1 edit
Originally posted by sugiezdMicroevolution, let me guess you have something turning into
Obviously not.
All that can be directly observed is microevolution.
These things are additive.
something, but at the start it is just a different flavor of the same
thing you began with, like the slugs? 😉
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadYour question requires more than just a passing off the cuff answer,
So, will you accept that the common house cat and the lion have a common ancestor? If so do you also accept that human beings and chimpanzees have a common ancestor? If not, why not?
Your claim that anything you cannot see with your own eyes is faith is false. Is it faith that leads you to believe that I am human? Maybe I am a chimpanzee!
let me think about it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWithout launching into lecture mode (biochemistry and genetics are not my field anyway), DNA is essentially a double helix. Each strand in the helix is a sequence of bases (the are 4) which are paired and linked to bases on the other strand.
I do recall DNA, but are those little tags due to a common designer
using the same coding style as we do when we write in C++ or Perl,
or is it due to evolution without a designer? It isn't as strait forward
as some would like to make it.
Kelly
Within these sequences are start and stop codons which define a particular gene. When a gene is activated, the helix opens and a similar sequence of bases (again 4 but one is slightly different) pair and form a chain of mRNA.
This is then the template for the gene product - always a protein which is buit up from amino acids attached to base triplets.
The point of all this is that DNA sequencing is now a reality and because of the species idiocyncracity, it is possible to trace species "geneologies". Relationships have been established between living forms and extinct ancestors.
Even without that, the evidence for evolution is huge - ask a compartive taxonomist.
Originally posted by sugiezdYou can link species today in much the same way, point being you
Without launching into lecture mode (biochemistry and genetics are not my field anyway), DNA is essentially a double helix. Each strand in the helix is a sequence of bases (the are 4) which are paired and linked to bases on the other strand.
Within these sequences are start and stop codons which define a particular gene. When a gene is activated, the heli ...[text shortened]... stors.
Even without that, the evidence for evolution is huge - ask a compartive taxonomist.
are assuming something here. Ancestors or contemporary species
that share common DNA patterns do not mean that one came from
another, what it says is that they share some of the same common
DNA patterns.
Those stop and starts within DNA are quite an engineering feat to
have happened just by random mutation along with natural selection
as a blind guide during the process don’t you think, having them
just get it right without a plan, purpose, or design?
Please note, I'm not arguing with the facts only what you think they
mean.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't think I should have said, natural selection is a blind guide,
You can link species today in much the same way, point being you
are assuming something here. Ancestors or contemporary species
that share common DNA patterns do not mean that one came from
another, what it says is that they share some of the same common
DNA patterns.
Those stop and starts within DNA are quite an engineering feat to
have happened ju ...[text shortened]... r design?
Please note, I'm not arguing with the facts only what you think they
mean.
Kelly
it is more of a sift than a guide, it is an after the fact sifting of the
the more suited to go forward than something working out an
end result.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou refer to what the DNA patterns are; why do you call this a fact? Did you see them yourself? How do you know DNA even exists? Maybe it doesn't.
You can link species today in much the same way, point being you
are assuming something here. Ancestors or contemporary species
that share common DNA patterns do not mean that one came from
another, what it says is that they share some of the same common
DNA patterns.
Those stop and starts within DNA are quite an engineering feat to
have happened ju ...[text shortened]... r design?
Please note, I'm not arguing with the facts only what you think they
mean.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayDo I take it that you can accept natural selection?
I don't think I should have said, natural selection is a blind guide,
it is more of a sift than a guide, it is an after the fact sifting of the
the more suited to go forward than something working out an
end result.
Kelly
If so then we make progress.
To reply to your other post: the structure of DNA is rather less ordered than you think - possibly my fault.
There are numerous nonsense and mis-sense regions, not to mention harmful mutations.
I can see no hand of a designer here.
Originally posted by KellyJayYou smile but that is exactly right.
Microevolution, let me guess you have something turning into
something, but at the start it is just a different flavor of the same
thing you began with, like the slugs? 😉
Kelly
A lion didn't one day give birth to a house cat.
Remember the time scale and the number of generations.
Originally posted by sugiezdI think KellyJay accepts small mutations in DNA that make small changes in the resultant organism. What he doesn't accept is that these small changes can build, over the generations, into big enough changes to be called a different kind of animal. I think that he believes (not intending to put words into his mouth) that there is some kind of barrier that stops changes in 'cat' DNA accumulating to such an extent that it eventually codes for something that cannot be called a 'cat'.
You smile but that is exactly right.
A lion didn't one day give birth to a house cat.
Remember the time scale and the number of generations.
Is that right KJ?
Such a barrier has not, so far, been found and I don't think anyone has come up with a theoretical basis for one either. I'd guess that the ID crowd must be searching for it. If some barrier mechanism were discovered, it would certainly be a serious problem for the theory of evolution and the discoverer would be a dead cert for a Nobel.
Of course the barrier could be in the form of the FSM's noodly appendage supernaturally stepping in and preventing a natural mutation too far.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinYes, I think that's probably right - though only KJ can confirm.
I think KellyJay accepts small mutations in DNA that make small changes in the resultant organism. What he doesn't accept is that these small changes can build, over the generations, into big enough changes to be called a different kind of animal. I think that he believes (not intending to put words into his mouth) that there is some kind of barrier that sto ...[text shortened]... ge supernaturally stepping in and preventing a natural mutation too far.
--- Penguin.
It's difficult to understand why he has a block on macroevolution.
BTW, what's the FSM?
Originally posted by sugiezdFlying Spaghetti Monster.
Yes, I think that's probably right - though only KJ can confirm.
It's difficult to understand why he has a block on macroevolution.
BTW, what's the FSM?
http://www.venganza.org/
"Some claim that the church is purely a thought experiment, satire, illustrating that Intelligent Design is not science, but rather a pseudoscience manufactured by Christians to push Creationism into public schools. These people are mistaken. The Church of FSM is real, totally legit, and backed by hard science. Anything that comes across as humor or satire is purely coincidental."
---Penguin
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou're right of course.
You refer to what the DNA patterns are; why do you call this a fact? Did you see them yourself? How do you know DNA even exists? Maybe it doesn't.
No such thing as DNA, it's all a big con.
(Anybody know where his mum is?)
1 edit
Originally posted by sugiezdYes that is what I think.
Yes, I think that's probably right - though only KJ can confirm.
It's difficult to understand why he has a block on macroevolution.
BTW, what's the FSM?
I would also point out to you that I cannot prove a negative, it is up
to you to show me that this does occur. I can see small changes in
kinds or species, from the large to microscopic in size, but I have not
seen anything outside of claims made about fossils that those
changes do go that far. You need to show me that these changes do
add up enough to make the types of changes that can go from a
simple single cell life form to an oak tree in X amount of years and
generations.
Kelly