Originally posted by KellyJayNot crapping on anything.
Crapping on what? You mean if I disagree with some point of view you
hold that is crapping on something in your opinion, or dislike how you
justify something and so on?
Kelly
It's an Australian expression - crapping on as in, dribbling on and on the same old crap.
Someone makes a claim and you try to run rings around it without ever actually making any sort of sense.
If you have a specific claim about evolution, then make it. Put your position down.
If not, if all you can do is reject others points of view, then stop crapping on ...
Originally posted by KellyJayDo you believe these systems have irreducible complexity?
The smallest change would be difficult; however, I will say I don't
think you can evolve an eye over time with small changes, evolve a
central nervous system over time, evolve a liver over time with small
changes; I believe it is much easier to modify a life that is established
to get various and sundry limited versions of it than it is to go from
one ...[text shortened]... cow, or take a single sex
creature and have it evolve into one with a male and female.
Kelly
Do you have a problem with species having primitive organs i.e. light sensitive cells of the platyhelminthes, which then evolve through small changes to a more complex organ?
Can you not see that in some cases the original function of an organ might not be the function it serves today i.e. exaptations?
Originally posted by scottishinnzSimple eyes do not mean that the more complex ones came from
For a start there are many simple eyes out there. You can start with platyhelminth worms (which have mere eye spots, little more than light sensitive cells) and going through the orders see a gradual increase in complexity to the most advanced eyes.
What are "limited versions"? Please define that.
Oh, and fish would never evolve into grass - they're in different Kingdoms!!
them, it only means there are simple eyes out there. At one point
if evolutionary thought is correct fish and grass shared something
in common, kindoms or not, true?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAre you able to specify for example how big a change you are willing to accept. For example do you believe that an organism with no light detecting cells can one day evolve into an organism with at lest one light detecting cell? Do you believe that Highly developed eyes can gain new features? For example birds can see a different set of wave lengths from us, is it possible that one day we may evolve the ability to see a different set from what we currently do?
The smallest change would be difficult; however, I will say I don't
think you can evolve an eye over time with small changes, evolve a
central nervous system over time, evolve a liver over time with small
changes; I believe it is much easier to modify a life that is established
to get various and sundry limited versions of it than it is to go from
one ...[text shortened]... cow, or take a single sex
creature and have it evolve into one with a male and female.
Kelly
What do you believe is the limitation to evolving an organ? Time? Complexity?
You are aware that considerable change is possible, as can be easily demonstrated in the various breeds of dogs. And that is over a relatively short period of time.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSmall changes in size, colors, slightly different features as in the
Are you able to specify for example how big a change you are willing to accept. For example do you believe that an organism with no light detecting cells can one day evolve into an organism with at lest one light detecting cell? Do you believe that Highly developed eyes can gain new features? For example birds can see a different set of wave lengths from ...[text shortened]... demonstrated in the various breeds of dogs. And that is over a relatively short period of time.
verity of dogs we see those types of changes I believe we can see
in all life forms in one fashion or another, but I do not believe a
dog will over time through evolution grow wings, or gills, or scales,
or an antenna so it can listen to AM/FM broadcasts simply, because
getting weather information would get it an advantage in life, or
mutate into something else.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by timebombtedI do not believes eyes just happen, I do not believe anything got
Do you believe these systems have irreducible complexity?
Do you have a problem with species having primitive organs i.e. light sensitive cells of the platyhelminthes, which then evolve through small changes to a more complex organ?
Can you not see that in some cases the original function of an organ might not be the function it serves today i.e. exaptations?
a random mutation for a light sensitive spot that was not only
light sensitive, but also with that spot also got the ability to grasp
the information required to make the light sensitive spot useful,
it would have required that ability too, to be made aware of the
information that spot was getting before it was useful. You don’t hear
AM/FM signals without ears to hear, and the proper equipment
working correctly to receive the signal and put it in useful form so you
can hear it.
Kelly
Originally posted by no1marauderdon't waste your time, christian brainwashing is too powerful.
Let me ask you a question: when a new species appears (something that has been observed) what would satisfy you that it had evolved from some other species? Or do you believe that they simply pop into existence out of nothing?
