Originally posted by scottishinnzYou believe putting money in your wallet proves the DNA
not good on analogies, are ya?
mutations add up to new systems and new species over time.
Okay, I understood your analogy, I was shocked you gave
it instead of showing me something that made it clear why
that one choice out of three I gave you was true. I gave
a couple of analogies a little while back about small changes
not doing what was suggested, they were ignored.
Since one of the choices I gave you suggested that the small
changes were corrections making sure that the man stayed
man, and did not change into something else, how was this
dispelled in you putting money into your wallet or where ever
else you added it?
Kelly
Originally posted by HalitoseRight ... and?
[b]I'm looking for gaps in the theory that people on this forum seem to think are obvious.
Sigh. Take the fossil record for starters. Let's see how seriously I should take your claims of critical thinking.[/b]
What about the fossil record?
There are gaps in it?
Well whoopee do! Of course there are gaps in it. Fossilisation does not occur every time something dies.
Do gaps in the fossil record mean gaps in evolution?
Uh uh.
Evolution is not tied to fossils. The theory doesn't even require that there be fossils. They just happen to be the icing on the cake, so to speak. Fossils are used as confirmation of the theory's predictions. Now of course this relies on particular interpretations of the existing fossils, but so what? Give me a better interpretation ...
Originally posted by KellyJayKellyJay the choice is what works. The selection is being done by nature.
The soil is being sifted through the sieve, you as the person doing
the sifting is making the choice on what to do with what part is
worthy of additional work, that which goes through the sieve, or
that which does not. Selection implies a choice, there is none
being made in ‘natural selection’ unless you which to say some
higher power is making a choi ...[text shortened]... can say scientific process, but that does not get my
point across the way I want it.
Kelly
If a particular variation/mutation enables an individual to be better at surviving then that is 'selected' over one in an individual that doesn't enable them to survive as well - common sense really. If you can escape predators whereas your brother can't - you live, he dies. That's selection. You've been selected.
Was anyone doing the selection?
Well you'll claim there was.
But of course there need not be.
Originally posted by KellyJayHang on a minute did you just say what I think you said?
You believe putting money in your wallet proves the DNA
mutations add up to new systems and new species over time.
Okay, I understood your analogy, I was shocked you gave
it instead of showing me something that made it clear why
that one choice out of three I gave you was true. I gave
a couple of analogies a little while back about small changes
not d ...[text shortened]... s this
dispelled in you putting money into your wallet or where ever
else you added it?
Kelly
Small changes were corrections making sure that the man stayed man, and did not change into something else
Kelly, are you saying that small changes are fighting against evolution? You're conceding evolution in order to ... argue against it?
Originally posted by amannionI am saying that there are small changes, that is a given there
Hang on a minute did you just say what I think you said?
[b]Small changes were corrections making sure that the man stayed man, and did not change into something else
Kelly, are you saying that small changes are fighting against evolution? You're conceding evolution in order to ... argue against it?[/b]
are small changes, but what to make of them over time?
What they could mean over time?
1. They add up to new systems, they add up to new creatures, both
of which were never here before.
2. The changes are just there not adding up, but instead keep man
from changing into other things.
3. None of the above.
To suggest that you know what they are doing over billions of years
suggest you have some how know this. If you don't have it recorded
instead assume it is doing it, you hare claiming a fact where what
you really have is faith as a foundation to evolution.
To suggest that you know that they are adding up, instead of
correcting itself keeping the kind or species from becoming
something different has not been witnessed. We see species
moving from generation to generation, what we do see is that
we start with a species we end with that species. We don't see
anything mutate into a creature that was never before seen
or existed in the universe, nor do we see new systems appear
either.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayNo matter what changes humanity undergoes, it's still humanity since it's descended from humanity. The only possibilities otherwise are if two groups of humans evolved differently from one another (in which case "human" would become a genus instead of a species) or if you have some definition of "human" which involves some sort of "correct" genetic makeup or some sort of "correct" morphology. I'd ask what kind of changes would be an example of humans becoming "less human" but as you seem to be unable to answer questions I won't bother.
I am saying that there are small changes, that is a given there
are small changes, but what to make of them over time?
What they could mean over time?
1. They add up to new systems, they add up to new creatures, both
of which were never here before.
