Originally posted by KellyJayActually, we started with wolves and ended up with a large variety of dog breeds some of which, could quite easily be considered separate species.
You have a point?
We have dogs and so on, they change but remain dogs and so on.
We don't start with dogs and end up with fish, in the now.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadI said they could not fly like a bat, I gave you the reasons for my
Note: I am at no point talking about creatures evolving new features because they want to, or infact due to any specific effort on their part. I am talking about man specifically breeding creatures for specific features that man is interested in.
For example: Man has successfully bread many different animals and crops into significantly different shapes, ...[text shortened]... ly why. Is it a specific thing or simply your own personal incredulity for no specific reason?
statement as well, when I said they needed to the same body
structure. Those types of things just do not happen! They are drasitc
changes in design, takng a clawed hand of a squirrel and turning it
into a wing like a bat is a big deal! You may as well say you want to
man to get the physical strength of a ape, they both have arms.
Figure out the required code in DNA, start running the numbers and
tell me how much of a change is required! That is where the change
is going to have to happen anyway, you don't get winged hands by
breeding long fingers. It is a matter of code!
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat do you mean when you say "you don't get winged hands by breeding long fingers."? Are you simply saying that long fingers don't make wings?
Figure out the required code in DNA, start running the numbers and
tell me how much of a change is required! That is where the change
is going to have to happen anyway, you don't get winged hands by
breeding long fingers. It is a matter of code!
Kelly
Have you ever looked at a bats wings?
I agree that code changes are required. But I do not understand why we can breed the poodle, the greyhound and the sheepdog all from one original wolf, but cant breed a bat-like squirrel.
What is your actual objection? The amount of code change required? Why is that an issue? You admit that say 10 code changes are possible with dogs, why would say 100 changes not be possible? Or 1000 changes? Or whatever number of changes you claim is the upper limit?
My guess is that the difference in DNA between a typical bat and a typical rat is less than 10%. But I still don't really see the relevance.
Originally posted by serigadoEvolution is a fact not a "possible thing", has happened and is happening. Simply look at the evolution of the influenza A virus and its constant genetic drift is the reason we have to continually modify the vaccines each winter season to protect our vulnerable members of the population. If evolution did not occur then we would only need one vaccine.
Of couse I have.
But first I need to know if you have anything against any of this points. No need to develop further arguments if you don't take the very basic.
Twitehead is doing quite a good job, but I think you first must understand and accept as perfectly possible some more basic concept before you can get what he's saying. Because I real feel you ...[text shortened]... s saying for sure that it happened), and that makes very sense with the facts we have today.
There is a close inverse correlation between the level of religiosity and education so it is not unsurprising that the thesists on this message board do not understand basic science such as the theory of evolution by natural selection because they have not bothered to educate themselves during their lives.
Originally posted by Diodorus SiculusI study that now! 🙂
Evolution is a fact not a "possible thing", has happened and is happening. Simply look at the evolution of the influenza A virus and its constant genetic drift is the reason we have to continually modify the vaccines each winter season to protect our vulnerable members of the population. If evolution did not occur then we would only need one vaccine ...[text shortened]... by natural selection because they have not bothered to educate themselves during their lives.
But it's more complex then that. They don't deny evolution on that basis. They deny that current animals evolved from a common ancestor. Believe when I tell you: their system is very hard to break down, and they have good arguments for every thing that counters their beliefs.
And you can't prove those arguments are wrong. They simply aren't the most plausible according to today's knowledge. But go tell them that...
Originally posted by Diodorus Siculus(double post)
Evolution is a fact not a "possible thing", has happened and is happening. Simply look at the evolution of the influenza A virus and its constant genetic drift is the reason we have to continually modify the vaccines each winter season to protect our vulnerable members of the population. If evolution did not occur then we would only need one vaccine ...[text shortened]... by natural selection because they have not bothered to educate themselves during their lives.
Originally posted by serigadoThere is a huge literature on the descent of all species from a common ancestor and it is pointless I feel trying to explain to people who refuse to learn and are apparently ignorant of basic biology. For example all life on the planet utilises a common pathway of glycolysis for example from bacteria to rabbits and everything else and the mitochondria that drive energy production within our cells are very descendents of endocytosed prokaryotes. Why would a hypothetical creator put the defunct remanants of bacteria in our cells? The main point is that harming education by believing nonsense about Baal, Yahweh or Vishnu is fine but we require science and a good grasp of it for our very health and economic well being. On the contrary, I have heard no good arguments whatsoever put forward by any uneducated theist to dispute the fact of evolution and intelligent design has been shown to be vacuous pseudo-science.
I study that now! 🙂
But it's more complex then that. They don't deny evolution on that basis. They deny that current animals evolved from a common ancestor. Believe when I tell you: their system is very hard to break down, and they have good arguments for every thing that counters their beliefs.
And you can't prove those arguments are wrong. They simply aren't the most plausible according to today's knowledge. But go tell them that...
Originally posted by Diodorus SiculusGod has mysterious ways.