For there to be Evolution, there must be:
Mutation, Replication, Selection
nothing more.
Evolution is simply the outcome of the competition between different species. Not always the best wins. It's a random process that depends on so many things... But on average, in long term, the best survives.
Species mutate: that's a fact. They replicate, that's a fact. And there's selection - fact too... So how can someone deny evolution?
Oh... and it's been observed experimentally with E. Coli
Originally posted by KellyJayOK, what about longer fur, or thicker layers of fat so that they can survive in colder conditions?
Small changes in size, colors, slightly different features as in the
verity of dogs we see those types of changes I believe we can see
in all life forms in one fashion or another, but I do not believe a
dog will over time through evolution grow wings, or gills, or scales,
or an antenna so it can listen to AM/FM broadcasts simply, because
getting weather information would get it an advantage in life, or
mutate into something else.
Kelly
What about much greater sense of smell so that they can be used for tracking or detecting explosives and drugs?
What about webbed feet enabling it to swim better? What about webbing between its limbs enabling it to glide very short distances?
Which of those would you rule out and why?
Lets look at the 'no wings' claim.
1. Do you think a normal ground squirrel can develop webbing between its limbs enabling it to glide very short distances?
2. Do you think a flying squirrel can develop the ability to flap its arms to give it greater distance on glides.
3. Do you think a flapping flying squirrel can develop the ability to actually gain altitude?
4. Do you think that a flapping flying squirrel can develop the ability to fly like a bat?
5. Do you think that a flightless bird could be bread by careful breading into a flying bird?
Originally posted by twhitehead1. How do you know the normal ground squirrel came first?
OK, what about longer fur, or thicker layers of fat so that they can survive in colder conditions?
What about much greater sense of smell so that they can be used for tracking or detecting explosives and drugs?
What about webbed feet enabling it to swim better? What about webbing between its limbs enabling it to glide very short distances?
Which of tho ...[text shortened]...
5. Do you think that a flightless bird could be bread by careful breading into a flying bird?
2. What if the flying squirrel came first it would be easier to lose ability
to glide than to aquire it.
3. Goes to 1 and 2
4. no
5. I think if not, but go for it. I'd say it depends if you pick one that
used to be able to fly maybe.
Kelly
Originally posted by serigadoI 100% believe in the evolutionary process, however I have issue with one of your comments:
For there to be Evolution, there must be:
Mutation, Replication, Selection
nothing more.
Evolution is simply the outcome of the competition between different species. Not always the best wins. It's a random process that depends on so many things... But on average, in long term, the best survives.
Species mutate: that's a fact. They replicate, that's a ...[text shortened]... how can someone deny evolution?
Oh... and it's been observed experimentally with E. Coli
Selection is "NOT" a random process.
Originally posted by timebombtedLet me put this way.
Let me rephrase
Fundamentally both selection and evolution are NOT random processes.
Mutations are clearly random, right? Now a mutation can be neutral, beneficial or bad. There's a chance a bad mutation can persist in the population (for example, if selective pressure is not big enough, or the bad mutation isn't that significative). On average, the best remain, but that's on average. That's why evolution is random (you must have mistaken with "completely random" -> that's different!)
Maybe I should use the word "stochastic" instead, my fault.
Originally posted by serigadoSome papers provide evidence to suggest mutation rates are higher in areas of recombination......... additionally during replication the lagging strand has a higher rate of mutation........ also purine-purine and purine-pyrimidine mutation rates can vary significantly.
Let me put this way.
Mutations are clearly random, right? Now a mutation can be neutral, beneficial or bad. There's a chance a bad mutation can persist in the population (for example, if selective pressure is not big enough, or the bad mutation isn't that significative). On average, the best remain, but that's on average. That's why evolution is random (yo ...[text shortened]... dom" -> that's different!)
Maybe I should use the word "stochastic" instead, my fault.
So if we look at the genome not all mutations will be randomly located. As some elements of the evolutionary process are not random I will stand by my statement that fundamentally evolution is not a random process, this of course does not mean DNA has a plan.