Dear People of Texas, Welcome to the 21st century not the 18th. Welcome to a place of science, reason, and evidence based knowledge. It will be scary to drop your superstitions but it can and needs to be done. Pretending that a world of superstition exists does no good for future generations of students that will be misinformed and unprepared for jobs in this new world. Come join us. P.S. Choosing to be a dumb ass is no way to go through life!
@Drosophila melanogaster You obviously didn't understand, willfully or otherwise, what I even said, so I'll say it more explicitly: The theory of evolution does NOT claim that something new "evolves into existence", whatever that is supposed to mean, it claims that existing organisms pass on different genetic traits and this results in differences inside and outside of species. Genetic traits are ADDED, not CHANGED. Also your claim that a gradual process is impossible is already bunk as beneficial mutations are proven to exist and adding information to a genome is scientifically possible, and has been done. Citation needed on your entire comment.
@Drosophila melanogaster “(So evolution doesn't claim that evolution occurs. That's interesting.)” I’m struggling to decide if this is willful stupidity or simply a joke. You’re claiming that “something new evolves into existence” as if a random ape give birth to a homo sapiens one day, which is not what the theory of evolution states. “(DNA is an extremely complicated set of instructions on creating extremely complicated 3-dimensional proteins that must interact in a timely manner with other complicated 3-dimensional proteins in a cooperative manner in order to build a viable organism.)” Now I’m no expert on DNA but this sounds pretty accurate. “(How anyone can possibly believe that randomly changing nucleotide bases can result in "new" information is beyond me.)” Again this stuff about nucleotides being “randomly changed”. As far as I’m aware there are only four nitrogenous bases in our DNA nucleotides, those being Thymine, Cytosine, Adenine and Guanine. “(The random changes in the nucleotide base sequence would somehow have to be intelligently integrated into the information that is already there instead of destroying the functionality of the DNA sequence.)” Are we at “intelligent design” now, or rather the not-so-intelligent design of sentient creatures by a pan-dimensional prestidigitator? We’re talking about genetic mutations. If evolution is true (which is proven) and lasts over millions of years (which it has to do), these add-ons would have to be tiny to the point of unnoticeable individually. If so it’s a simple case of adaptation. “(So if I'm following your logic correctly then genetic traits are added but they're not new?)” This is a weird question. If genetic traits are added to an offspring then they must by definition come from the progenitor and as such aren’t new. Now the idea that every mutation is unique is suspect at best, but these mutations can occur at pretty much any point in the DNA’s lifespan. So they may or may not be new. There is other stuff to consider such as whether the mutation is healed or becomes fixed, or whether it’s beneficial or not, or whether it’s even noticeable originally, but that’s the gist of it. Honestly why are we even arguing about this. The artificial breeding of dogs and rabbits as well as the evolution of the greenish warbler and the peppered moths already prove that evolution has occurred and still does.
@Drosophila melanogaster “(How does the statement "something new evolves into existence" mean that an ape gives birth to a human?)” That is the most common way to straw man evolution. You may have heard of Kirk “crocoduck” Cameron and his stupid proposition that evolution supports the existence of ridiculous hybrids like a combination of ducks and crocodiles. That was the vibe I was getting from you. “(Evolution is impossible. Offspring represent a new combination of genetic information that was already in existence in the previous generation. There is no new information coming into existence and therefore no evolution.)” Bullshit. This is just pure horse deuce. OK get this in: evolution has been proven. Since the domestication of dogs and rabbits, we humans have been artificially breeding them to get individuals with desirable traits, and it’s been working. That’s why we have different kinds of dogs and that’s why two particular breeds of rabbits (the Canadian and Florida rabbits) can’t interbreed. This alone proves that evolution is true and hiding behind semantics about genetics, which is already invalid because we know that mutations exist, is either grossly misinformed or deliberately dishonest. These are just the artificial examples; we also have the natural examples of the peppered moths and greenish warblers. The proof is in; evolution has been proven. There is no reason to deny it anymore, unless you’re as irrational as William Lane Craig, who outright says that if the Bible claims that 2+2 = square root of negative pi, it has to be true, in spite of all reason and evidence.
@MorganMarvinson No encontré nada en el artículo en cuanto al reemplazo del gene de la cola del animal con el gene del humano. ¿Dónde se puede encontrar?
@3gdosrsfs Also, the study of evolution has helped humans: 1) Remedy parasites and diseases; 2) shown us why some pests develop resistance to pestacides; 3) used in fisheries; 4) used to save some animals from extinction through application of sex allocation theory which is based on theory of evolution.
5. The fossil record if not full of animals that look exactly like they do today. There are some very similar filling niches that havent changed much but the vast majority are noticeable different.
Yes, the validity of a claim must be established. The best way of doing this, is by compiling your statement, and all evidence you can find, and submitting it to be torn apart by your peers. If your statement is correct, major objections will not be found, however if the evidence simply isn't there, your peers will pick that out and deny validity to your claim. WIthout this process anyone could say anything, and we'd have to take them on their word.
@MorganMarvinson "able to contract and move" This is taken from the article abstract so you should be able to access it. "functional tail" Again we reach a point of semantics. What is function? I believe the development of a tail with any development of any tail specific anatomical structures to be evidence of vestigiality, while you need more evidence. I am happy to discuss another topic at this stage if you wish.
@ASparrow1 Is there any evidence in either the bacterial or fruit fly studies that even remotely suggests that the kind of adaptation observed can produce a novel molecular machine? Do you have any idea what the time frame is for even two point mutations to take place when the first is either harmful or "neutral"? If you don't like my questions, then perhaps you should find someone else to engage in discussion. This is what I have to offer.
@ASparrow1 The "true tail" described in the medical brief made the connection with spina bifida. I am merely repeating that which the article you directed me to contained. I'm looking for the article you mention.
@MorganMarvinson Re: this discussion I do not like your questions however I feel you are the right person to engage. You obviously have education in this area and feel passionate about you position. I honestly just want a meaningful and gentlemanly discussion. I propose we abandon all topics to far discuss and focus on the following question: Does D.N.A evidence contradict the theory of evolution? If this is not acceptable then I will respectfully end this discussion.
My objection is not the questions you have raised, merely the number and range of topics you wish to cover at once. With the character limit we are dealing with this discussion is difficult enough. If we could focus on a single issue at a time, both of us will benefit. I understand the desire to discuss many issues however this does retract from the depth and quality of discussion.
@MorganMarvinson "Irony" No I do not find this ironic. I have requested specific examples of the evidence to disprove evolution. I feel that this discussion with benefit both of our positions. Currently this debate is worthless as I am sure you agree. I also have significant education in these field and I assure you I can adequately respond to your comments. I only request that claims you make are specific and supported by objective evidence to allow me to review and discuss them.
@MorganMarvinson There is another article I am unable to access as it was published in 1995 (my subscription frustratingly starts in 1997 to this journal). Perhaps you can access: Alashari & Torakawa (1995) True Tail in a Newborn. Pediatric Dermatology 12(3) 263-266. From other citation of this article I believe it accounts a case of a human tail containing 5 vertebra. This would be very interesting information for this discussion.
