What is Evolution?

[Willamena]

April 25, 2002 Nature and the Oct. 29, 2002 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

These papers dashed the notion that butterfly-spot size represents an example of a trait that's evolved under such a strong constraint that some forms, such as one big spot and one little spot, never develop, according to Beldade. Other proposed examples of traits that can't evolve certain forms include the number of neck vertebrae in mammals--seemingly always seven--and the number of leg-bearing segments of centipedes--seemingly always odd. These examples have all been controversial.

But I wasn't referring to the change in size of a spot, but the appearance of a spot.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Here's a primer on the current evidence and theories:

Getting a Leg Up on Land: Scientific American
The whole article, though long, is worth reading if you actually are interested in biology and evolution.

I'll read more in depth later but on first glance I see a whole lot of supposition going on begining with the first sentence. It also looks like the proof is that we start with a fish, then there's an Acanthostega, and viola we have legs. Maybe it gets better but I'm not convinced on the face of it.

 

[deviant1]

Again, check out an up to date biology text. Don't just take my word for it. Go to the evidence and evaluate it.

Would this be my *other* textbook that states “DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years.” Yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils (T-Rex) allegedly 68-70 million years old?

Compare this to the shelf life of milk (10 days on average).

7,000 x predicted life of 10 days = 70,000 days = 192.18 yrs.

If you can swallow milk 192 years old, I’ll swallow that T-Rex is still 70 million years and that my textbook is also reliable.

 

[Willamena]

Would this be my *other* textbook that states “DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years.” Yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils (T-Rex) allegedly 68-70 million years old?

You've been watching Jurassic Park, again, haven't you?

 

[deviant1]

You've been watching Jurassic Park, again, haven't you?

:yes: Just the first one... the sequels kind of sucked.

I'd post the url to the discovery and implications but I haven't posted enough (15) yet.

 

[Willamena]

:yes: Just the first one... the sequels kind of sucked.

I'd post the url to the discovery and implications but I haven't posted enough (15) yet.

Agreed. Frubals.

 

[doppelganger]

I'll read more in depth later but on first glance I see a whole lot of supposition going on begining with the first sentence. It also looks like the proof is that we start with a fish, then there's an Acanthostega, and viola we have legs. Maybe it gets better but I'm not convinced on the face of it.

I'm not asking for you to be convinced, nor could I give a rat's arse whether you are or not. I think it's safe to assume that you are already convinced that you won't be convinced.

However . . . you asked for science texts discussing the evidence showing the transition from fins to legs. I obliged.

You're welcome.

 

[deviant1]

Here's a primer on the current evidence and theories:

The whole article, though long, is worth reading if you actually are interested in biology and evolution.

Acanthostega is not the first fossil to be called a mosaic, a creature that has characteristics common to two or more other types of creatures. For example, Australia’s platypus has milk glands and fur that classify it as a mammal, but it has a leathery egg, echo-location ability, a duckbill, webbed feet, poison spurs and other features that it shares in common with other animals, not only mammals. Like Acanthostega, Archaeopteryx has been regarded as an evolutionary intermediate (missing link), but leading evolutionists Gould and Eldredge state (in light of this discovery) that;

"Smooth intermediates … are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record." (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)​

 

[deviant1]

Do you think the ability of science to correct itself is worse than the inability of religions to do the same?

I think both can be terribly stubborn.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm not asking for you to be convinced, nor could I give a rat's arse whether you are or not. I think it's safe to assume that you are already convinced that you won't be convinced.

However . . . you asked for science texts discussing the evidence showing the transition from fins to legs. I obliged.

You're welcome.

Actually I asked for a direct link showing development from fins to legs. What I got was a fish an Acanthostega then legs. Hardly proof. More like "Poof."

 

[deviant1]

I think they'll settle on all of life being created by a Giant All-Knowing Turtle named Dave, upon whose shell we all ride. As for evidence, they'll dispense with all that and go with "faith," which is much easier anyway.

That creationism requires a measure of faith... I will not argue against. I think the real question comes down to what size measure of faith are you willing to jump across to get from one side of the ravine to the other?

