vested interest in evolution being false.

Even without considering any of the science, it's as blindingly obvious as when the only people telling us that smoking was safe were the scientists employed by the tobacco companies...

 

[omega2xx]

Why the utterly silly example? The theory of evolution does not suggest that such a radical change can happen in one generation and if you think that pointing out that it can't is an argument against it, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

You don't even understand the TOE. For a change os species the kid must have a characteristic not in the gene pool of it s parents. Parents with no gene for bones will NEVER have a kid with bones. Parents with no gene for fins, will NEVER have a kid with fins. That is genetics 101.

Now, trichromatic vision is a characteristic not in the ancestor's gene pool - see:

The Evolution of Trichromatic Color Vision by Opsin Gene Duplication in New World and Old World Primates

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/9/7/629.full
They offered no evidence.



>>What "laws of genetics" do you imagine I think might change?<<

The laws of genetics prove that for a kid to have a specific characteristic, that characteristic MUST be in the gene pool of it parents.

Right, so now you want to redefine the term species. How would you like to define it differently to the normal scientific meaning?

I haven't mentioned redefining the term species.

So you aren't going to take any notice of scientific evidence because it's just what scientists say?

Hopefully one day you will learn that someone saying something is not evidence.

I have done. All you seem to be doing flatly contradicting all the science without offering any actual reasoning or evidence or, well, anything except for the silly examples that only show your lack of understanding.

All I have done is ask for the evidence to support what you say. So far you have only offered what someone has said is true. That does not make it true. Do you really not understand what evidence is?

 

[omega2xx]

In order to deny evolution, one actually has to suppose that almost all of the world's scientists (of many different religions and none) who study these things are either idiots or in some amazing international conspiracy. And further suppose that the tiny minority who can actually see through this idiocy or conspiracy just happen to have an obvious religious vested interest in evolution being false.

Even without considering any of the science, it's as blindingly obvious as when the only people telling us that smoking was safe were the scientists employed by the tobacco companies...

Majority does not determine truth. There are may well qualified scientist who reject evolution and they reject it on scientific evidence. Nothing in the TOE has eve been proven. Prove me wrong.

 

[Skwim]

In order to deny evolution, one actually has to suppose that almost all of the world's scientists (of many different religions and none) who study these things are either idiots or in some amazing international conspiracy. And further suppose that the tiny minority who can actually see through this idiocy or conspiracy just happen to have an obvious religious vested interest in evolution being false.

Even without considering any of the science, it's as blindingly obvious as when the only people telling us that smoking was safe were the scientists employed by the tobacco companies...

Nice posts, and welcome aboard.

A bit of posting advice. When replying to a post, unless that post is somehow identified in many cases it's not clear whom you're replying to. Kind of nice not having to figure it out.
The easiest way to fix this is to use the "Reply" function in the lower right corner of the post you're replying to. It will not only show up in your reply, but by using the
[quote} [/quote} function you can separate out various parts of a post and address them separately.

.

 

[JustWondering]

The usual evo talking points, which are not evidence. Evidently you don't understand what scientific evidence is.

Says the science denier who denies anything that contradicts his 18th century interpretation of the bible.

 

[omega2xx]

Says the science denier who denies anything that contradicts his 18th century interpretation of the bible.

I am not a deniers of science. Real science refutes the ToE.

I haven't the Bible, why do you. Stick to science if you can.

 

[JustWondering]

I am not a deniers of science. Real science refutes the ToE.

I haven't the Bible, why do you. Stick to science if you can.

What real science?!! What are you babbling about?! Several people have already provided you with real science and since it doesn't mesh with your 18th century interpretation of the bible you deny it. You are a science denier.

 

[ChristineM]

Majority does not determine truth. There are may well qualified scientist who reject evolution and they reject it on scientific evidence. Nothing in the TOE has eve been proven. Prove me wrong.

The theory of evolution is proven correct in several ways from the fossil record through to DNA and DNA doesn't lie, ask anyone convicted on DNA evidence.

Oh and could you please provide a list of some of those scientists you say reject evolution on scientific grounds. As far as i am aware, 93% of scientists support evolution on scientific grounds, the remaining 7% reject it on religious grounds.

 

[Evie]

If God exists perhaps the big bang was his way of creating the universe making scientist and Religion correct.

Maybe he is also responsible for evolution.

You could've right. Worth considering as a possibility.

 

[Evie]

However, to believe that God put all in motion then God would be the ORIGIN of the species. Darwins book claims otherwise.

 

[Evie]

If Darwin came back he would write a different book.

 

[Evie]

Evidently you don't understand that there is abundant, robust evidence for evolution and the Big Bang, and no real evidence at all for ID.

A scientist was getting ready to prove that man consists of chemicals etc which can be found in dirt. He grabbed a handful of dirt to commence his demonstration. A voice from the sky boomed down. 'GET YOUR OWN DIRT'

 

[Dogen]

Hello, all. I am a new member here but have long posted on Topix and before that on Yahoo. Topix has been in a bit of a decline and I understand they are closing posting off to overseas friends. I came here on the recommendation of one of my friends from there so I will give it a try. I identify myself as a historic Christian, a Buddhist, and a supporter of evidence-based science.

 

[Dogen]

If Darwin came back he would write a different book.

Yes, he would have so much more evidence to present. But his books are still very informative even over 150 years later. They are no fun reading, however. Very dry. Darwin was a great scientist, but he was no Douglas Adams.

Back to chasing a Chesterfield sofa though fields of prehistoric earth.

 

[Dogen]

I am not a deniers of science. Real science refutes the ToE.

I haven't the Bible, why do you. Stick to science if you can.

In no way does real science refute the ToE. The ToE is the best-supported theory in science. There are four different spheres of observations and over 30 lines of evidence. What other theory can you say that for? In addition, there are no competing scientific theories or hypotheses and no observable evidence that contradicts it.

So, if you are not a science denier, which I must accept at this point since I am new here, on what basis do you make the claim that "Real science" refutes it? Further, how do you explain the observation that evolution occurs if not via the modern ToE?

 

[sayak83]

Hello, all. I am a new member here but have long posted on Topix and before that on Yahoo. Topix has been in a bit of a decline and I understand they are closing posting off to overseas friends. I came here on the recommendation of one of my friends from there so I will give it a try. I identify myself as a historic Christian, a Buddhist, and a supporter of evidence-based science.

Welcome.

 

[Evie]

I think you are on the right track.

A scientist prepared to make man from chemicals etc in dirt. To commence his demonstration he grabbed a handful of dirt. A voice boomed from the sky 'GET YOUR OWN DIRT
'
''