@MorganMarvinson 1, Graded development. You have largely answered your own question. Punctuated equilibrium is an excellent explanation, as was suggested by the late great Steven Jay Gould. The idea is that species evolution spends most of it's time in stasis and require significant events such as environment change to drive new forms. This concept is still debated among scientists and concerns some fundamental concepts of evolution, however neither possibility disproves the theory.
@ASparrow1 I see. Not in control of the terms of the debate, so you determine that it isn't meaningful. That hasn't been my perspective. The questions I have raised I consider very meaningful. You may choose to gloss over them out of convenience to maintaining your confidence in evolution. As I said before, you do have a choice to leave the discussion if my questions don't suit you. If it has caused you to think, it wasn't a waste of time.
@MorganMarvinson My information is taken from the study: Dao & Netsky (1984) Human tails and pseudotails. Human Pathology 15(5) 449-453. Functional human tails are very rare, only about 25 have been reported in the past 150 years. They are usually removed at a very early stage without complication. They can be up to 13cm long, are able to contract and move; contain adipose and connective tissue; central bundles of striated muscle; blood vessels and nerves; and it is covered by skin.
Here are three of my sources: A. C. McIntosh, “Information and Entropy - Top-Down or Bottom-Up Development in Living Systems,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(4):351-385 (2009). David L. Abel, “Complexity, self-organization, and emergence at the edge of chaos in life-origin models,” Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, Vol. 93:1-20 (2007). David L. Abel, “The biosemiosis of prescriptive information,” Semiotica, Vol. 174(1/4):1-19 (2009).
Science a way in which we as humans explain and come to understand the tangible OBSERVABLE natural world around us. That is all it is. Until we can figure out a way to test non tangible things, or abstract ideas, we must either choose to believe through faith, or ignore them, as there is nothing we, at the moment, can do to learn or understand further.
@ASparrow1 Fair enough. Can these genes be reactivated to produce something like a monkey's tail? What I have seen of vestigial tails in humans does not seem like any kind of connected or functioning tail. Have you seen anything different? The man with the 13 inch tail simply had spina bifida.
FOR SOME REASON I COULDN'T GET THE FULL SCREEN ? BUT FROM WHAT I COULD SEE FROM THE BENCH, I THINK A PERSONAL DISCUSSION ON BIOLOGY WITH THE FINE PROFESSOR WOULD CLEAR THE CONTRIVANCE . GIANFRANCO FRONZI SEPTEMBER
@MorganMarvinson "tree of life" The tree of life was never based on taxonomy, these terms are synonyms. However I believe what you are referring to is horizontal gene transfer. The idea is very foreign from what even I was taught in my undergraduate studies so I understand your reservations. However when you consider that it is common among even distantly related bacteria you can appreciate that it may have played a significant role in the simple forms of life on earth.
@ASparrow1 I'm looking for the formation of radical new molecular machines by "evolution." That is what is required by the Darwinian scenario. Time frame is a problem for point mutations. The 10 million year punctuations amids stasis doesn't allow for it. The nylonase change was a minor variation on a bacteria that already dissolved the major class of materials that include nylon.
A. "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance.
4. CORRECTION: @MorganMarvinson Is it that scientists HAVE PASSED OFF A CONFLATING of philosophical materialism with PHYSICAL science as science--AND YOU HAVE ACCEPTED THEIR CONFLATION?
@badpanda84 I've read several webpages that list their evidence for transitionals, and what they mean by this is that they can cite fossil animals that share common features. The problem is that the features are fully functioning, not transitional on-the-way-to-useful, like a foot that isn't a foot and not quite a fin, or a 3-chamber heart with the non-functioning structures of a 4-chamber heart. (The two examples I sent you.)
Which of the following theories have you ALSO investigated and disproven? Maybe Radioactivity? Perhaps Gravity? Atomic Theory, Theory of Matter and Energy, Cell Theory, Germ Theory, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Theory of Quantum Mechanics, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Light Energy, Theory of Electromagnetism, Theory of Radioactivity, Theory of Molecular Bonds, Theory of Homeostasis, Theory of Gravity, etc.. Gravity is just like evolution...they are both theories and FACTS.
@MorganMarvinson “Movement” The article states that movement was recorded in 6 cases, including the case report of the authors. A tail is an anomaly, while this mutation affects the patients in the same area, it can manifest itself differently. Similarly not all 3rd nipples are exactly the same. “function” Again this is semantics. If you mean a tail which can wag then yes a tail can be functional, if you mean a tail which serves a purpose then I have no evidence to support that position.
1:22 _have species modified over time_ etc. On this point (except perhaps details of mechanism like natural selection as opposed to providential one) Creationists actually agree with Darwin. Oh ... (1:35) you conflated the first point, whether they have historically modified before our eyes, with an ideological one, namely whether this can involving tracing them all to one single ancestor. So, on 1a), species have modified, we agree, on 1b) from a common source for all living things as a living thing, not as a creator above them, but as an ancestor, we disagree but on 2) natural selection, whether we agree or not is less important for most of the Creation Science debate.
It may seem a waste at times, however it is a necessary step. If you are unwilling to put forth the effort to present your case properly, or even come up with observable, testable evidence, why should anybody believe you?
Sound isn't working for me on my computer, but no, I don't think they were convinced it was a fact in 1873. There probably wasn't even this overwhelming consensus on the modern synthesis until the late 1970s.
The stuff I've read like The Eclipse of Darwinism is not meant to take sides, but I can't speak to what she's saying until sound starts working again for me. Ironically though, people who oppose Darwinan evolution have tried to imply that it has never faced significant opposition from within the scientific community, that it was accepted very quickly without being subjected to scrutiny, and that it has been accepted mostly on ideological grounds.
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD I consider the sun a super ball it doesn't mean that saying the sun is a flaming ball of gas is a theory, it would mean I was wrong. The same thing goes here, evolution is proven, we can even reproduce it through selective breeding. Fact: Creatures on this planet develop genetic abnormalities often. Fact: If an abnormality such as this makes it easier for the creature to survive and breed that trait may be passed on. That proves evolution right there.
2:23 _the historical consensus that has prevailed since the 1870s_ Two problems. Arguments have come up - on both sides, also the minoritarian Creationist one - since 1880, which might modify the reasons by which the consensus came to be there in the first place. Such a modification of the reasons is _not_ necessarily reflected in a modification of the majority near consensus. There is a cultural bias. Other problem is, posing the question to a student is not necessarily involving any misleading about the consensus, one evaluation point is of course whether that consensus proves anything - and obviously _this is not a consensus matter as in complete consensus._ It is a one party argument that in science - including in ideology heavy and direct-observation poor areas like"universal common descent" or "13.8 billion light years to certain stars" or "earth moves" the consensus should prevail. It is a conservative argument in a time when some consider conservative isn't good enough, we need to be reactionary.
