Evolution is Wrong...interesting video (1 Viewer)

[Fifty2One]

It is amazing some one can keep the grants and bursaries coming for 23 years - hard to tell which is more cleaver - the cash grab or studying genetic defects of e.coli and attrbuting the findings to prove evolution.

No evolution is not wrong it's a theory in exactly the same way as gravity is a theory. Apart from anything else evolution has been directly observed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

 

[AccessBlaster]

Which is why peer review is an important part of the procedure.

Thus Newton's theory of Gravity explained the facts observable when it was derived but later observations needed to be explained by Einstein's work. I am quite certain that there is still more work to be done on this.

The problem with peer review, it could take 200 years for someone qualified to review it.

 

[chergh]

It is amazing some one can keep the grants and bursaries coming for 23 years - hard to tell which is more cleaver - the cash grab or studying genetic defects of e.coli and attrbuting the findings to prove evolution.

Yeah because jewish super zombies are a much more likely explanation.

 

[Galaxiom]

Ta

You mean [a cat becoming a dog is] evolutionary impossible?

Why not?

So you reject Evolution on the grounds that a cat cannot mutate into a dog? Surprisingly (perhaps for you), Evolution would rule this out.

The dog and cat are both Order Carnivora but are vastly different Families.

Cats - Familiy Felidae (tigers, lions, leopards, cheetah, cougar, lynxes, cats etc)

Dogs - Family Canidae (dogs, wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackals)

The last common ancestor of cats and dogs was at least 20 million years ago.

 

[Alc]

The question noone seems to be asking is quite why God would to all the trouble of using an asteroid?

Perhaps it's the deity equivalent of an email with an attachment?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12240549

 

[Rabbie]

The question noone seems to be asking is quite why God would to all the trouble of using an asteroid?

I see no need to ask this question because I think that God is just a device thought up to explain facts before we discovered the science behind them

 

[Alc]

I see no need to ask this question because I think that God is just a device thought up to explain facts before we discovered the science behind them

Aha! That's just what He wants you to think.

 

[Mike375]

So you reject Evolution on the grounds that a cat cannot mutate into a dog? Surprisingly (perhaps for you), Evolution would rule this out.

The dog and cat are both Order Carnivora but are vastly different Families.

Cats - Familiy Felidae (tigers, lions, leopards, cheetah, cougar, lynxes, cats etc)

Dogs - Family Canidae (dogs, wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackals)

The last common ancestor of cats and dogs was at least 20 million years ago.

I have mentioned the legless lizards before and this is something I find interesting with evolution. The legless lizard is exactly that, a lizard that lost it legs, the rest of it is nothing like a snake and they are very incompetent compared to a snake. What you wind up with (I used to keep in a reptile collection) is sad little creature. Put is this way there are about 3000 species of snakes and 3000 species of lizard and of that 6000 there are about 12 legless lizards.

It is like the environment caused evolution of a lizard to be "snake like" but could not complete the job. For example, although a snake is thin for its weight, as most people know it can eat the same size animal as a lizard of equal weight can eat but no so the legless lizard. Legless lizards are immobilised on flat ground.

I assume there were probably many animals that were incompetent like legless lizards but they are extinct.

But if you have kept snakes, normal lizards and legless lizards you can't help but wonder "what 's going one here"

 

[Mike375]

Are there any transitional fossils where things are half formed. So I don't mean animals like archeopteryx.

The main difficulty I have with tansitions is where there would be the period where the animal was not real competitive. Forming an eye from a state of blindless is easy enough to follow.

Can anyone explain the way the transition worked for amphibian eggs to reptile eggs, that was a big change.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Can dogs evolve into cats?

No, but both could easily evolve into something other than what they are.

People SO often misunderstand evolution. It isn't that something familiar will somehow become something else that is also familiar. It is that over a LONG period of time, some critter can become a different type of critter that could not be mistaken for its ancestor. (And usually cannot breed with that ancestor, either.)

