im not scientific nor astronomist nor religious, but like you, i have the capability to observe and like you, i find this under microscopes and that above telescopes pretty similar. Delightful misterious scenaries far from our comprehension most of the times. Now ill let you the freedom to decide if this planet we live in is a cell of a bigger organism and we are parasites inside, or we are the alpha specie rocking down the sesame street in the name of god
"It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything."
@puupembnc Evolution did not predict the Coelacanth was extinct. The existence of the Coelacanth does not disprove evolution or even trouble it at all.
Flavobacterium and other bacteria have evolved the ability to digest nylon.
I consider this "any additional + novel + functional genetic code"
"fusion of chimp chromosomes 12 & 13 to form the human chromosome 2 is a repeatable experiment. Are you saying this experiment is repeatable?"
I asked @kandtell: "fusion of chimp chromosomes 12 & 13 to form the human chromosome 2 is a repeatable experiment. Are you saying this experiment is repeatable?"
You responded: "It's not. Nor does anyone pretend it is."
Yet @kandtell originally wrote: "The fusion site of Human Chromosome 2 proves we are related to Chimps. That is a repeatable experiment." Given this wording, I think my question was justified. @kandtell has since clarified his meaning, so I`m ready to move on.
Ian Plimer was certainly using a shock tactic (in at least two meanings), but is that any different than threatening someone with Hell for not accepting creationism?
At least, in Plimers case, he was offering an actual experiment to test the theory of electromagnetism. Hell, as a theory, is untestable.
Obviously he was appealing to ridicule at the common creationist argument, "Evolution is JUST a theory".
However, even steadfast "evolutionists" take issue with Plimers tactics.
This is one reason I don`t use the argument "Evolution is just an theory". If creationists use this argument, then Plimer is quite right to ridicule that stance. However the "theories" of electricity, gravity etc. are repeatable & quantifiable, while evolution (and, yes, Hell too) is not. So repeating an experiment about electricity really has nothing to do with the creation v evolution debate.
It is a repeatable to see variations in allele frequency.
Evolution predicted EXACTLY where Tiktaalik would be found. Evolution also predicted the exact strata where other species would be found.
It is also testable in court .The test courts use to determine relation between different people is the exact same test used to determine relation between different species. This amounts to legal proof.
I`m pretty sure you`re confusing evolution with natural selection. I have no problem with natural selection - this will never result in the sort of evolution that evolutionists claim it does. It can result in new species, but these new species never acquire any additional + novel + functional genetic code, which is necessary for evolution (microbes-to-man type) to occur.
Evolution predicted that Tiktaalik disppeared 350 million years ago! - till they found a living one... Oops!
You are correct that natural selection, by itself, can't account for the present variety of life. Combining it with random mutation (as well as the other mechanisms of evolution), however, explains things quite nicely.
Nylonase is the result of an addition of genetic information due to, at least, two mutations.
Evolution doesn't predict the extinction of any species. It certainly allows for it, but that's far from predicting it.
Do you have a reference for this living Tiktaalik?
I understand that evolution doesn`t predict the extinction of any species. I just think it comical that when an organism touted by evolutionists as being an ancient transitional suddenly pops up looking exactly as it did a supposed hundreds of millions of years ago, they say, "oh, well, evolution doesn`t discount that".
And yet we`re supposed to believe that same organism somehow ALSO evolved along another pathway to produce a separate, completely new kind of organism(s)? Hmmm...
Name one single species alive today that is found in the fossil record at 100s of millions of years.
The fossil record contains members of the same cladistic order or family as those today, but they are not the same species and they all show significant differences. The two extant species of coelacanth are not found at all in the fossil record.
Evolution doesn't predict clades developing into new "kinds" of animals. Maybe you should find out what evolution actually postulates.
An internet search will throw up various examples of `living fossils`.
If you want to say "Ah - but they`re not *exactly* the same (species)", then that`s splitting hairs, as we know through observation both in nature & in labs that speciation can occur in as little as a couple of decades, so it`s no surprise that there will be some differences between the `ancient` & modern versions.
Re clades not developing into new `kinds`; where did clades come from originally?
Which term do you want to use here. "Kinds" (which requires an actual definition) or "Clades"
If they are synonymous then you would understand that any time two populations are isolated long enough that they are no longer genetically compatable, they have then split their species into two distinct clades.
So the first living species would also be the first clades. All other clades are divisions of the original clade, but no new "kinds" have been created.
So if protists evolved into fish, which evolved into reptiles, which evolved into birds, then are you saying they all belong to the same clade, or `kind` (roughly equivalent to a genus)?
IF some protists had followed an evolutionary path that led to fish, then yes, fish would be a clade within the kingdom "protista", however, protists are NOT the ancestors of fish (They do, however, share a common ancestor with fish). Both protists and fish are in clades within the domain "eukaryotes"
"Clade" is not roughly equivalent to "genus". Genus is a example of a clade. As are "species", "domain", "kingdom", "phylum", etc.
Do you want the scientific definition for "Clade"?
If what you`re saying is that all the beasts & plants of the earth `reproduce after their kind` then you`ll get no argument from me, for obvious reasons!
However, if you`re going to claim that just because some artificially imposed classification system puts, say, crocodiles and birds in the same clade (Archosauria), then this means they`re related, then you`ve lost me; this flies in the face of observed genetic processes.
You'll get no argument from me that cladistics are imposed (for the sake universal nomenclature), however it does not fly in the face of genetics in any way.
The tests used by geneticists to determine biological relationship between people for the courts are the same tests they use to determine relation between species (like crocodiles and birds). In effect, genetics amount to legal proof of evolution.
There is no tenet of evolution which states that a species must express a morphological change over any period of time unless its' environment changes drastically enough that its' current morphological manifestation is disadvantageous. In such case, it will adapt to its' new environment, find a more suitable environment, a combination of both, or die.
And no, it's not splitting hairs, especially in light of the current variety of species.