@ASparrow1 "a functional tail would conflict" So, are you claiming it to be a functioning tail or not? "How does ID explain the presence of tail coding genes?" If you read the fuller report on this particular phenomena, you will see that some observers described it as moving and others not. It is often associated with other malformations. I'm not sure how you can interpret spina bifida, the overgrowth of the coccyx, or a fatty growth with some muscle and blood supply as coding genes for a tail.
I suppose this would be a strawman argument... but I was saying the amount of energy needed to get all of the molecules in the right order would be so great that the amino acid's bonds would evaporate. This is equivalent to pouring molten lava into a styrofoam cup (the cup would melt). The 1 force that would make things more complex is natural selection, however, there are 2 other forces in nature that would be trying to tear apart the cell (2nd law of T, and info and entropy...)
@MorganMarvinson "Pseudotail" No, I specifically only cited the tails which has been classified as true tails. "Function" Tails serve many functions in different organisms. I do not believe a prehensile tail is possible (a monkey tail) and apes are too agile to benefit from a fly protecting tail as possessed by hippo and pigs. Effectively a functional tail would conflict with the predictions of current evolutionary theory. How does ID explain the presence of tail coding genes?
@dangerousmezzo Evolution is a theory and any scientific theory must be based on facts which in turn have to be verified as evidence on which laws are formulated and once this is done a theory is formed. So a scientific theory is always based on facts. Natural selection is one of the processes leading to evolution. At least that is how I understood it. Correct me if I am wrong please.
Did the reply go to you Types, if so it was a mistake. However, yeah, Council of Nicea had the editors position in the Jewish edition of Pravda, formally known as The Bible.
@ASparrow! Your second paragraph about inferring the presence of such a gene from the evidence at Pubmed is precisely what I meant by my statement. The evidence doesn't point to a tail gene by a failed dissolution of the embryonic coccyx. Read the articles again.
@MorganMarvinson 2. Abiogenesis Interesting topic but abiogenesis is not a part of the theory of evolution. It is a field which needs a lot more research but has returned some very exciting results so far. 3. D.N.A Largely yes. The D.N.A evidence is a large part of the reason I accept evolution. If you could be more specific about your examples I would discuss them. This is a good area of discussion if you believe you have evidence I do not then please provide the specifics.
@badpanda84 "Just go to any museum" Yes, I've seen the artists diagrams of such things. The problem is, they aren't based on hard fossil evidence. The imagination has to fill it in based on the inference of evolution. The supposed transitional forms that have been found either have traits that disqualify them as truly being between two body forms OR they appear too late in the geological column to have been truly intermediate. I am surprised you don't know this.
What do you mean what qualifies me to make that statement? I didn’t do the study personally.... does that mean I can't submit as a viable argument what some other well qualified scientists did? I don’t know you but what qualifies you to believe the word is round? That was kind of a stupid question don’t you think...
Excerpt: Evolution is a theory AND a fact. Facts are the world's data. Theories are ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered." -Stephen Jay Gould, Evolutionary Biologist
@geilanderable Nonsense... the gaps that were present in Darwin's day have been filled in quite nicely (fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to mammals, dinosaurs to birds, etc). I think her point is that historically speaking, there has been a consensus in science concerning evolution. It's dishonest to say that there's a constant scientific 'debate' on the issue, because for some time in history the overwhelming majority of biologists don't dispute it.
@MorganMarvinson I agree this is an open ended question. I was hoping you might cite particular examples you consider evidence. A reason I believe DNA supports evolution rather than intelligent design is the presence of non-functional genes organisms which strongly imply a link to an evolutionary past. Such as the genes to make a functional tail present in humans. I can see no explanation for this this in ID however this is very strongly aligned with the predictions of evolution.
That was exquisite. I'll wager the panel, having entered dragging their knuckles across the floor, were searching for receptacles to catch the drool from their partially opened mouths during that eloquent diatribe.
3) Also, it is estimated that there are approximately 8.7 MILLION different species on this earth. So, either the ark contained all of these animals and insects initially (which obviously isn't possible) or there were significantly less "kinds" of animals on the ark which apparently underwent some sort of "SUPER-EVOLUTION" in order to become the 8,700,000 DIFFERENT SPECIES which we see today. Neither of these arguments are plausible...do you have another explanation?
@MorganMarvinson 4. Bacterial mutation. Again this is difficult as you are too ambiguous. I do not have your information. But yes, observed bacterial evolution is convincing. As is observed evolution in fruit fly, house fly, species of beetles, parasitic worms and many species of plants and others organisms. 5. Altenberg-16 Who is this? Why do they matter? All evolutionary scientists are working to find flaws in the theory of evolution, this does not mean it is discredited.
@MorganMarvinson My apologies for wasting your time. While you level of knowledge is adequate we have failed to stimulate a meaningful and focused discussion. I know longer believe this it is possibly to achieve in this discourse with you. Feel free to message me if you ever decide such discussion would be of interest or value to you. In the mean time I will seek debate elsewhere.
@ASparrow1 "able to move and contract" I searched on your term and now find it reversed. "What is function?" Look at any animal that has one. "The most frequent cause of a pseudotail in a series of ten cases obtained from the literature was an anomalous prolongation of the coccygeal vertebrae." Is that what an animal's tail is?
@MorganMarvinson However bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are missing. Additionally tail growth is expressed in all human embryonic development until around the 7-8 week mark. At this point the tail growth gene stop being expressed, and the tail is enveloped by the growth of the foetus. So while it may not be possible to test on real humans due to ethical reason, this is strong evidence that it would be possible to deliberately cause the expression of these gene if desired.
3. @ASparrow1 Is it because bacterial studies using directed evolution have demonstrated that random mutations in the DNA are the engine of change? No, they have gone on record as stating that there is a step-by-step process within bacteria that in not random that adapts it to substances in its environment. Is it because scientists are unanimous in believing RM/NS is adequate to power transformation of one body type to another? No, the Altenberg-16 is looking for another principle for evolution.
@strangerlover11 He he... well, obviously I'm typing in English, so that's no the issue. No, the issue is that your comment makes no grammatical sense. What do you mean by "king of life things"? What are "Evolutions"?
@ASparrow1 Have you really thought about this weakness in Darwin's presentation in Origin of Species? Artificial selection produces weakened "breeds." It doesn't produce new molecular machines or transform legs into fins or wings. This isn't the kind of change you need to move from an amoeba to a whale. Make it a self-replicating gun then. As long as it is partly random (i.e., a single bullet in a chamber, cf. RM) firing will always be random--even though the barrel is constrained (cf. NS).
Atomic Theory, Theory of Matter and Energy, Cell Theory, Germ Theory, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Theory of Evolution, Theory of Quantum Mechanics, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Light Energy, Theory of Electromagnetism, Theory of Radioactivity, Theory of Molecular Bonds, Theory of Homeostasis, Theory of Gravity, etc.. These are all theories also...but only evolution and the Big Bang are disputed. The reason is because they conflict with ancient holy books.
Perhaps you were unaware... but there has been work in the field of embryology since the 19th century. Any issues you may have with Haeckel's work is entirely irrelevant.