It has been observed in modern-day finches on some of the South Pacific islands. Finches can't migrate across the ocean, so the finches that are there evolved from whatever they were when the continents drifted apart many millions of years ago. Now, some finches exist that cannot mate with other finches on the island even though genetically their ancestry can be shown to be divergent from a common finch.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The main difficulty I have with transitions is where there would be the period where the animal was not real competitive. Forming an eye from a state of blindness is easy enough to follow.

Ah, but Mike, that never happens. If it cannot compete, it dies unless there IS no competition in the first place. And in that case, there would be less probability of evolutionary changes, too. Change occurs precisely because of the need to compete.

As to your question about amphibs to reptiles, sorry. Not my specialty. But you should be able to research it. I hear there's this really GREAT tool for finding things out based on just a few key words. I think they call it the ... Internet?

 

[Mike375]

As to your question about amphibs to reptiles, sorry. Not my specialty. But you should be able to research it. I hear there's this really GREAT tool for finding things out based on just a few key words. I think they call it the ... Internet?

I have done of plenty of that. Like the Bombadier beetle the other hard stuff gets lots "all that needs to happen next is ......." Insert magic

Amphibian eggs to reptile egg is the big change.

I think evolution is basically right but there are some missing parts to the equation. Of course perhaps more than any aspect of science it is caught up with politics/religion. So you get "soft" answers such as "we don't fully understand the mechanics" or similar.

 

[ChipperT]

Much of evolution happens because of mutations. Mutations can be large or small changes in the individual species. Depending on conditions, they can happen frequently to multiple individuals or infrequently to just a few. Radical mutations generally are not viable and do not survive to perpetuate. Mutations that prove beneficial to the species in dealing with the evironment, procreation, etc survive and are passed on to progeny. Small mutations can accumulate and cause large changes over time. The more complex the genome, generally the longer it takes for mutations to make a significant difference in the species. We see evolution in action every day, but generally we have to look at the less complex organisms to detect it. Viruses and bacteria are frequently producting new species through evolution because they are simpler organisms. But we can even see Homo sapiens evolving. An individual of our own species is very different than it was even 1,000 years ago. We are taller, our skeletal structures have evolved to support the additional weight and height. We are longer lived. We are more resistant to disease. All that is evoluation in action. You might say, "but we eat better, have better sanitation, better medicine". That is true, and those are environmental factors that spur our evolution.

Many anti-evolutionists ask "where are the missing links - the half ape, half man? Where are the half-horses?" First of all, the fossil record is very scanty. It takes a remarkable combination of events to preserve the fossil record of the past and it happens extremely infrequently. It is only that the timespan is so vast and the number of individuals of the fossils we have found were so numerous that we have found any at all. I am certain that there are an enormous number of species that have existed on our earth through the millenia that we have never found record of, or ever will.

 

[Galaxiom]

In fact molecular biologists say that our genome is changing very rapidly in modern times compared to the past. I expect this is due to far more combinations resulting from a highly mobile populations and the rapid changes to our environment.

Genes for adult digestion of lactose arose in Europe about 8000 years ago. Lactose intolerance is very common in Asia. Similarly the genes for dealing with gluten only became prevalent after the domestication of wheat.

 

[Mike375]

In fact molecular biologists say that our genome is changing very rapidly in modern times compared to the past. I expect this is due to far more combinations resulting from a highly mobile populations and the rapid changes to our environment.

Genes for adult digestion of lactose arose in Europe about 8000 years ago. Lactose intolerance is very common in Asia. Similarly the genes for dealing with gluten only became prevalent after the domestication of wheat.

But how much of this is a case of a version of the species simply becoming more common...peppered moth etc

The Australian aboriginal supposedly has big trouble with out diet. However, there will be some of them that are OK with our diet and they would be the ones that would do well.

 

[Galaxiom]

But how much of this is a case of a version of the species simply becoming more common...peppered moth etc

The Australian aboriginal supposedly has big trouble with out diet. However, there will be some of them that are OK with our diet and they would be the ones that would do well.