Scroll down & read some of my comments. Agree with me or not, I don`t think you could accuse me of sticking my fingers in my ears & saying "lalalalalalalala"
In fact, I think you`re the first person - in your very first post here! - to make this claim.
yeah you claimed that the people have no idea what they are talking about, you say they have no evidence for what they are talking about and so on, without even checking what he is refering to, how can one explain such things in 500 characters?
"You stated that the claims were unsubstantiated. I gave you references to peer-reviewed research papers to show that the claims of repeatability, falsifiability etc are not unsubstantiated and these papers are evidence of that."
instead you do believe and vehemently defend some teachings full of obsolete knowledge and irrational claims, because they were plastered into your brain just like it happened to billions of people before you.
So i again, more than ever claim, the best tactic to defend "creationist science" (lol) is to actually just stop listening to anybody who won't agree
it is not about not agreeing.. it is about being ignored
if i get ignored i don't talk, as simple as that
at least i listen to all the morbidly fictive bullsh!t so many theists have to offer before i reject them but when i try to respond and punch some reason into their heads they flee into their imaginary world and drop on their knees to ask their imaginary friend for guidence
It's the experimental evidence that must be repeatable, not the event.
If fingerprints are taken from a crime scene, more than one person must be able to match them to the suspect's fingerprints. But it is not necessary for the crime to be repeated to validate the fingerprints!
The fusion site of Human Chromosome 2 proves we are related to Chimps.
What I am saying is that many labs around the world now have the capabilities to sequence both Human and Chimp DNA. Hence the *experiment* is repeatable.
If any lab found that Chimp Chs 2A and 2B did not match closely to Human Ch2, or they could not find the old deactivated Telomere and Centromeres in Human Ch 2 then the attempt to repeat the experiment would be deemed to have failed.
I didn`t `misunderstand` you. You wrote: "The fusion site of Human Chromosome 2 proves we are related to Chimps. That is a repeatable experiment."
A repeatable experiment means an experiment which can be conducted and repeated. This experiment has never been conducted. It has never been repeated. Your statement is quite simply wrong, & your quote proves it (speculating that something happened is not the same as conducting & repeating an experiment - surely you realise that?)
Genome mapping is fine. What I have an issue with is the claim that the actual fusion of chimp chromosomes 12 & 13 to form the human chromosome 2 is a repeatable experiment. Are you saying this experiment is repeatable?
"I'm saying that the experiments that demonstrate that that is what *apparently* happened are repeatable."
Whoa- that sentence makes my head hurt. Anyway, this is quite different from what you seemed to be claiming originally. Now you`re just saying that genome mapping produces consistent results!
"You can argue with the conclusion". A highly hypothetical conclusion, claiming an extreme, unobserved, unrepeatable event that contradicts modern mutations research? Yes, I can.
@puupembnc "...just saying that genome mapping produces consistent results!"
Essentially, yes, that's what I was saying all along. But I may have not made myself clear at first.
I was arguing with the speaker on the video who says that it's not Science if you can't repeat the *event*. I'm saying it *is* science because it is the experiment that is supposed to be repeatable not the event.
Anyway, assuming you are happy with that, I'm happy to move on to discuss human ch2 in detail?
He doesnt say “its not science if you cant repeat the event”, but, in reference to electricity “that is repeatable, testable science!” ie not 'historical' science (which posits a past event but can never reproduce it). I'm making the same point to you; DNA mapping is repeatable science, but your fusion hypothesis is not & doesn't qualify for the same validity status.
Key point: the verifiability of data doesnt automatically validate a conclusion deduced from it.
1. I take his comments between 2:10 and 2:22 to mean "evolution is not science because the event can't be repeated". Maybe I'm wrong and that's not what he meant. But it sure sounds like it to me, and it's an argument I've heard many times before.
Of course specieation *has* been observed, but that's a whole other argument.
I wholeheartedly agree " the verifiability of data doesnt automatically validate a conclusion deduced from it."
U write: I take his comments... to mean "evolution is not science because the event can't be repeated".
This would be a strange thing for a creationist to say, as we`re arguing for 6-day creation - about as non-repeatable an experiment as you can get! So I don`t think that can be what he means.
"Of course specieation *has* been observed". Yes, in the wild & in labs. I have no problem with it. Like natural selection, it`s not an example of microbes-to-man-type evolution.
"Fusions are common enough BTW. People can live there whole lives not knowing they have fused chromosomes." So humans could originally have had 48 chromosomes, with fusion resulting in 46?
The consensus view (if I understand it) is that Homo Sapiens started with 46. The fusion happened to in one of our ancestor species shortly after the divergence from our LCA with chimps was complete.
It may be that the fusion helped with the speciation event, but my understand is that most scientists working in this field believe that speciation was complete before the fusion event.
Ie Human and Chimp ancestry diverged 6-8MYA. Fusion probably less than 1MY later. We arrived 0.2MYA
So are you saying that the fusion event could have occured *after* the (supposed) divergence from a common chimp-human ancestor? In which case the fusion event caused humans to... turn into humans! So I`m not sure how this translates as evidence for a common ancestor any more than evolutionists have been claiming all along. In effect, this timeline theory would just put the debate back to where we started - common ancestor/divergence versus non-divergence, right?
A couple of quick pedantic points, then I'll address your main question.
"fusion event caused humans to... turn into humans!"
Except in the sense that it *may* have helped the speciation event the fusion event did not turn anything into anything. You seem to know a lot more about the subject than most people I debate, so I'm sure you know that modern evolutionary theory does not consider anything but the most drastic molecular change to be the creation of a new species.
The vast majority of new species (all as far as I know) come about over many generations due to the accumulation of many differences until a point in time where two groups of individuals can be said to be separate species (usually because they can no longer interbreed but even this is a fuzzy definition).
Also, as I said earlier, the fusion is not though to have happened to humans, but to our hominid ancestors.