@Houshalter I don't know what your background is, but private education was not an option for my sister (BS math, MS communications) or myself (BS chemistry, MS geochemistry, PhD geochemistry). Without public education, I would not have received an education. Ninety-nine percent of parents are not qualified to teach their children high school level courses, and the majority of students are not mature enough to learn by correspondence or on the internet.
@MorganMarvinson No you are correct. We do not need your help as many thousands of scientists all across the world are working hard to disprove the theory of evolution. However if you believe there is evidence that this has already been accomplished then I welcome you discuss this with me.
@ASparrow1 "functional human tails" Why did you leave out "Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The true tail arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal development." OK, I see that you include the first statement in the next post. At any rate, these statements falsify any notion that this is a "functional tail."
@badpanda84 The crocaduck IS a crock. No one is seriously looking for one. To answer your question, a transitional fossil would have an incomplete system. For instance, it would have something between a 3-chambered heart and a 4-chambered heart; between a foot and a fin. Furthermore, these midway points would have to exist prior to the emergence of the body form it supposedly became. Contemporaries and organisms in later strata do not qualify. They must be midway.
the reason u are unsure is because fact of that such aren't taught in school (but that's beside the point). The information entropy theory states that in computers (and nature) information can never spontaneously appear, it either stays the same or is lost in transfer, this is what we see in the flounder effect, and genetic scattering (poodles hav less genetic info than wolves). The second law of thermodynamics says that a ice cube (32F) in water (60F) will melt so there is only water (45F), ..
"The facts of paleontology seem to support creation and the flood rather than evolution. For instance, all the major groups of invertebrates appear "suddenly" in the first fossil ferrous strata (Cambrian) of the earth with their distinct specializations indicating that they were all created almost at the same time." -- Professor Enoch, University of Madras He says the same thing as Gould
Nothing in evolution is “sudden”. The Cambrian period was around 55 million years long. If 55 million years is “sudden” to you, you have a problem. Yes, there was an explosion in biodiversity during the Cambrian period, this was due to a biological arms race when the first super predators like anomalocaris started appearing. This prompted prey animals to diversify rapidly in an effort to combat this new threat. Some developed armor to withstand attack. Some developed fins and tails to swim faster as to evade predators. Some developed primitive camouflage to prevent detection. Some grew smaller to fit into crevices the larger predators couldn’t. If you actually do research into this stuff and don’t get your information from only a couple sources it starts making sense. There are tons of useful documentaries online, some devoted entirely to the period in question. It’s really not that hard.
@Sweddude While I can't say I'm familiar with all those cases, the ones I have seen can just as easily be interpreted as evidence against evolution when you look at the facts of the case that aren't trumpeted quite so loudly, assuming you don't begin with a pro-evolution bias. I suspect very much that the other cases are the same. Lately, scientific papers concerning evolution tend to be one part science and four parts opinion presented as fact.
@ASparrow1 In the second paragraph you paraphrased the point that you disagreed with in the first. We are both looking at the same evidence. You see it as evidence for a tail (because that is what you are looking for) and I look at it as evidence for malformation in embryonic development because I don't read anything more in the evidence than that. Best wishes to you too!
@stefansv "What do you read into the fact that chicken have genes for teeth?" If by "genes for teeth" you mean there is genetics within the chicken population that produces in some birds the little bumps that are very loosely described as "teeth," I'd say the genes do exist. What I would question is whether they are actually teeth. Have you looked closely at the pictures? As to implications, it would mean that chickens were likely domesticated from birds with jaw bumps--maybe even teeth.
Generally the definition of species is if they can produce viable offspring, usually hybrids such as Mules and Ligers are infertile, so it's not viable offspring. There is however no solid line between two species, it's very blurry, however eventually one population won't be able to interbreed with the one they came from, at that point it's a new species.
4. Not all mutations are harmful far from it. Myself, and some of my descendents, carry a mutation which affects the salivary glands making some foods easier to digest and others harder. Whether this mutation is helpful, harmful or neutral only time will tell. Most mutations are like this and never noticed.
@ASparrow1 The fused chromosome occurs only in humans. Were it found in some supposed "ancestor" to humans and great apes in the same location as chimps (chromosomes 12 and 13) or of gorillas and orangutans (chromosomes 12 and 11), the evolutionary claim might have some weight. We can just as logically say that humans were created separate from other primates, with 24 chromosome pairs as were they, but one of which fused early in human history, giving us the 23 pairs we have now.
@Saibrock "the ones I have seen can just as easily be interpreted as evidence against evolution " Really? Which ones? This is a major find! Well....that is if you can actually produce any paper or cases that in any way ever go against evolution....which, well.... you probably can't. I'm all ears! "scientific papers concerning evolution tend to be one part science and four parts opinion presented as fact" Really? Again which ones? Can you point one out that is "four parts opinion"?
@ASparrow1 You painted yourself as believing that it is easy to disprove evolution. This was not your actual position. You have not yet adequately responded as you have admitted to being unaware of the material to which I have referred. But, you can always read. My point is that you believe in evolution, not because of overwhelming evidence in its favor, but for some other reason. I challenge you to look inside and discover it while we continue to see the weakness of evolution.
1 A mass extinction occurred at the end of the Cretaceous period wiping out many species (not just dinosaurs). It seems to have taken out larger species preferentially and the larger dinosaurs were included. The smaller dinosaurs are still with as in the form of birds. 2. Im not too sure what you mean by this one but for Darwins theory it does not matter.
@ASparrow1 "Does D.N.A evidence contradict the theory of evolution?" A very open-ended question. It doesn't contradict the theory of Intelligent Design. So support for competing theories isn't proof for one. A more restrictive question would be: What is it about DNA evidence that favors evolution and what is it about DNA evidence that favors ID?
Dear People of Texas,
Welcome to the 21st century not the 18th. Welcome to a place of science, reason, and evidence based knowledge. It will be scary to drop your superstitions but it can and needs to be done. Pretending that a world of superstition exists does no good for future generations of students that will be misinformed and unprepared for jobs in this new world. Come join us. P.S. Choosing to be a dumb ass is no way to go through life!
Beautifully put.
+Steven Hird Why thank you!
Yeah the same "science" that brought us this huh...
th-cam.com/video/VtJFb_P2j48/w-d-xo.html
@@SonoftheKing88 Well, that's not science now, is it.
Man, are you dumb, if you think those suckers are smart. The are so dumb they'd sooner live with a lie. Forget the truth shall set ye free.
Why on earth is this even a topic for discussion in this day and age?
@Drosophila melanogaster You know that's not what evolution says right?
@Drosophila melanogaster For the sake of clarity I'm going to have to ask what you mean by "something new evolving into existence"?
@Drosophila melanogaster You obviously didn't understand, willfully or otherwise, what I even said, so I'll say it more explicitly:
The theory of evolution does NOT claim that something new "evolves into existence", whatever that is supposed to mean, it claims that existing organisms pass on different genetic traits and this results in differences inside and outside of species. Genetic traits are ADDED, not CHANGED. Also your claim that a gradual process is impossible is already bunk as beneficial mutations are proven to exist and adding information to a genome is scientifically possible, and has been done.
Citation needed on your entire comment.