There is a huge literature on the descent of all species from a common ancestor and it is pointless I feel trying to explain to people who refuse to learn and are apparently ignorant of basic biology. For example all life on the planet utilises a common pathway of glycolysis for example from bacteria to rabbits and everything else and the mitochondr ...[text shortened]... ispute the fact of evolution and intelligent design has been shown to be vacuous pseudo-science.
They would say there's no proof that evolution happened, that the existence of similar DNA with bacteria proves nothing of evolution, and that there's a lot of flaws in evolution theory, that they can enumerate by head.
"Do you think a dog would ever evolve to a fish - that's nonsense"
Then they fit their model of intelligent design and give evidence it can be true.
I think some very intelligent people thought about that. It's actually very self-consistent at first analysis. If I had only an high-school education that would make all the sense in the world. Even with a PhD, there are lots of arguments I can't refute without asking a specialist in Geology or Biology.
Originally posted by serigado"God has mysterious ways".
God has mysterious ways.
They would say there's no proof that evolution happened, that the existence of similar DNA with bacteria proves nothing of evolution, and that there's a lot of flaws in evolution theory, that they can enumerate by head.
"Do you think a dog would ever evolve to a fish - that's nonsense"
Then they fit their model of intelligent de ...[text shortened]... e are lots of arguments I can't refute without asking a specialist in Geology or Biology.
I assume here you mean a Judeo-Christian deity here as there are not a shortage of gods to choose from. Regardless it is an untestable statement from a scientific perspective as it is so undefined as to be essentially meaningless.
"They would say there's no proof that evolution happened..."
This is simply factually incorrect and any ill-informed position on a subject from people who have not bothered to educate themselves on matters they wish to discuss should be treated with not a great deal of respect frankly.
"...that the existence of similar DNA with bacteria proves nothing of evolution..."
It is not simply the existence of homologous DNA sequences between higher vertebrates and bacteria but the conservation of whole pathways central to oxidative phosphorylation that use energy released by the oxidation of nutrients to produce adenosine triphosphate (ATP) in nearly all forms of life on this planet.
The most parsimonious explanation for this universality at the core of nearly all life on earth implies a deep evolutionary conservation from an original progenitor. No educated person disputes this.
"..and that there's a lot of flaws in evolution theory, that they can enumerate by head"
If total information or a council of perfection is required then science does not seek to provide them. A complete fossil record will very likely never exist but that does not preclude conclusions from the existing large body of evidence. Intelligent design is meaningless nonsense and has been exposed as such. "Breathtaking inanity" was the memorable description of Judge Jones when a school board in Pennsylvania tried to introduce ID as an alternative to descent with modification when taught in biology classes.
================================
Intelligent design is meaningless nonsense
=================================
So tell me one more time.
Over the course of many millions and millions of years mud underwent some essentially random process of some kind of "selection" ... "natural selection" and eventually became a thinking brain?
Am I basically right? Tell me one more time about the total absence of intelligent design in nature.
A cascade of natural selection events which had nothing to do with any kind of design caused the dust or dirt of the earth, after millions and millions and millions of years, to fall out into a sexual reproductive system i.e in human beings?
Is randomness involved in this accident or not? Can you give me a straight Yes or No?
Try not to answer my last question with some other question. Your answer should not have a question mark at the end of it.
Originally posted by jaywillIs randomness involved?
[b]================================
Intelligent design is meaningless nonsense
=================================
So tell me one more time.
Over the course of many millions and millions of years mud underwent some essentially random process of some kind of "selection" ... "natural selection" and eventually became a thinking bra ...[text shortened]... th some other question. Your answer should not have a question mark at the end of it.[/b]
Yes.
Do you need design?
No.
Are you a complete moron?
Quite possibly.
There are some definitive answers for you.
Not sure where the life from mud thing is coming from - I'll assume you're referring to organic molecules rather than mud which is likely to be mostly silicon based. (Although of course, Graham Cairns Smith has some interesting thoughts on clay.)
From mud to a brain - are you serious? Is that the extent of your understanding of evolution?
Evolution by natural selection is incremental.
You don't go from nothing to something in one step - no matter how long you have.
The process works through small incremental steps from one thing to another.
I won't bother to try to consider the brain - that'll have to wait for some other time. But you're probably aware of the eye as being used consistently for this matter.
Can an eye just suddenly appear? Of course not.
But in a small organism like a bacteria or other microbe it's possible to imagine some sort of simple response to light - the beginnings of light sensitive cells.
Okay,you say, but you can't get to an eye from a light sensitive cell. That's true, but you can incrementally go to a slight recess on the surface of the organism that allows the organism to orient itself more easily.
If the recess deepens, we can imagine an organism forming simple images.
Mucous forming on the recess opening acts like a lens to sharpen the image .... and so on.
It's a standard description of how to go from something simple to something much more complex in small steps.
Very possible.
And look - no question mark at the end!
Originally posted by Diodorus SiculusI don't recognise your name so I'll assume you are new here, welcome.
"God has mysterious ways".