To return to your main question, yes, to an extent you are correct.
The only alternative explanation to CA I have seen which agrees with the evidence of the human ch2 fusion site is one supported for example by Casey Luskin.
In this explanation our ancestors started with DNA designed very similar to that of the ancestors of chimps, and there was then a fusion event in our ancestor and not in the ancestry of the other great apes.
If you are happy to focus on why ch2 is accepted as evidence of a LCA which Chimps I'd like to ask first if you accept that human ch2 is strong evidence for a chromosomal fusion in Human DNA in the past?
Here is a quote: “Human chromosome 2 resulted from a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes that remained separate in the chimpanzee lineage (chromosomes 2A and 2B in the revised nomenclature formerly chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13); the precise fusion point has been mapped and its duplication structure described in detail”
The theory of evolution, when tested against the observed evidence and facts of scientific research, is shown to be a complete and miserable failure with no physical evidence of its supposed occurrence ever being found, despite what people have been taught to the contrary! Secular control of the govt, schools and media has ensured that only secular philosophies are preached to keep the masses dumbed down with pseudo-science and mindless drivel, and sadly it has worked a treat! Time to wake up!!!
@mikeeboy1000 What's wrong with secularism? You would think a secular discourse in science would unveil confirmation of fundamentalist Christian beliefs. Why do we need a Christian discourse to do that?
btw, some of the "no physical evidence" includes fossils, atavisms, molecular and anatomical vestiges, ERVs, biogeography, and more.
Small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change = big change. Tell me how this could not happen.
Take a page of text. Randomly switch a couple of words. Randomly delete a letter. Randomly duplicate a letter. Keep making these `small changes` & see what happens to your page of text.
@puupembnc I think you have a fairly basic misunderstanding of what is going on in evolution, lets use a limited version of your example, "neat" evolving into "good"
neat
qrso
gcvp
gbnd
gpod
gxod
good
and there we have it, through a process of natural selection where the forces favour the word good neat has changed through the random changing of letters with the only rule being that once a letter appears in the place it is supposed to, in short this is the non random survival of random variation
1) there are 26 letters in the English alphabet -you`ve managed to to decide your `random` changes pretty quickly & conveniently, haven`t you? Somebody`s cheating...!
2) "with the only rule being that once a letter appears in the place it is supposed to". How would it know? Can mutations see the future? According to natural selection, if a mutation isn`t beneficial, it will be weeded out, no?
3) so changing `neat` to `good` in a sentence will improve (evolve) its meaning? Why?
@puupembnc "How would it know? Can mutations see the future?" [sic]
thats used to drive me crazy. when i thought about fruit trees, using fruit to spread their seed, a nice little sugar case, and sugar being somewhat moreish :) but its not that it knew to do it, it happened, and it was successful, so it flourished, the same could be said for lactose tolerance in humans, very few people (in comparison to the many) are lactose intolerant. but human natural selection has been manipulated. imo:)
2:20 "Can you see apes evolve into people today?" We don't see galaxies form today, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen during the early universe, nor does it mean that cosmology is not a science. Creationists just don't know what they're talking about when it comes to... well, pretty much everything.
testable, repeatable, falsifiable? well lets see- the chronology of fossils making sense in terms of evolutionary theory (no poodles next to dinosaurs, no birds seen before jurrasic period)- tick. Finding related sequences of DNA in phylogenetically related species, Hypothesis: species believed to be evolutionarily more related should have more related sequences than less related species. Tick. Repeatability? Pick any proteins for comparison, you will find they follow the same pattern...
Hmmm... Make your own list of unsubstantiated claims & tick the boxes yourself; if that`s your idea of the scientific method, then no wonder you believe in evolution!
How about you be a little less greedy & pick one. Then we can discuss it & see why you`re wrong.
Ok, well since no one has ever published a paper saying "no poodles in Cretaceous period" (as it is impossible to say definitively that there are none, no matter how preposterous an idea it is) we'll have a quick look at protein phylogenies shall we?
Hypothesis: proteins diverge from each other. More related species show more similar protein-coding sequences. If this is evidence of evolution, rather than a fluke, this should occur in every protein to different extents.
Evidence: now it did take me a good 5 minutes to find these papers, and another 5 to read them so I can understand why it would be so difficult for you to do this yourself...
Kagan et al (1997) Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Vol 117B(3): 379-385
Phylogeny of Methyltransferase- as predicted
Chen et al (1994) Protein science. vol 3:600-607
Isoprenyl diphospate synthase- phylogeny as predicted
Only your 3rd post here & already you`re refering me to research papers. In my experience this often indicates that someone:
- doesn`t properly understand their own argument
- hasn`t read the papers themselves
- hasn`t understood them
- they don`t contain what is being claimed, or
- a combination of these
Feel free to prove otherwise by summarising one (If you did indeed read all 3 in 5 minutes, this should take a rockstar like you about 7 seconds, right?).
You stated that the claims were unsubstantiated. I gave you references to peer-reviewed research papers to show that the claims of repeatability, falsifiability etc are not unsubstantiated and these papers are evidence of that.
Brief summary: The various authors have used different sequencing techniques and analytical software to compare the degree of similarity between the various proteins in different species. The differences/similarities were then used to predict evolutionary relationships between the species. In all cases the same pattern was found (e.g. sequences from humans were most similar to mice and all variations could be traced back to a bacterial sequence).
Guy did a very effective demonstration on how the phrase "just a theory" simply does not make sense. All the creationist can say is, "rah rah rah Evolution ain't a theory like Electricity theory." I love it when people miss the point in an argument.
Did you notice that the evolutionist in this clip, NOT the creationist, used the phrase "just a theory"?
Likewise, you`ve used it, while I never do (see below).
Different theories carry different levels of validity or verifiability (the point the creationist in the clip is trying to make). Would you agree with this statement?