Without question, evolutionary theory has won the propaganda war and we cannot be expected to rise above the information of our culture until that time we look objectively around us as autonomous adults. Adulthood comes easy enough... objectivity regarding religious faith, however, seems to be a rare commodity.

 

[Wandered Off]

objectivity regarding religious faith, however, seems to be a rare commodity.

How would one attain objectivity for faith?

 

[doppelganger]

How would one attain objectivity for faith?

Come with me
and you'll be
in a world
of pure imagination . . .

 

[deviant1]

How would one attain objectivity for faith?

By realizing that we participate with our universe in faith as frequently as we do with understanding. If we waited until we had full understanding, we would not feed from our mother's breast until it was too late. So the objective inquiry is not whether or not to have faith, but what to have faith in.

 

[doppelganger]

By realizing that we participate with our universe in faith as frequently as we do with understanding.

Nope. Becoming aware of the presence of not knowing in our ontological comprehension of our universe is not an excuse to revel in delusion - quite regardless of whether one purports to be a follower of 'science' or a follower of 'religious faith.'

 

[camanintx]

Some evolutionists are now recognizing the widespread functionality of pseudogenes. In the light of this fact, the notion of ‘shared mistakes’ yields to ‘shared engineering and/or artistic similarities’ (as is recognized by creationist scientists for all homologies encountered between living organisms). Pseudogenes must be recognized as non-canonical genes as well as truly disabled genes. The two categories are not mutually exclusive, and the creationist scientist must accommodate both eventualities.

Here is the real problem. Although this is a relatively new area of study, early results are not looking good for macro-evolutionary theory. Suppose this one gets knocked out of the running like so many in the past. What will be the next theory that evolutionist latch onto and where will it end?

I specifically asked about duplicated sequences in the geneome which code for the same proteins, not pseudogenes which have lost their ability to code. Do you consider duplicate sequences in the genome to be the same or different "genetic information"?

I would also like to know if you consider frame shifting a valid method of genetic mutation.

 

[deviant1]

Nope. Becoming aware of the presence of not knowing in our ontological comprehension of our universe is not an excuse to revel in delusion - quite regardless of whether one purports to be a follower of 'science' or a follower of 'religious faith.'

On this we both agree, my friend.

The only question remaining is *who* is deluded?

 

[doppelganger]

On this we both agree, my friend.

The only question remaining is *who* is deluded?

Everyone who thinks they have the one truth for all perhaps? :bow:

 

[deviant1]

I specifically asked about duplicated sequences in the geneome which code for the same proteins, not pseudogenes which have lost their ability to code. Do you consider duplicate sequences in the genome to be the same or different "genetic information"?

I would also like to know if you consider frame shifting a valid method of genetic mutation.

There is actually a whole set of indisputably functional genes that qualify as functional pseudogenes in that they have major pseudogenic features such as premature stop codons, indels (insertions and deletions) that are circumvented by the genomic recoding processes (stop codon readthrough, frameshifting, etc.).

Duplicate sequences are one of the bigger reaches for macro-evolution in my opinion. No respectable biologist would stand behind it as anything more than a remote, reverse form of reasoning toward macro-evolution.

Also, it's just a matter of time (20 yrs?) before we will have enough species mapped to answer all of our questions as to who comes from what branch in the dicipline of speciation. I hope this will include the fossil record for the final picture.

 

[camanintx]

There is actually a whole set of indisputably functional genes that qualify as functional pseudogenes in that they have major pseudogenic features such as premature stop codons, indels (insertions and deletions) that are circumvented by the genomic recoding processes (stop codon readthrough, frameshifting, etc.).

Duplicate sequences are one of the bigger reaches for macro-evolution in my opinion. No respectable biologist would stand behind it as anything more than a remote, reverse form of reasoning toward macro-evolution.

Also, it's just a matter of time (20 yrs?) before we will have enough species mapped to answer all of our questions as to who comes from what branch in the dicipline of speciation. I hope this will include the fossil record for the final picture.

Again, I am not asking about pseudogenes. I am simply asking if you consider duplicate sequences, which any respectable biologist will admit can happen, to be the same or different "genetic information"?