@Drosophila melanogaster “(So evolution doesn't claim that evolution occurs. That's interesting.)”
I’m struggling to decide if this is willful stupidity or simply a joke. You’re claiming that “something new evolves into existence” as if a random ape give birth to a homo sapiens one day, which is not what the theory of evolution states.
“(DNA is an extremely complicated set of instructions on creating extremely complicated 3-dimensional proteins that must interact in a timely manner with other complicated 3-dimensional proteins in a cooperative manner in order to build a viable organism.)”
Now I’m no expert on DNA but this sounds pretty accurate.
“(How anyone can possibly believe that randomly changing nucleotide bases can result in "new" information is beyond me.)”
Again this stuff about nucleotides being “randomly changed”. As far as I’m aware there are only four nitrogenous bases in our DNA nucleotides, those being Thymine, Cytosine, Adenine and Guanine.
“(The random changes in the nucleotide base sequence would somehow have to be intelligently integrated into the information that is already there instead of destroying the functionality of the DNA sequence.)”
Are we at “intelligent design” now, or rather the not-so-intelligent design of sentient creatures by a pan-dimensional prestidigitator? We’re talking about genetic mutations. If evolution is true (which is proven) and lasts over millions of years (which it has to do), these add-ons would have to be tiny to the point of unnoticeable individually. If so it’s a simple case of adaptation.
“(So if I'm following your logic correctly then genetic traits are added but they're not new?)”
This is a weird question. If genetic traits are added to an offspring then they must by definition come from the progenitor and as such aren’t new. Now the idea that every mutation is unique is suspect at best, but these mutations can occur at pretty much any point in the DNA’s lifespan. So they may or may not be new. There is other stuff to consider such as whether the mutation is healed or becomes fixed, or whether it’s beneficial or not, or whether it’s even noticeable originally, but that’s the gist of it.
Honestly why are we even arguing about this. The artificial breeding of dogs and rabbits as well as the evolution of the greenish warbler and the peppered moths already prove that evolution has occurred and still does.
@Drosophila melanogaster “(How does the statement "something new evolves into existence" mean that an ape gives birth to a human?)”
That is the most common way to straw man evolution. You may have heard of Kirk “crocoduck” Cameron and his stupid proposition that evolution supports the existence of ridiculous hybrids like a combination of ducks and crocodiles. That was the vibe I was getting from you.
“(Evolution is impossible. Offspring represent a new combination of genetic information that was already in existence in the previous generation. There is no new information coming into existence and therefore no evolution.)”
Bullshit. This is just pure horse deuce. OK get this in: evolution has been proven. Since the domestication of dogs and rabbits, we humans have been artificially breeding them to get individuals with desirable traits, and it’s been working. That’s why we have different kinds of dogs and that’s why two particular breeds of rabbits (the Canadian and Florida rabbits) can’t interbreed. This alone proves that evolution is true and hiding behind semantics about genetics, which is already invalid because we know that mutations exist, is either grossly misinformed or deliberately dishonest. These are just the artificial examples; we also have the natural examples of the peppered moths and greenish warblers. The proof is in; evolution has been proven. There is no reason to deny it anymore, unless you’re as irrational as William Lane Craig, who outright says that if the Bible claims that 2+2 = square root of negative pi, it has to be true, in spite of all reason and evidence.
Right On Sister!! Can you even believe that in the year 2016 some sheeple still think that Evolution is a topic of debate?....... FACEPALM!
@ASparrow1 "able to contract and move" Pub med didn't include this description, and I could not find any source other source on this paper that did.
it's disturbing that a hearing like this actually happened in modern society.
This is like the trial of Galileo or something, it's frightening.
@MorganMarvinson No encontré nada en el artículo en cuanto al reemplazo del gene de la cola del animal con el gene del humano. ¿Dónde se puede encontrar?
Thank you. I'll look into those. Could you in the mean time explain how cells have to turn into lava to do what exactly?
@thewaterfalloflove what are her errors and what is radical or irrational about what she said?
@3gdosrsfs Also, the study of evolution has helped humans: 1) Remedy parasites and diseases; 2) shown us why some pests develop resistance to pestacides; 3) used in fisheries; 4) used to save some animals from extinction through application of sex allocation theory which is based on theory of evolution.
They cant hear you professor.
did you watch the video?
1:48 and on is the part you are looking for
5. The fossil record if not full of animals that look exactly like they do today. There are some very similar filling niches that havent changed much but the vast majority are noticeable different.
Yes, the validity of a claim must be established. The best way of doing this, is by compiling your statement, and all evidence you can find, and submitting it to be torn apart by your peers. If your statement is correct, major objections will not be found, however if the evidence simply isn't there, your peers will pick that out and deny validity to your claim. WIthout this process anyone could say anything, and we'd have to take them on their word.
@MorganMarvinson "able to contract and move"
This is taken from the article abstract so you should be able to access it.
"functional tail"
Again we reach a point of semantics. What is function? I believe the development of a tail with any development of any tail specific anatomical structures to be evidence of vestigiality, while you need more evidence. I am happy to discuss another topic at this stage if you wish.
@ASparrow1 Is there any evidence in either the bacterial or fruit fly studies that even remotely suggests that the kind of adaptation observed can produce a novel molecular machine? Do you have any idea what the time frame is for even two point mutations to take place when the first is either harmful or "neutral"?
If you don't like my questions, then perhaps you should find someone else to engage in discussion. This is what I have to offer.
@ASparrow1 The "true tail" described in the medical brief made the connection with spina bifida. I am merely repeating that which the article you directed me to contained.
I'm looking for the article you mention.
@ASparrow1 I repeat, are you claiming it to be a functioning tail or not?
@MorganMarvinson Re: this discussion
I do not like your questions however I feel you are the right person to engage. You obviously have education in this area and feel passionate about you position. I honestly just want a meaningful and gentlemanly discussion. I propose we abandon all topics to far discuss and focus on the following question:
Does D.N.A evidence contradict the theory of evolution? If this is not acceptable then I will respectfully end this discussion.
My objection is not the questions you have raised, merely the number and range of topics you wish to cover at once.
With the character limit we are dealing with this discussion is difficult enough. If we could focus on a single issue at a time, both of us will benefit. I understand the desire to discuss many issues however this does retract from the depth and quality of discussion.
Yes it is. Pretty basic knowledge for a non-texan, but it's great to see that even some texans know that evolution is an established fact: )
@MorganMarvinson "Irony"
No I do not find this ironic. I have requested specific examples of the evidence to disprove evolution. I feel that this discussion with benefit both of our positions. Currently this debate is worthless as I am sure you agree.
I also have significant education in these field and I assure you I can adequately respond to your comments. I only request that claims you make are specific and supported by objective evidence to allow me to review and discuss them.
@MorganMarvinson
There is another article I am unable to access as it was published in 1995 (my subscription frustratingly starts in 1997 to this journal). Perhaps you can access: Alashari & Torakawa (1995) True Tail in a Newborn. Pediatric Dermatology 12(3) 263-266. From other citation of this article I believe it accounts a case of a human tail containing 5 vertebra. This would be very interesting information for this discussion.