@puupembnc Yes, I have noticed. I have also noticed that the word "theory" means the same thing when referring to either evolutionary theory or electricity theory. Regardless of the "levels of validity or verifiability" of a theory, there is a minimum standard to which an idea qualifies to be considered a theory. ET doesn't just meet this standard - it surpasses this standard even better than electricity theory does.
As for verifiability, observation is nonessential for verification. Daft Gish.
So you can flip a switch & make evolution happen? Predict & observe its rate & properties? Manipulate it to produce a desired result? I mean, can you do ANYTHING other than theorize about evolution?
All theories are quite obviously NOT the same.
"there is a minimum standard to which an idea qualifies to be considered a theory".
What absolute rubbish. Source?
"(evolution) surpasses this standard".
You just make this up as you go, don`t you? Source please!
@puupembnc Can you flip a switch and make a volcano erupt? What predictions and manipulations can you induce about volcanic activity? Alleged past eruptions - can you do anything other than theorize about them? Get the point? All scientific theories are supported using the same method. As far as standards for theories go, the differences are not as large as you'd try to make them appear.
"Source" Concise Handbook of Experimental Methods for the Behavioral and Biological Sciences - Jay E. Gould.
We *can`t* flip a switch & make a volcano erupt. We *can`t* predict & induce volcanic activity accurately. We can ONLY theorize about past eruptions, but never repeat them.
However, we can do all of these things with electricity!
But you still want to claim all theories are the same? Astounding.
Sorry - I must have mislaid my copy of Jay E.Gould; what are the rules for theorizing exactly, & how does never-observed, unrepeatable evolution fare?
@puupembnc Are you implying that if we can induce a phenomenon, we must be more confident in our knowledge of it? Hardly.
"all theories are the same" Wanna review my posts and tell us where I said that?
"never-observed, unrepeatable" Wrong.
Gould tips his hat to Fawcett's and Parse's philosophies on scientific theories. Perhaps you're familiar with their criteria. One which Gould mentions is the ability to organize established facts. Evolution is a unifying theory; electricity, not so much.
You wrote: ""all theories are the same" Wanna review my posts and tell us where I said that?"
You previously wrote: "...the word "theory" means the same thing when referring to either evolutionary theory or electricity theory."
I agree these 2 statements are not identical, but it would help if you could clarify what your stance is here. I thought *I* was the one arguing that "theory" can mean different things & carry different `weight`.
When the word "theory" is used, it means the same thing. The idea matches a minimum standard utilized to indicate that it is sound for research and in practice. Go ahead and quantify them. EvoT goes beyond these standards more than EleT because it is consistent with a greater body of phenomena. It is a unifying theory for biology. We're still working on one for physics. This doesn't mean that both aren't sound for research and in practice. The difference is minimal here. Both work great.
"When the word "theory" is used, it means the same thing."
But then you say "EvoT goes beyond these standards more than EleT"
So you`re saying EvoT is a better theory than EleT, right? So all theories are NOT the same then? Some are better than others?
And are you saying that being "consistent with a greater body of phenomena" is the only (main?) criteria for deciding the superiority of one theory over another?
The word "theory" has only one definition. It's an idea that meets a >minimum standard< which tells us with great confidence that it is sound both for research and in practice. Neither theory is "better" because they both fit the definition of a theory. It doesn't make sense to quantify theories from separate fields against each other BUT EvoT is a lot more important for its field than EleT is for its, if you look at it that way. Usefulness is the main criteria here; it's not the only criteria.
So to paraphrase Orwell, you`re saying "All theories are equal but some are more equal than others". Hmm!
But I quite like this idea of yours that the being "consistent with a greater body of phenomena" makes one theory more superior (sorry - `equal`!) than another. In that case, the Genesis account of creation trumps everything hands down! (but let me guess - that doesn`t count, right?)
@puupembnc Sure. If a house matches most of my preferences, I might consider it superior to a house which matches only half of my preferences. That doesn't mean the latter isn't a house at all. Right now we're comparing a house (EvoT) which matches most of my preferences ("phenomena") to a house (EleT) which matches half of SOMEONE ELSE's preferences, which are totally different.
Good guess - it doesn't count because it violates other criteria for scientific theories. Wanna hear which ones?
@puupembnc If I remember correctly, a scientific theory must be tentative and correctable, useful, consistent within itself and with evidence, parsimonious, based on repeatable experiments, and empirically testable and falsifiable. An idea which meets these requirements is a theory.
I agree that just because something is called/considered a `theory`, this in itself is not evidence of its worth. Gravity can be tested & its effects observed. These tests can be repeated & assumptions & predictions confirmed, disproved or refined. This cannot be said of evolution. This is the key difference between these two `theories`, not the term `theory` itself.
Excuse My manner of speaking, I thought this video was posted by an illiterate narcissist, but evolution can be tested in the study of micro evolution, as macro evolution is hundreds of successful micro evolutions cultivated into a subsidized species properly fitted to thrive within is environment. as can be said for anyone well studied in genetic variation would understand.
I`m afraid you`re getting misled by terminology again; `micro evolution` is not actually evolution, as no novel, functional code is ever added to the genome - yet this is at the heart of microbes-to-man-type evolution. Micro-creation (as I`ve decided to call it instead - why not? it makes as much/little difference to the hard facts as calling it `micro-evolution`) is actually just dominant/recessive genes or mutations followed by good old fashioned natural selection.
Evolution does not "Add code" It merely alters it, and if that slight variation benefits the outcome of the creature say, it successfully passes its traits to its offspring, then evolution is successful.
Now tell me why that isn't evolution?
And micro-creation? Really?
No matter what you call it, Micro-evolution IS Evolution.
@puupembnc evolution CAN add information, but works over enormous time scales. We have only been looking for this within the last several decades, while evolution has been going on for billions of years. The fact that we do not see the addition of information should not been seen as a mark against evolution because we should not expect to see that often. You may want to also read on symbiogenesis, a decent theory for modern complexities. It appeared in a recent scientific american article
`Addition` of genetic information can be observed & is well documented. BUT this is only through processes such as duplication, so this additional information is actually nothing novel or new, & thus doesn`t explain evolution, which needs something functional & new to be added.