That is Natural Selection, the very basis of Evolution. The best traits increase in frequency in the population.

Altered combinations of genes lead to different traits. The best combintions prevail. That is why sexual reproduction is nearly universal in everything bigger than a bacterium and why microorganisms trade genes.

Organisms, including ourselves, even acquire genes through infection which can then be adapted through natural selection.

Many new traits start when multiple copies of an existing gene sequence occur through a glitch in the process of cell division. This leaves one copy of the gene to do the original job and provides an opportunity for diversification of the others which can ultimately lead to a different metabolic pathway or morphological difference.

It is remarkable how much change and diversity can be accumulated over billions of years and generations.

 

[Mike375]

Many anti-evolutionists ask "where are the missing links - the half ape, half man?

A lot who ask the question are not anti-evolutionists but rather people saying look "this theory seems to be missing a few parts". That is how I am with with evolution. For me, saying evolution is 100% is like saying the engine of a car propels it....no more no less. We can prove the engine works, predict quite accurately the power a given design will give etc. However, without a transmission/wheels the car won't go anyhwere.

Where are the half-horses?" First of all, the fossil record is very scanty. It takes a remarkable combination of events to preserve the fossil record of the past and it happens extremely infrequently. It is only that the timespan is so vast and the number of individuals of the fossils we have found were so numerous that we have found any at all. I am certain that there are an enormous number of species that have existed on our earth through the millenia that we have never found record of, or ever will.

But "100 percenter" evolutionists talk about change taking millions of years. In fact that is one the main arguing points. Just jump on an atheist forum and watch 'em. So the time factor is there to find the half horse etc. in addition shouldn' there be lots of versions of the half horse because of all the failures.

But I sure would like someone to outline the path to get from amphibian eggs to the reptile egg or if you like the egg from amniotes. Just think for a moment what needs to happen. The amphibian female shoots out thousand of eggs which are fertilised externally by the male, as they come out. Those eggs also need to be in water. The amniotes have internal fertilising and the female only lays a few eggs which don't need water. Also bear in mind this jump to the amniote egg is required so as dependency on water is no longer required and hence life spreads across the land.

 

[Mike375]

That is Natural Selection, the very basis of Evolution. The best traits increase in frequency in the population.

But the changes we are referring to here are still minor, the species does not change. Basically, a version of the species becomes the most prevalent or dominant one or as you say "The best traits increase in frequency in the population".

I think evolution, at least on the big changes, would be portrayed differently if it was not so integrated with religion and of course politics in the US of A. Because of religion/politics evolution needs to hold the line that the amphibian evolved to the amniote as opposed to looking for another answer. I think the answer will come when the "way life started" is answered.

 

[Galaxiom]

But the changes we are referring to here are still minor, the species does not change. [/qoute]

Big change is accumulated though a collection of small changes. Or do you not think that collecting a dollar every day for a billion years would result in possessing a fortune?

I think evolution, at least on the big changes, would be portrayed differently if it was not so integrated with religion and of course politics in the US of A.

So you think that Evolution is based on a scientific agenda of denying Creationism for political/religious reasons? That is a ludicous proposition that would require complicity of tens of thousands of scientists dedicated to finding the facts.

The poliical/religious agenda belongs with the faithful.

Because of religion/politics evolution needs to hold the line that the amphibian evolved to the amniote as opposed to looking for another answer. I think the answer will come when the "way life started" is answered.

No alternative to Evolution is required because it is thoroughly demonstrated as sufficient to do the task, demonstrated to be still occurring and revealed in the fossil record and genetic patterns of all life.

There is no other plausible candidate theory with even rudimentary evidence to support it.

 

[Mike375]

My "theory" is that when the start of life is fully answered that will result in the view that there were a lot more "starting points" In other words the amphibian will not be the reptile's great great etc grandfather.

I think if we had a special video that showed us from reptile back to its starting point the video would not show an amphibian along the way.

And I think the reason the fossil record does not show any half dog and half lizard is because they never existed.