@MorganMarvinson 1, Graded development.
You have largely answered your own question. Punctuated equilibrium is an excellent explanation, as was suggested by the late great Steven Jay Gould. The idea is that species evolution spends most of it's time in stasis and require significant events such as environment change to drive new forms. This concept is still debated among scientists and concerns some fundamental concepts of evolution, however neither possibility disproves the theory.
This speaker did a fantastic job; many excellent observations, she is erudite in key areas of social relevance, from a historical point of view.
@ASparrow1 I see. Not in control of the terms of the debate, so you determine that it isn't meaningful.
That hasn't been my perspective. The questions I have raised I consider very meaningful. You may choose to gloss over them out of convenience to maintaining your confidence in evolution. As I said before, you do have a choice to leave the discussion if my questions don't suit you.
If it has caused you to think, it wasn't a waste of time.
@MorganMarvinson My information is taken from the study: Dao & Netsky (1984) Human tails and pseudotails. Human Pathology 15(5) 449-453.
Functional human tails are very rare, only about 25 have been reported in the past 150 years. They are usually removed at a very early stage without complication. They can be up to 13cm long, are able to contract and move; contain adipose and connective tissue; central bundles of striated muscle; blood vessels and nerves; and it is covered by skin.
Here are three of my sources:
A. C. McIntosh, “Information and Entropy - Top-Down or Bottom-Up Development in Living Systems,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(4):351-385 (2009).
David L. Abel, “Complexity, self-organization, and emergence at the edge of chaos in life-origin models,” Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, Vol. 93:1-20 (2007).
David L. Abel, “The biosemiosis of prescriptive information,” Semiotica, Vol. 174(1/4):1-19 (2009).
There is no controversy surrounding evolution, the controversy now surrounds what the origins of life and the universe are.
Science a way in which we as humans explain and come to understand the tangible OBSERVABLE natural world around us. That is all it is. Until we can figure out a way to test non tangible things, or abstract ideas, we must either choose to believe through faith, or ignore them, as there is nothing we, at the moment, can do to learn or understand further.
@MorganMarvinson
What do you read into the fact that chicken have genes for teeth?
@ASparrow1 Fair enough. Can these genes be reactivated to produce something like a monkey's tail? What I have seen of vestigial tails in humans does not seem like any kind of connected or functioning tail. Have you seen anything different? The man with the 13 inch tail simply had spina bifida.
@Sweddude Such as?
@strangerlover11
Um... I'm afraid that I can't understand your sentence.
FOR SOME REASON I COULDN'T GET THE FULL SCREEN ? BUT FROM WHAT I COULD SEE FROM THE BENCH, I THINK A PERSONAL DISCUSSION ON BIOLOGY WITH THE FINE PROFESSOR WOULD CLEAR THE CONTRIVANCE .
GIANFRANCO FRONZI SEPTEMBER
@MorganMarvinson "tree of life"
The tree of life was never based on taxonomy, these terms are synonyms. However I believe what you are referring to is horizontal gene transfer. The idea is very foreign from what even I was taught in my undergraduate studies so I understand your reservations. However when you consider that it is common among even distantly related bacteria you can appreciate that it may have played a significant role in the simple forms of life on earth.
Still waiting for the questions..
@ASparrow1 I'm looking for the formation of radical new molecular machines by "evolution." That is what is required by the Darwinian scenario.
Time frame is a problem for point mutations. The 10 million year punctuations amids stasis doesn't allow for it.
The nylonase change was a minor variation on a bacteria that already dissolved the major class of materials that include nylon.
A. "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance.
4. CORRECTION:
@MorganMarvinson Is it that scientists HAVE PASSED OFF A CONFLATING of philosophical materialism with PHYSICAL science as science--AND YOU HAVE ACCEPTED THEIR CONFLATION?
@badpanda84 I've read several webpages that list their evidence for transitionals, and what they mean by this is that they can cite fossil animals that share common features. The problem is that the features are fully functioning, not transitional on-the-way-to-useful, like a foot that isn't a foot and not quite a fin, or a 3-chamber heart with the non-functioning structures of a 4-chamber heart. (The two examples I sent you.)
Which of the following theories have you ALSO investigated and disproven? Maybe Radioactivity? Perhaps Gravity?
Atomic Theory, Theory of Matter and Energy, Cell Theory, Germ Theory, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Theory of Quantum Mechanics, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Light Energy, Theory of Electromagnetism, Theory of Radioactivity, Theory of Molecular Bonds, Theory of Homeostasis, Theory of Gravity, etc..
Gravity is just like evolution...they are both theories and FACTS.
@MorganMarvinson “Movement”
The article states that movement was recorded in 6 cases, including the case report of the authors. A tail is an anomaly, while this mutation affects the patients in the same area, it can manifest itself differently. Similarly not all 3rd nipples are exactly the same.
“function”
Again this is semantics. If you mean a tail which can wag then yes a tail can be functional, if you mean a tail which serves a purpose then I have no evidence to support that position.
1:22 _have species modified over time_ etc.
On this point (except perhaps details of mechanism like natural selection as opposed to providential one) Creationists actually agree with Darwin.
Oh ... (1:35) you conflated the first point, whether they have historically modified before our eyes, with an ideological one, namely whether this can involving tracing them all to one single ancestor.
So, on 1a), species have modified, we agree, on 1b) from a common source for all living things as a living thing, not as a creator above them, but as an ancestor, we disagree
but on 2) natural selection, whether we agree or not is less important for most of the Creation Science debate.
It may seem a waste at times, however it is a necessary step. If you are unwilling to put forth the effort to present your case properly, or even come up with observable, testable evidence, why should anybody believe you?
Sound isn't working for me on my computer, but no, I don't think they were convinced it was a fact in 1873. There probably wasn't even this overwhelming consensus on the modern synthesis until the late 1970s.
The stuff I've read like The Eclipse of Darwinism is not meant to take sides, but I can't speak to what she's saying until sound starts working again for me. Ironically though, people who oppose Darwinan evolution have tried to imply that it has never faced significant opposition from within the scientific community, that it was accepted very quickly without being subjected to scrutiny, and that it has been accepted mostly on ideological grounds.
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD I consider the sun a super ball it doesn't mean that saying the sun is a flaming ball of gas is a theory, it would mean I was wrong.
The same thing goes here, evolution is proven, we can even reproduce it through selective breeding.
Fact: Creatures on this planet develop genetic abnormalities often.
Fact: If an abnormality such as this makes it easier for the creature to survive and breed that trait may be passed on.
That proves evolution right there.
2:23 _the historical consensus that has prevailed since the 1870s_
Two problems.
Arguments have come up - on both sides, also the minoritarian Creationist one - since 1880, which might modify the reasons by which the consensus came to be there in the first place.
Such a modification of the reasons is _not_ necessarily reflected in a modification of the majority near consensus. There is a cultural bias.