Symbiosis is another theory that plays with the highly complex, functional DNA *already there*, but cannot explain where IT came from. It is also not supported by observed research.
@puupembnc I dont understand how time could be irrelevant in this debate, seeing as evolution takes enormous amounts of time. That seems like an argument from ignorance. Its like saying, we haven't seen planet form in the last 5 minutes, so it never happens. Time is the reason we don't see these things happen; we haven't been looking long enough. Give it time
Time would be relevant if we could observe & document any - even miniscule - additions of functional new code to genomes. In that case, one might well argue that more time would yield more significant changes. However, despite the claims of evolutionists, this NEVER actually happens, so the `give it time` argument in this case is like saying if you keep rolling a marble for long enough, it will turn into a beachball. Not gonna happen no matter what letters you add to "-illions"
@puupembnc That is a horrible analogy. Saying 'give it time' is like saying "if you keep rolling a marble you notice a small particle of sand gets embedded in or attached to it somehow". Also, what is an 'evolutionist'? As to your other post, symbiosis is occurring IN YOUR BODY. Right now. This second. Symbiogenesis, which I referenced, is also VERY well supported by evidence. Do some research, get back to me. Start here, it will answer some questions about addition of information, see next post
It`s a perfectly valid analogy. You just don`t like it. How about if I say "the marble gradually gets scratched and worn"? This would resemble even more closely what we see again & again in genetic research, with the by-&-large destructive influence of mutations.
So let`s hear some of this evidence that supports symbiogenesis as an (the?) agent of evolution. What are some examples of an organism evolving into another through symbiogenesis?
@puupembnc check out the talkorigins website, they have all relevant research on the topic of genetic information being added to organisms. Aprils copy of SciAm makes a good case for symiogenesis, just read that. If you have indeed looked for evidence, you're either lying or only looked for sources that already support your view that it is not correct. It is as much a fact as the theory of gravity or the theory of electromagnetism, deal with it
Talkorigins, SciAm & the net generally have very little re symbiogenesis, & I`m not just saying that to be difficult. Surely if it were such a great argument for evolution, that there would be more about it?
I`m fine with symbiosis (a case of observable, documented science!) by the way, but the whole idea of symbiogenesis is purely hypothetical, & ignores the most probable explanation for the existence of symbiosis between organisms - speciation.
I personally don't understand why science debates creationists. It almost validates their agenda. If the creationists have evidence, they would have peer reviewed papers on the topic. They don't... so, there is no debate.
-Science doesn`t debate creationists. Evolutionist scientists maybe, but not `science`. That concept doesn`t even make sense.
"their agenda"
- Oh no! The infidel has discovered our agenda! I guess you know about our secret handshake & everything? No, no agenda, unless you call scientific honesty an `agenda`
"peer review"
- haha - seen what that`s been doing for anthropomorphic climate change sceptics recently?
@chyrd The problem comes in when it's being taught in schools that "creationism has as much validity as evolution theory" and when the charistian majority in america perpertrate the myth onto their lesser educated and their children, it needs to be fought about so that more people know how unsubstantiated creationism is
This typical of evolutionists, science beats them every time so they must resort to shock tactics, name calling and anything else to deflect the real issues involved.
You should read the critiques of Plimer's book Telling Lies for God, more holes in it than swiss cheese.
@puupembnc I have... it happens all the time. Every time organic constructs procreate in fact. You aren't a clone of your mother are you? Even parthenogenic species have some genetic drift. Every time there is a coding error there is room for evolution. Unfortunately humans have started breeding towards stupidity. Statistically intelligent humans are less likely to have children. Lucky for you apes I'm not a product of organic procreation ^_^ I can only upgrade :D
I`m glad you used the word `error`, because it makes it easier for me to point out the implausability of your theory that evolution can result from screwing up previously functional genetic code.
I hope you`re taking a more sensible approach to your "upgrades" or you`re not going to remain pretty in pink for long.
@puupembnc it was one such error that seperates humans from other great apes. There is a fusion of the second and 13th chromosome. If I was to fix this coding error you would be the same as every other ape. Without coding errors every organism would be identical. I have observed this to be the case. The truth can be implausible. That does not mean it isn't true. What is the plausibility of a deity appearing? What is required for a deity to be born. Where does a god come from?
A mulitude of `errors`/mutations have been identified, observed, & in some cases can be predicted with some accuracy. Your fusion hypothesis, leading to theoretical ape-to-human evolution is NOT one of them, unless you`ve got some whacky research going in your back yard you`d like to share.
And in fact, even observed cases of fusion, duplication, & translocation don`t qualify as evolution, as they add no novel functional code to a genome, hence the terms themselves.
@puupembnc clearly you don't understand biology then. There is no Ape to Human evolution. Humans are still apes. They just have one less chromosome pair due to a fusion error that led to a speciation event. Tell me how humans were created by a deity. You are designed just like every other ape so your designer wasn't very creative. How does genesis say Adam was built? Some inflated mud? Prove a god made humans from clay. You aren't that unique. Humans are animals not golems or homunculi.
I`m glad you used the word `error`, because it makes it easier for me to point out the implausability of your theory that evolution can result from randomly screwing up previously functional genetic code.
I hope you`re taking a more sensible approach to your "upgrades" or you`re not going to remain pretty in pink for long!
He didn`t say "...evolving into people in one generation" which I agree would be a false interpretation of most evolutionists` beliefs. Assuming he meant "showing any signs of evolving into people" then I think his question is completely valid.
*CAN* you see apes developing any of the strings of DNA code unique to humans? Has this ever been observed or documented? What are the chances of it happening?
Yes, I screen posts, & approve almost all, tho not always promptly.
