The Origin of Complex Life Forms and Their Purpose

[Quintessence]

So where are all the millions of transitional forms on the Earth alive today?

Look around you. Every single biological organism on this planet is transitional with respect to wherever biological evolution is going to take things in the future.

 

[leibowde84]

So where are all the millions of transitional forms on the Earth alive today?

If they were alive today, they wouldn't be transitional. In order to recognize a species and "transitional", we would have to know what they are transitioning towards. It isn't reasonable to expect transitional life forms to exist simultaneously with the species they transitioned from and the species they are transitioning towards. Remember, 99% of species have gone extinct, and evolution takes place over millions of years.

Why would you expect to find transitional life forms alive today?

 

[leibowde84]

So where are all the millions of transitional forms on the Earth alive today?

Quintessence said it better than I did.

Look around you. Every single biological organism on this planet is transitional with respect to wherever biological evolution is going to take things in the future.

 

[DavidFirth]

Look around you. Every single biological organism on this planet is transitional with respect to wherever biological evolution is going to take things in the future.

If they were alive today, they wouldn't be transitional. In order to recognize a species and "transitional", we would have to know what they are transitioning towards. It isn't reasonable to expect transitional life forms to exist simultaneously with the species they transitioned from and the species they are transitioning towards. Remember, 99% of species have gone extinct, and evolution takes place over millions of years.

Why would you expect to find transitional life forms alive today?

Quintessence said it better than I did.

You mean that you simply can't take their DNA and prove they were completely different creatures millions of years ago?

Your theory sucks eggs.

 

[Quintessence]

You mean that you simply can't take their DNA and prove they were completely different creatures millions of years ago?

DNA profiles are used extensively in phylogenetics to reconstruct the evolutionary origins of species, actually. It's not something I personally know a lot about - phylogenetics was in its infancy when I was going through undergrad, so I didn't get a lot of training on it. But students today? This stuff is huge. It helps that it doesn't take months to run a full genetic profile on a species anymore... haha.

Your theory sucks eggs.

It's not my theory. And theories don't have mouths to be capable of sucking eggs with. Sorry.

 

[leibowde84]

You mean that you simply can't take their DNA and prove they were completely different creatures millions of years ago?

Your theory sucks eggs.

Wrong again. Look into phylogenetics and you will see that they ARE in fact able to do this.
If "your theory sucks eggs" is the best criticism you can come up with, you might want to reconsider your position.

 

[DavidFirth]

Wrong again. Look into phylogenetics and you will see that they ARE in fact able to do this.
If "your theory sucks eggs" is the best criticism you can come up with, you might want to reconsider your position.

You are telling me that they can take the DNA and prove that it belonged at one time to a totally different organism millions of years ago? Surely you're reaching here.

 

[leibowde84]

You are telling me that they can take the DNA and prove that it belonged at one time to a totally different organism millions of years ago? Surely you're reaching here.

They can look at DNA and find the ancestry. What species came before it in the evolutionary chain. Obviously, evolution is based on genetic mutations so the DNA of past (different) species will not be identical.

 

[DavidFirth]

They can look at DNA and find the ancestry. What species came before it in the evolutionary chain. Obviously, evolution is based on genetic mutations so the DNA of past (different) species will not be identical.

So you really cannot confirm macroevolution, then. I already knew that.

 

[leibowde84]

So you really cannot confirm macroevolution, then. I already knew that.

Where did you get that from? They indeed can confirm macroevolution through looking at a species ancestry in their DNA.

 

[DavidFirth]

Where did you get that from? They indeed can confirm macroevolution through looking at a species ancestry in their DNA.

They cannot prove it beyond doubt. If they could I would know about it. All they can do is continue on with their guessing games. So what if some of the DNA is the same? Nothing is proved by that.

 

[leibowde84]

They cannot prove it beyond doubt. If they could I would know about it. All they can do is continue on with their guessing games. So what if some of the DNA is the same? Nothing is proved by that.

Are you suggesting it should be proved with 100% certainty?