Other problem is, posing the question to a student is not necessarily involving any misleading about the consensus, one evaluation point is of course whether that consensus proves anything - and obviously _this is not a consensus matter as in complete consensus._
It is a one party argument that in science - including in ideology heavy and direct-observation poor areas like"universal common descent" or "13.8 billion light years to certain stars" or "earth moves" the consensus should prevail. It is a conservative argument in a time when some consider conservative isn't good enough, we need to be reactionary.
@ASparrow1 "a functional tail would conflict" So, are you claiming it to be a functioning tail or not?
"How does ID explain the presence of tail coding genes?" If you read the fuller report on this particular phenomena, you will see that some observers described it as moving and others not. It is often associated with other malformations. I'm not sure how you can interpret spina bifida, the overgrowth of the coccyx, or a fatty growth with some muscle and blood supply as coding genes for a tail.
I suppose this would be a strawman argument... but I was saying the amount of energy needed to get all of the molecules in the right order would be so great that the amino acid's bonds would evaporate. This is equivalent to pouring molten lava into a styrofoam cup (the cup would melt). The 1 force that would make things more complex is natural selection, however, there are 2 other forces in nature that would be trying to tear apart the cell (2nd law of T, and info and entropy...)
lol I like how this professor notices the camera and then tends to look more at it after
@MorganMarvinson "Pseudotail"
No, I specifically only cited the tails which has been classified as true tails.
"Function"
Tails serve many functions in different organisms. I do not believe a prehensile tail is possible (a monkey tail) and apes are too agile to benefit from a fly protecting tail as possessed by hippo and pigs. Effectively a functional tail would conflict with the predictions of current evolutionary theory.
How does ID explain the presence of tail coding genes?
@dangerousmezzo
Evolution is a theory and any scientific theory must be based on facts which in turn have to be verified as evidence on which laws are formulated and once this is done a theory is formed. So a scientific theory is always based on facts. Natural selection is one of the processes leading to evolution.
At least that is how I understood it.
Correct me if I am wrong please.
@MorganMarvinson "Altenberg-16"
I will investigate this when I get a chance.
Did the reply go to you Types, if so it was a mistake.
However, yeah, Council of Nicea had the editors position in the Jewish edition of Pravda, formally known as The Bible.
@AlessioDAlessandro she's my biology and latin teacher! and shes INTELLIGENT
@ASparrow! Your second paragraph about inferring the presence of such a gene from the evidence at Pubmed is precisely what I meant by my statement. The evidence doesn't point to a tail gene by a failed dissolution of the embryonic coccyx.
Read the articles again.
@MorganMarvinson
2. Abiogenesis
Interesting topic but abiogenesis is not a part of the theory of evolution. It is a field which needs a lot more research but has returned some very exciting results so far.
3. D.N.A
Largely yes. The D.N.A evidence is a large part of the reason I accept evolution. If you could be more specific about your examples I would discuss them. This is a good area of discussion if you believe you have evidence I do not then please provide the specifics.
@badpanda84 "Just go to any museum" Yes, I've seen the artists diagrams of such things. The problem is, they aren't based on hard fossil evidence. The imagination has to fill it in based on the inference of evolution.
The supposed transitional forms that have been found either have traits that disqualify them as truly being between two body forms OR they appear too late in the geological column to have been truly intermediate.
I am surprised you don't know this.
What do you mean what qualifies me to make that statement? I didn’t do the study personally.... does that mean I can't submit as a viable argument what some other well qualified scientists did? I don’t know you but what qualifies you to believe the word is round? That was kind of a stupid question don’t you think...
Excerpt: Evolution is a theory AND a fact. Facts are the world's data. Theories are ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould, Evolutionary Biologist
When will people trade madness for reason?
Some folks never.
@Sweddude That's not even what I said...
@badpanda84 "What did you mean ...?" Fossils that show incomplete organs between two different forms.
@geilanderable
Nonsense... the gaps that were present in Darwin's day have been filled in quite nicely (fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to mammals, dinosaurs to birds, etc).
I think her point is that historically speaking, there has been a consensus in science concerning evolution. It's dishonest to say that there's a constant scientific 'debate' on the issue, because for some time in history the overwhelming majority of biologists don't dispute it.
@MorganMarvinson PERDON. Yo sí puedo hablar de puntos sobre la genética ...
@MorganMarvinson I agree this is an open ended question. I was hoping you might cite particular examples you consider evidence.
A reason I believe DNA supports evolution rather than intelligent design is the presence of non-functional genes organisms which strongly imply a link to an evolutionary past. Such as the genes to make a functional tail present in humans. I can see no explanation for this this in ID however this is very strongly aligned with the predictions of evolution.
That was exquisite. I'll wager the panel, having entered dragging their knuckles across the floor, were searching for receptacles to catch the drool from their partially opened mouths during that eloquent diatribe.
Thanks. I'll take what I can get! I know I'm missing out on SOOO much!
3) Also, it is estimated that there are approximately 8.7 MILLION different species on this earth. So, either the ark contained all of these animals and insects initially (which obviously isn't possible) or there were significantly less "kinds" of animals on the ark which apparently underwent some sort of "SUPER-EVOLUTION" in order to become the 8,700,000 DIFFERENT SPECIES which we see today. Neither of these arguments are plausible...do you have another explanation?
@MorganMarvinson
4. Bacterial mutation.
Again this is difficult as you are too ambiguous. I do not have your information. But yes, observed bacterial evolution is convincing. As is observed evolution in fruit fly, house fly, species of beetles, parasitic worms and many species of plants and others organisms.
5. Altenberg-16
Who is this? Why do they matter? All evolutionary scientists are working to find flaws in the theory of evolution, this does not mean it is discredited.
@MorganMarvinson My apologies for wasting your time.
While you level of knowledge is adequate we have failed to stimulate a meaningful and focused discussion. I know longer believe this it is possibly to achieve in this discourse with you.
Feel free to message me if you ever decide such discussion would be of interest or value to you. In the mean time I will seek debate elsewhere.
@ASparrow1 "able to move and contract" I searched on your term and now find it reversed.
"What is function?" Look at any animal that has one.
"The most frequent cause of a pseudotail in a series of ten cases obtained from the literature was an anomalous prolongation of the coccygeal vertebrae." Is that what an animal's tail is?
@MorganMarvinson However bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are missing.
Additionally tail growth is expressed in all human embryonic development until around the 7-8 week mark. At this point the tail growth gene stop being expressed, and the tail is enveloped by the growth of the foetus.
So while it may not be possible to test on real humans due to ethical reason, this is strong evidence that it would be possible to deliberately cause the expression of these gene if desired.
3.
@ASparrow1 Is it because bacterial studies using directed evolution have demonstrated that random mutations in the DNA are the engine of change? No, they have gone on record as stating that there is a step-by-step process within bacteria that in not random that adapts it to substances in its environment. Is it because scientists are unanimous in believing RM/NS is adequate to power transformation of one body type to another? No, the Altenberg-16 is looking for another principle for evolution.
@strangerlover11
He he... well, obviously I'm typing in English, so that's no the issue.
No, the issue is that your comment makes no grammatical sense. What do you mean by "king of life things"?
What are "Evolutions"?