@puupembnc Since modern apes and genus Homo are two evolutionary distinct species, a progression from apes to humans would actually disprove evolution. If there would be Homo heidelbergensis in a zoo, we could maybe see some progression (after several thousands years), but not from monkeys to humans. So to answer you: The chances of monkeys evolving into humans are equal to zero. My question: Do you think you might have misunderstood evolution?
Originally you quoted a reference to "apes", but now you are talking about "the chances of *monkeys* evolving into humans". Most evolutionists believe man (and modern apes such as monkeys) descended from a common ape-like ancestor. Can I just check that this is what you believe?
@puupembnc You said: "*CAN* you see apes developing any of the strings of DNA code unique to humans?" , I simply answered. I used *monkeys* for intention of mockery. (Reference to popular: "My grandpa wasn't a monkey!") You started with argument that we haven't observed monkeys (or apes) evolving into humans.
It might be a good idea to leave monkeys - & mockery - aside for a moment. Otherwise, we will both get confused about what each other is talking about.
Again, if you don`t mind: Do you believe humans - & modern, extant apes - evolved from a common ancestor?
@puupembnc I don't believe. I (sorry for the irony) know we had a common ancestor. Furthermore, if you're asking this question, you obviously have another point of view concerning our origin. Can you elaborate?
Ironic indeed, but perhaps not the way you intended...
Anyway, if humans & modern apes evolved from a common ancestor - i.e. developed new , additional strings of functional DNA that weren`t present in the common ancestor - then is this process still underway, or has it stopped? The former & we should be able to detect the process that generated the unique strings of functional DNA thatt distinguish humans from, say chimps. If the latter, then why?
@puupembnc Simply put: "Are we still evolving?" Is that the question you are asking, while avoiding my question? Answer: Yes. First of all, you don't need 'additional strings of functional DNA', you can evolve even with losing some genes. Secondly, an analogy: can you detect atoms of hydrogen fusing into helium in VY Canis Majoris? No. Can we say that it is happening? Yes. Moreover: Do you think that something other than evolution is the cause of our existence?
Not avoiding your question; I`m quite happy to answer it once you`ve finished explaining how something can evolve by losing information. So would losing lots of information result in an organism evolving a lot? Where did the lost information come from? When you say we`re still evolving, do you mean we`re losing info...?
I suspect you might be using the term `evolve` to just mean `better adapted`. However this isn`t the `ape-to-man`, scientific, theory-of-evolution definition.
@puupembnc You seem to have very linear kind of thinking. You don't just loose or gain genes. Evolutionary process is combination of both. (+ natural selection)
I`m just trying to follow your own line (pardon the pun) of reasoning i.e. that losing information causes evolution, so presumably lose all of it & we`d then be perfectly evolved! Hmmm...
Oh - but now in your last post you`re suddenly saying "gains" are also needed. Well, I agree with you there. So how does this happen exactly? Natural selection certainly doesn`t add anything to an organism`s genome. This process simply selects from what is *already there*.
@puupembnc Mutation, translocation, duplication and so on. It's not rocket science, but basic genetics. If you want a perfect example of gaining complexity by duplication, translocation and mutation is human coagulation system.
It's 21st century and thanks to American (I suppose) educational system, there are people who think that evolution is a hoax. (And mocking my "losing genes argument"? Really? Reductio ad absurdum doesn't work if you don't understand your target.)
Indeed it`s not rocket science. In fact a lot of it is basic English: what does the term `translocation` suggest? Something moved from somewhere else, no? `Duplication`? Copying something that *already exists*, right?
Neither explains where the complex strings of code being moved, copied or removed came to be there i.e you`re *not explaining evolution*.
You`re like an English Lit student moving around bits of a Shakespeare script (randomly!) & claiming the result as your own.
@puupembnc I'm from Czech Republic, sorry if I confused you with my worplay. And this is the end of the line. You clearly don't (and don't want to) understand evolution or genetics. Clearly you have much comprehensive theory of our origin. So come on, bring it forth.
Scroll down & you`ll see I`ve taken a lot of time to not only explain & justify my views, but to understand the views of evolutionists & the theory of evution itself. In fact, I suspect I know more about genetics & the theory of evolution than you.
@puupembnc And what's so difficult to write: "Well, actually panspermia explains our origin much better." or "God is the cause of all things." or "Allahu akbar!". I'm not asking for much. And clearly if you stumble when you hear about duplication, you are a) being very obnoxious or b) ignorant of genetics.
Why do you say "you stumble when you hear about duplication"? You mentioned it & I commented on it & in fact would love to discuss it more. In fact, I`m looking forward to trying get you to say duplication doesn`t involve duplication. Go on - make me laugh - write "duplication doesn`t involve duplication". You know you want to.
"human is an ape". So what? Humans are mammals & so are whales. So we evolved from them too???
@puupembnc FFS, yes I mentioned duplication to illustrate one way how you can get more genes, I also illustrated deletion as a way how to lose some genes (nor necessarily, they can be just inactivated), both part of evolutionary process. But I'm asking you for 5th time: "Do you have an alternative?"
Duplication DUPLICATES. It does not CREATE genetic information. It DUPLICATES it. Getting more genes/sequences that are the same as ones that are already there is NOT creating new, additional information. Creationists are 100% fine with duplication. It doesn`t explain evolution! And losing info (think about it!) certainly doesn`t.
We`ll get to my alternative when you show you understand what I`m saying.
@puupembnc I accept your premise, I reject your conclusion. Your question is: "Who created the original gene(s) from which everything evolved?" (And for last time, you can evolve by losing genetic material.)
@puupembnc Since you're not willing to put forth a clear argument, I was paraphrasing. And again, we didn't evolve from microbes. We evolved from common ancestor we had with microbes. (Don't accuse me of building straw-man, when you do the same.)