 

[DavidFirth]

Are you suggesting it should be proved with 100% certainty?

Why not? It is real stuff we are talking about here. Less than that is less than proof. I might settle for 99.999999%.

 

[leibowde84]

Why not? It is real stuff we are talking about here. Less than that is less than proof. I might settle for 99.999999%.

So, beyond it being less than 100% proof positive (I would say it is about 90% at this point ... getting stronger every day), is there any reason why you doubt it?

 

[DavidFirth]

So, beyond it being less than 100% proof positive (I would say it is about 90% at this point ... getting stronger every day), is there any reason why you doubt it?

First of all I don't doubt that where humans are concerned. Humans were created on Day 6, Genesis leaves no room for ape-like human-like creatures. There is no way I would ever believe any ape turned into a man, no matter how many millions of years you care to wait for it to happen.

 

[Milton Platt]

One thing that I find strange is how the same trait can show up in many different species. An example would be a horn for defense. I suppose a particular trait in a particular species could show up given enough time and enough dice roles. It seem imposable that many different species that are completely unrelated and in different environments, and in completely different time era's would develop the same trait regardless of the length time and dice roles. Fish, birds, insects, mammals, reptiles have all managed to develop the same trait as defense mechanism over time. Many independent of each other in location and unrelated. It seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

They share DNA

 

[sayak83]

They are very complex indeed and I've done research on all 3 individually. I've read entire books on these subjects but if you have anything to add, I'll be happy to learn more. Preference? The first one since it is the base of everything.
I'm on my way to the airport and I'll be away for a week so if you don't have a reply from me straight way, that's why. But when I come back I'll carefully read anything you post.

Cool. Here is the article I would like to discuss with you. It's a review article on the progress made in creating living cells from scratch in the lab. Please check if you have full access or not. But no rush.
Artificial Cells: Synthetic Compartments with Life-like Functionality and Adaptivity

 

[Valjean]

So you really cannot confirm macroevolution, then. I already knew that.

Of course we can, and you know it. It's been explained to you a hundred times. You've been linked to sites describing the mechanisms of speciation, and observed examples.

They cannot prove it beyond doubt. If they could I would know about it. All they can do is continue on with their guessing games. So what if some of the DNA is the same? Nothing is proved by that.

You know perfectly well that science doesn't prove things. There's no "proof" that the earth's spherical. And you know a scientific theory isn't a guess.
DNA can trace the path of human evolution just as we can trace the steps from Latin to French.This has been explained to you. You know about chromosome 2. Yet everything we explain to you rolls off like water from a duck's back.

First of all I don't doubt that where humans are concerned. Humans were created on Day 6, Genesis leaves no room for ape-like human-like creatures. There is no way I would ever believe any ape turned into a man, no matter how many millions of years you care to wait for it to happen.

You criticize scientific evidence yet are convinced by unsupported religious doctrine. The facts and reason we give you are ignored or not comprehended.
You are a True Believer, impermeable to reason -- or a troll.

 

[Valjean]

I agree. Random things don't generally work. They have to be planned, methodical, systematic, specific even. The opposite of something that would happen by chance.

It doesn't matter if most changes don't work, as long as a few do. With each generation, each 'roll of the dice', natural selections retains these, and eliminates the useless changes. Thus the useful changes accumulate, and organisms evolve.
You're trying to apply your personal experience of human engineering to evolution. They're not the same thing.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Of course we can, and you know it. It's been explained to you a hundred times. You've been linked to sites describing the mechanisms of speciation, and observed examples.

You know perfectly well that science doesn't prove things. There's no "proof" that the earth's spherical. And you know a scientific theory isn't a guess.
DNA can trace the path of human evolution just as we can trace the steps from Latin to French.This has been explained to you. You know about chromosome 2. Yet everything we explain to you rolls off like water from a duck's back.
You criticize scientific evidence yet are convinced by unsupported religious doctrine. The facts and reason we give you are ignored or not comprehended.
You are a True Believer, impermeable to reason -- or a troll.

Hear hear!!