@ASparrow1 Have you really thought about this weakness in Darwin's presentation in Origin of Species? Artificial selection produces weakened "breeds." It doesn't produce new molecular machines or transform legs into fins or wings. This isn't the kind of change you need to move from an amoeba to a whale.
Make it a self-replicating gun then. As long as it is partly random (i.e., a single bullet in a chamber, cf. RM) firing will always be random--even though the barrel is constrained (cf. NS).
Atomic Theory, Theory of Matter and Energy, Cell Theory, Germ Theory, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Theory of Evolution, Theory of Quantum Mechanics, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Light Energy, Theory of Electromagnetism, Theory of Radioactivity, Theory of Molecular Bonds, Theory of Homeostasis, Theory of Gravity, etc..
These are all theories also...but only evolution and the Big Bang are disputed. The reason is because they conflict with ancient holy books.
Perhaps you were unaware... but there has been work in the field of embryology since the 19th century. Any issues you may have with Haeckel's work is entirely irrelevant.
@Houshalter I don't know what your background is, but private education was not an option for my sister (BS math, MS communications) or myself (BS chemistry, MS geochemistry, PhD geochemistry). Without public education, I would not have received an education. Ninety-nine percent of parents are not qualified to teach their children high school level courses, and the majority of students are not mature enough to learn by correspondence or on the internet.
@MorganMarvinson No you are correct. We do not need your help as many thousands of scientists all across the world are working hard to disprove the theory of evolution.
However if you believe there is evidence that this has already been accomplished then I welcome you discuss this with me.
@ASparrow1 "functional human tails" Why did you leave out "Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The true tail arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal development." OK, I see that you include the first statement in the next post.
At any rate, these statements falsify any notion that this is a "functional tail."
@badpanda84 The crocaduck IS a crock. No one is seriously looking for one.
To answer your question, a transitional fossil would have an incomplete system. For instance, it would have something between a 3-chambered heart and a 4-chambered heart; between a foot and a fin. Furthermore, these midway points would have to exist prior to the emergence of the body form it supposedly became. Contemporaries and organisms in later strata do not qualify. They must be midway.
Are they talking over her on purpose at 0:30 ?
How childish is that?
the reason u are unsure is because fact of that such aren't taught in school (but that's beside the point). The information entropy theory states that in computers (and nature) information can never spontaneously appear, it either stays the same or is lost in transfer, this is what we see in the flounder effect, and genetic scattering (poodles hav less genetic info than wolves). The second law of thermodynamics says that a ice cube (32F) in water (60F) will melt so there is only water (45F), ..
I can't believe this even needs to be persuaded anymore. It Is the year 2010! What the hell is wrong with people in Texas!
It’s 2020 now any difference
These historians of science are very interesting people.
"The facts of paleontology seem to support creation and the flood rather than evolution. For instance, all the major groups of invertebrates appear "suddenly" in the first fossil ferrous strata (Cambrian) of the earth with their distinct specializations indicating that they were all created almost at the same time." -- Professor Enoch, University of Madras
He says the same thing as Gould
Nothing in evolution is “sudden”. The Cambrian period was around 55 million years long. If 55 million years is “sudden” to you, you have a problem. Yes, there was an explosion in biodiversity during the Cambrian period, this was due to a biological arms race when the first super predators like anomalocaris started appearing. This prompted prey animals to diversify rapidly in an effort to combat this new threat. Some developed armor to withstand attack. Some developed fins and tails to swim faster as to evade predators. Some developed primitive camouflage to prevent detection. Some grew smaller to fit into crevices the larger predators couldn’t. If you actually do research into this stuff and don’t get your information from only a couple sources it starts making sense. There are tons of useful documentaries online, some devoted entirely to the period in question. It’s really not that hard.
@Sweddude While I can't say I'm familiar with all those cases, the ones I have seen can just as easily be interpreted as evidence against evolution when you look at the facts of the case that aren't trumpeted quite so loudly, assuming you don't begin with a pro-evolution bias. I suspect very much that the other cases are the same. Lately, scientific papers concerning evolution tend to be one part science and four parts opinion presented as fact.
@ASparrow1 In the second paragraph you paraphrased the point that you disagreed with in the first.
We are both looking at the same evidence. You see it as evidence for a tail (because that is what you are looking for) and I look at it as evidence for malformation in embryonic development because I don't read anything more in the evidence than that.
Best wishes to you too!
@stefansv "What do you read into the fact that chicken have genes for teeth?" If by "genes for teeth" you mean there is genetics within the chicken population that produces in some birds the little bumps that are very loosely described as "teeth," I'd say the genes do exist. What I would question is whether they are actually teeth. Have you looked closely at the pictures?
As to implications, it would mean that chickens were likely domesticated from birds with jaw bumps--maybe even teeth.
Generally the definition of species is if they can produce viable offspring, usually hybrids such as Mules and Ligers are infertile, so it's not viable offspring. There is however no solid line between two species, it's very blurry, however eventually one population won't be able to interbreed with the one they came from, at that point it's a new species.
4. Not all mutations are harmful far from it. Myself, and some of my descendents, carry a mutation which affects the salivary glands making some foods easier to digest and others harder. Whether this mutation is helpful, harmful or neutral only time will tell. Most mutations are like this and never noticed.
@ASparrow1 The fused chromosome occurs only in humans. Were it found in some supposed "ancestor" to humans and great apes in the same location as chimps (chromosomes 12 and 13) or of gorillas and orangutans (chromosomes 12 and 11), the evolutionary claim might have some weight.
We can just as logically say that humans were created separate from other primates, with 24 chromosome pairs as were they, but one of which fused early in human history, giving us the 23 pairs we have now.
@Saibrock
"the ones I have seen can just as easily be interpreted as evidence against evolution "
Really? Which ones? This is a major find! Well....that is if you can actually produce any paper or cases that in any way ever go against evolution....which, well.... you probably can't. I'm all ears!
"scientific papers concerning evolution tend to be one part science and four parts opinion presented as fact"
Really? Again which ones? Can you point one out that is "four parts opinion"?
@ASparrow1 You painted yourself as believing that it is easy to disprove evolution. This was not your actual position.
You have not yet adequately responded as you have admitted to being unaware of the material to which I have referred. But, you can always read.
My point is that you believe in evolution, not because of overwhelming evidence in its favor, but for some other reason. I challenge you to look inside and discover it while we continue to see the weakness of evolution.
1 A mass extinction occurred at the end of the Cretaceous period wiping out many species (not just dinosaurs). It seems to have taken out larger species preferentially and the larger dinosaurs were included. The smaller dinosaurs are still with as in the form of birds.
2. Im not too sure what you mean by this one but for Darwins theory it does not matter.
@ASparrow1 "Does D.N.A evidence contradict the theory of evolution?" A very open-ended question. It doesn't contradict the theory of Intelligent Design. So support for competing theories isn't proof for one.
A more restrictive question would be: What is it about DNA evidence that favors evolution and what is it about DNA evidence that favors ID?
@Saibrock Thanks. I am.
BTW I live 18 miles from Darwin's House in Kent England. If anyone visits London its easy to get to and is well worth a visit.