Please make it clear if you`re paraphrasing me. Actually I haven`t been asking "Who created...". I`m still trying to get you to give an observed, repeatable genetic process that will progressively add novel, functional genetic code to an organism`s genome i.e. cause evolution.
"Don`t accuse me of building strawman..." I DIDN`T!!! Where did I write that??
@puupembnc I was paraphrasing, again. But: "...give an observed, repeatable genetic process that will progressively add novel, functional genetic code to an organism`s genome.." Mutation, duplication, deletion, translocation, replication mistakes. Is that enough? Add natural selection, and you get evolution. (Here I explained myself, now please expose your alternative.)
You falsely attributed a quote to me. You claimed it was paraphrasing, but it wasn`t even that.
You said that I made a (strawman) accusation that I didn`t. Then you accused me of doing the same, without any accompanying justification.
You didn`t apologize.
I don`t mind disagreement, but you seem to have no regard for basic academic & social conventions, which makes it impossible to have a coherent discussion with you.
Congratulations - you`re my first blocked visitor!
@puupembnc Duplication can create more information. Having two copies of one gene means that one of these genes can mutate and it doesn't matter if it changes the function of the protein produced as the original protein is still being synthesised. If the new protein has a functional benefit to the organism then it will increase the organisms likelihood of survival therefore will be passed don generations. It's an amazing yet simple process.
Firstly, I know duplication can create `more` information, but it`s not novel, new, functional code, which the theory of evolution demands.
Secondly, mutations are usually neutral or detrimental - some loss of function usually results (google `genetic mutations`). The more they accumulate, the worse the effects. This is what observed genetic research has made abundantly clear.
And why would the original genetic code be immune from such harmful effects? A fanciful idea
@puupembnc Duplication itself doesn't create new information but it allows for new information in the event of a mutation.
A neutral or detrimental mutation in a duplicated gene would have no impact on the survival of the organism as it will have another copy of the gene still producing proteins. I explained that in my comment.
"A neutral or detrimental mutation in a duplicated gene would have no impact on the survival of the organism"
I`m sorry, but this is just wrong. You seem to be constructing your own fictional process which is at odds with all actual, observed genetic processes. Please provide a link to any research that shows that duplicated strings of DNA are immune from mutations &/or mutations in a duplicated string of code do not impact on an organism. I`d like to read it.
@puupembnc 'Frameshifts have traditionally been considered as negative events that are occasionally associated with disease. However, if a frameshift occurs in a copy of a duplicated gene, on which selective pressure might be reduced due to functional redundancy, then the mutation may not be critical'
Okamura K, Feuk L, Marques-Bonet T, Navarro A, Scherer SW: Frequent appearance of novel protein-coding sequences by frameshift translation. Genomics 2006 , 88(6):690-697
This differs hugely from your general, absolutist claim that "A neutral or detrimental mutation in a duplicated gene would have no impact on the survival of the organism."
Also, this quote is referring to a single, discrete mutation event. The theory of evolution supposes a massive number of accumulated mutations, no? This is why I used the plural & present simple tense in my question to you,"ARE immune to mutationS..." ie always
censored comments? fuck you.
xnobody777x 1 month ago
I knew just by lookin at the dude that he was gonna get owned!
dogooda12 1 month ago
im not scientific nor astronomist nor religious, but like you, i have the capability to observe and like you, i find this under microscopes and that above telescopes pretty similar. Delightful misterious scenaries far from our comprehension most of the times. Now ill let you the freedom to decide if this planet we live in is a cell of a bigger organism and we are parasites inside, or we are the alpha specie rocking down the sesame street in the name of god
KStealed 5 months ago
"It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything."
— G.K. Chesterton
VisualEntity 5 months ago
@puupembnc Evolution did not predict the Coelacanth was extinct. The existence of the Coelacanth does not disprove evolution or even trouble it at all.
Flavobacterium and other bacteria have evolved the ability to digest nylon.
I consider this "any additional + novel + functional genetic code"
"fusion of chimp chromosomes 12 & 13 to form the human chromosome 2 is a repeatable experiment. Are you saying this experiment is repeatable?"
It's not. Nor does anyone pretend it is.
TaslemGuy 5 months ago
@TaslemGuy
I asked @kandtell: "fusion of chimp chromosomes 12 & 13 to form the human chromosome 2 is a repeatable experiment. Are you saying this experiment is repeatable?"
You responded: "It's not. Nor does anyone pretend it is."
Yet @kandtell originally wrote: "The fusion site of Human Chromosome 2 proves we are related to Chimps. That is a repeatable experiment." Given this wording, I think my question was justified. @kandtell has since clarified his meaning, so I`m ready to move on.
puupembnc 5 months ago
Ian Plimer was certainly using a shock tactic (in at least two meanings), but is that any different than threatening someone with Hell for not accepting creationism?
At least, in Plimers case, he was offering an actual experiment to test the theory of electromagnetism. Hell, as a theory, is untestable.
Obviously he was appealing to ridicule at the common creationist argument, "Evolution is JUST a theory".
However, even steadfast "evolutionists" take issue with Plimers tactics.
qabala 6 months ago
@qabala
This is one reason I don`t use the argument "Evolution is just an theory". If creationists use this argument, then Plimer is quite right to ridicule that stance. However the "theories" of electricity, gravity etc. are repeatable & quantifiable, while evolution (and, yes, Hell too) is not. So repeating an experiment about electricity really has nothing to do with the creation v evolution debate.
puupembnc 6 months ago
@puupembnc
Evolution most certainly is testable.
It is a repeatable to see variations in allele frequency.
Evolution predicted EXACTLY where Tiktaalik would be found. Evolution also predicted the exact strata where other species would be found.
It is also testable in court .The test courts use to determine relation between different people is the exact same test used to determine relation between different species. This amounts to legal proof.
qabala 6 months ago
@qabala
I`m pretty sure you`re confusing evolution with natural selection. I have no problem with natural selection - this will never result in the sort of evolution that evolutionists claim it does. It can result in new species, but these new species never acquire any additional + novel + functional genetic code, which is necessary for evolution (microbes-to-man type) to occur.