2. The changes are just there not adding up, but instead keep man
from changing into other things.
ever before seen
or existed in the universe, nor do we see new systems appear
either.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIn botany we have seen new species emerge (Triticum Aestivum, Zea Mais and a new sub species Hordeum vulgare ssp vulgare) in the last 8 - 10 thousand years. The evidence is from archaeology. The last time I brought archaeology into the thread you seemed comfortable with it. Triticum Aestivum and H vulgare ssp vulgare will be of particular interest as they arose in the biblical lands and are mentioned in the bible. The archaeology concerning these species is the same archaeology oft quoted by biblical scholars in support of the bible as history. One of the earliest examples of Hordeum vulgare ssp vulgare is recovered from an archaeological site in Jericho from about 9600 bp
I am saying that there are small changes, that is a given there
are small changes, but what to make of them over time?
What they could mean over time?
1. They add up to new systems, they add up to new creatures, both
of which were never here before.
2. The changes are just there not adding up, but instead keep man
from changing into other things. ...[text shortened]... ever before seen
or existed in the universe, nor do we see new systems appear
either.
Kelly
These species are different from their progenitors in many repects. Zea Mays is so different to its progenitor that you might be rather surprised. The archaeological evidence shows the change was rapid (on an evolutionary timescale) from what was the progenitor to the new species. You'll certainly be familiar with Zea mays
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe evolutionary point I have an issue with is that small changes
No matter what changes humanity undergoes, it's still humanity since it's descended from humanity. The only possibilities otherwise are if two groups of humans evolved differently from one another (in which case "human" would become a genus instead of a species) or if you have some definition of "human" which involves some sort of "correct" genetic ma ming "less human" but as you seem to be unable to answer questions I won't bother.
occur and they add up to form other things as systems within
species and completely new species.
So my question is, how do you know what those small changes
are really doing over time?
Are they adding up to something new?
Are they self correcting, to maintain?
They doing something else?
More or less human, are both not human, I don't care what direction
you seem to think some changes will cause something to be called
better or worse.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeYou can argue what something was 8 to 10 thousand years
In botany we have seen new species emerge (Triticum Aestivum, Zea Mais and a new sub species Hordeum vulgare ssp vulgare) in the last 8 - 10 thousand years. The evidence is from archaeology. The last time I brought archaeology into the thread you seemed comfortable with it. Triticum Aestivum and H vulgare ssp vulgare will be of particular interest as th ...[text shortened]... le) from what was the progenitor to the new species. You'll certainly be familiar with Zea mays
ago, or 8 to 10 billion years ago. Is it that is what you think, and
if another thinks something else, you don't have proof you have
an argument, true?
If the evidence now becomes, what this fossil was, all your
evidence is just an argument of claims.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYes
So my question is, how do you know what those small changes
are really doing over time?
Are they adding up to something new?
Are they self correcting, to maintain?
They doing something else?
.
Kelly
Yes
Yes
Yes, mutations occur that change the way things happen (by causingo a change in the protein being coded for)
Yes, the cell has enzymes that 'prrof read' and 'correct' DNA when it replicates during cell division
Yes, most mutations have no effect at all. The may occur in non-coding regions ofthe genome or many be synonymous (causing no change in the protein being coded for)
Hope that helps
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeNope 🙂
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes, mutations occur that change the way things happen (by causingo a change in the protein being coded for)
Yes, the cell has enzymes that 'prrof read' and 'correct' DNA when it replicates during cell division
Yes, most mutations have no effect at all. The may occur in non-coding regions ofthe genome or many be synonymous (causing no change in the protein being coded for)
Hope that helps
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJaySome time I think that your ignorant. Just now I think your pround of being ignorant. Did you bother to check any of this out?
You can argue what something was 8 to 10 thousand years
ago, or 8 to 10 billion years ago. Is it that is what you think, and
if another thinks something else, you don't have proof you have
an argument, true?
If the evidence now becomes, what this fossil was, all your
evidence is just an argument of claims.
Kelly
The proof comes from archaeology not fossils. In certain conditions plant remains survive very well in soil. This is not idle speculation but real endeavour. The archaeology and plant remains have been used by biblical scholars to confirm bible stories (yes, the walls of jericho were real and their remains have been excavated along with plant remains used to date the site and to descibe the diet and lifestyle of the people of the period.)
But then, you don't belive in anything. 9/11 never happened because you didn't see it in person and its not in the bible. The holocaust never happened because Kelly Jay didn't have a ringside seat. You are the most absurd person I can imagine. By the way, I haven't written this because you didn't see me do it