I assume here you mean a Judeo-Christian deity here as there are not a shortage of gods to choose from. Regardless it is an untestable statement from a scientific perspective as it is so undefined as to be essentially meaningless.
"They would say there's no proof that evolution happened..."
This is simply factua ...[text shortened]... ce ID as an alternative to descent with modification when taught in biology classes.
You sound intelligent and reasonable. I'd just suggest you don't expect to convert the theists on this forum: they are not for converting. Many of us have tried and all have failed. They are impervious to reason, logic and sense when it comes to their belief. Each one's particular view of their magic man and interpretation of their sacred book blinds them to the facts. Debate them by all means, it can be entertaining, but don't expect to persuade them.
And we do indeed, as they say, have no proof of the theory of evolution by natural selection, only overwhelming evidence.
If this is incoherent or offensive to anyone (hello religious nutters), I blame it on a very nice single malt.
--- Penguin.
===========================
Is randomness involved?
Yes.
============================
So all life on this earth is basically the result of an accident or accidents?
==========================
Do you need design?
No.
===========================
That was your question not mine.
But we'll let it in. I think you're asking me to believe too much if no intelligence went into the bringing about of a thinking brain from earth ever so gradually by random accidents of selection.
============================
Are you a complete moron?
Quite possibly.
==============================
You think ad hominems will make your answers more convincing?
They make them less impressive, not more.
=============================
There are some definitive answers for you.
Not sure where the life from mud thing is coming from - I'll assume you're referring to organic molecules rather than mud which is likely to be mostly silicon based. (Although of course, Graham Cairns Smith has some interesting thoughts on clay.)
=================================
Any inorganic substance will do whether mud, dust, rock, water, lightening, gas, primordial soup, whatever you wish.
So far the big picture is still problematic to me. By accident, or by many trillions upon trillions of accidents over millions of millions of years inorganic substance ever so slowly over many minute selective changes arrived at a human brain capable of musing over the meaning of its own existence.
I am condensing the big picture. Your evolutionary process accidently organized matter to produce a thinking brain out of earth over trillions of minute random accidents over multi million years.
You see no intelligent input of information into the process. Matter organized itself randomly and a thinking brain fell out given long enough time -
That's Looooooonnnnnnnnnng ennnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooouuuuuugh Tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeee.
=======================
From mud to a brain - are you serious? Is that the extent of your understanding of evolution?
=================================
Nope. But it will make a handy dandy strawman if you pretend that that's all I know about evolution.
Then you can dazzle me with your knowledge about little proteins and bacteria.
But I like to draw back and consider the big picture - Without any intelligent design matter accidently organized itself over a huge huge amount of time and a functioning sexual reporductive system replicating human lives eventually fell out of this cascading tumble of random "selections".
You go ahead and believe that if you want to.
============================
Evolution by natural selection is incremental.
You don't go from nothing to something in one step - no matter how long you have.
=================================
I know that. The result is none the less pseudo miraculous.
====================================
The process works through small incremental steps from one thing to another.
========================================
What you propose still comes accross as a miracle.
=======================================
I won't bother to try to consider the brain - that'll have to wait for some other time. But you're probably aware of the eye as being used consistently for this matter.
=======================================
Sorry, I like the example of the thinking, imagining, even debating brain.
========================================
Can an eye just suddenly appear? Of course not.
But in a small organism like a bacteria or other microbe it's possible to imagine some sort of simple response to light - the beginnings of light sensitive cells.
====================================
I like the example of a thinking BRAIN.
If you prepared your lecture on the eyeball maybe you can find someone who asked about the eyeball.
====================================
And look - no question mark at the end!
===================================
No question mark and good strawman arguments and a nice ad hominem insult.
You deserve a D I guess.
Originally posted by jaywillWhy not life by accident?
[b]===========================
Is randomness involved?
Yes.
============================
So all life on this earth is basically the result of an accident or accidents?
==========================
Do you need design?
No.
===========================
That was your question not mine.
But we'll let it in. I think y ...[text shortened]... ood strawman arguments and a nice ad hominem insult.
You deserve a D I guess.[/b]
It's no less likely than that some supernatural tooth fairy created the whole thing.
So, you're stuck on the brain.
Alright, let's do a little tour of life on earth - much in the same way as I started doing with the eye.
Jellyfish, worms, insects, and of course the vertebrates all show a huge range of development in their brains (if they have them), nervous systems and nerves themselves.
It's possible to see animals without brains - a la jellyfish, who simply have a network of nerves - animals with simple collections of nerves that we might call a simple brain, and then incredible diversity in such structures leading up to the complex human brain.
Can we easily see how one might evolve to another?
Of course not. No one said an analysis of evolution was going to be easy. But it is possible to visualise some of the steps that might have occurred.
And of course, this is the hallmark of any valid scientific model - not that it be right. How can we know that any model is right? But rather, that it can explain what we have, make predictions about situations, and be able to be tested and verified and falsified.
I'm confident that evolution - including the evolution of a brain fits this. Give me a valid supernatural alternative and I'll consider it.