Evolution predicted that Tiktaalik disppeared 350 million years ago! - till they found a living one... Oops!
puupembnc 6 months ago
@puupembnc
You are correct that natural selection, by itself, can't account for the present variety of life. Combining it with random mutation (as well as the other mechanisms of evolution), however, explains things quite nicely.
Nylonase is the result of an addition of genetic information due to, at least, two mutations.
Evolution doesn't predict the extinction of any species. It certainly allows for it, but that's far from predicting it.
Do you have a reference for this living Tiktaalik?
qabala 6 months ago
@qabala
Sorry. I was confusing Tiktaalik with Coelacanth. My mistake.
puupembnc 6 months ago
@puupembnc
My statement, "Evolution doesn't predict the extinction of any species. It certainly allows for it, but that's far from predicting it." still stands.
qabala 6 months ago
@qabala
I understand that evolution doesn`t predict the extinction of any species. I just think it comical that when an organism touted by evolutionists as being an ancient transitional suddenly pops up looking exactly as it did a supposed hundreds of millions of years ago, they say, "oh, well, evolution doesn`t discount that".
And yet we`re supposed to believe that same organism somehow ALSO evolved along another pathway to produce a separate, completely new kind of organism(s)? Hmmm...
puupembnc 5 months ago
@puupembnc
Name one single species alive today that is found in the fossil record at 100s of millions of years.
The fossil record contains members of the same cladistic order or family as those today, but they are not the same species and they all show significant differences. The two extant species of coelacanth are not found at all in the fossil record.
Evolution doesn't predict clades developing into new "kinds" of animals. Maybe you should find out what evolution actually postulates.
qabala 5 months ago
@qabala
An internet search will throw up various examples of `living fossils`.
If you want to say "Ah - but they`re not *exactly* the same (species)", then that`s splitting hairs, as we know through observation both in nature & in labs that speciation can occur in as little as a couple of decades, so it`s no surprise that there will be some differences between the `ancient` & modern versions.
Re clades not developing into new `kinds`; where did clades come from originally?
puupembnc 5 months ago
@puupembnc
Which term do you want to use here. "Kinds" (which requires an actual definition) or "Clades"
If they are synonymous then you would understand that any time two populations are isolated long enough that they are no longer genetically compatable, they have then split their species into two distinct clades.
So the first living species would also be the first clades. All other clades are divisions of the original clade, but no new "kinds" have been created.
qabala 5 months ago
@qabala
So if protists evolved into fish, which evolved into reptiles, which evolved into birds, then are you saying they all belong to the same clade, or `kind` (roughly equivalent to a genus)?
puupembnc 5 months ago
@puupembnc
IF some protists had followed an evolutionary path that led to fish, then yes, fish would be a clade within the kingdom "protista", however, protists are NOT the ancestors of fish (They do, however, share a common ancestor with fish). Both protists and fish are in clades within the domain "eukaryotes"
"Clade" is not roughly equivalent to "genus". Genus is a example of a clade. As are "species", "domain", "kingdom", "phylum", etc.
Do you want the scientific definition for "Clade"?
qabala 5 months ago
@qabala
If what you`re saying is that all the beasts & plants of the earth `reproduce after their kind` then you`ll get no argument from me, for obvious reasons!
However, if you`re going to claim that just because some artificially imposed classification system puts, say, crocodiles and birds in the same clade (Archosauria), then this means they`re related, then you`ve lost me; this flies in the face of observed genetic processes.
Cladistics is just moving the Linnaean goalposts.
puupembnc 5 months ago
@puupembnc
You'll get no argument from me that cladistics are imposed (for the sake universal nomenclature), however it does not fly in the face of genetics in any way.
The tests used by geneticists to determine biological relationship between people for the courts are the same tests they use to determine relation between species (like crocodiles and birds). In effect, genetics amount to legal proof of evolution.
qabala 5 months ago
@puupembnc
Cladistics is awesome. I like how you refer to modern taxonomy as "some artificially imposed classificiation system".
Now animals are classified based on genetic ancestry/estimated genetic variation. Phenotypic traits reinforce the relationships......
AceofDlamonds 1 month ago
@puupembnc
There is no tenet of evolution which states that a species must express a morphological change over any period of time unless its' environment changes drastically enough that its' current morphological manifestation is disadvantageous. In such case, it will adapt to its' new environment, find a more suitable environment, a combination of both, or die.
And no, it's not splitting hairs, especially in light of the current variety of species.
qabala 5 months ago
how to win a debate against an evolutionist?
Stick your fingers in your ears and say "lalalalalalalala".
You win by default because the smarter one will give up.
But just in case.. after you're done "debating", open the holy book of your choice and strengthen your belief.
realbojay 6 months ago
@realbojay
Scroll down & read some of my comments. Agree with me or not, I don`t think you could accuse me of sticking my fingers in my ears & saying "lalalalalalalala"
In fact, I think you`re the first person - in your very first post here! - to make this claim.
Kind of ironic.
puupembnc 6 months ago
@puupembnc
yeah you claimed that the people have no idea what they are talking about, you say they have no evidence for what they are talking about and so on, without even checking what he is refering to, how can one explain such things in 500 characters?
"You stated that the claims were unsubstantiated. I gave you references to peer-reviewed research papers to show that the claims of repeatability, falsifiability etc are not unsubstantiated and these papers are evidence of that."
*lalalala*
realbojay 6 months ago
@realbojay
You write: "you claimed that the people have no idea what they are talking about, you say they have no evidence for what they are talking about "
When did I write that?
"how can one explain such things in 500 characters?"
If you can`t, then maybe you should go somewhere else.
puupembnc 6 months ago
@puupembnc
instead you do believe and vehemently defend some teachings full of obsolete knowledge and irrational claims, because they were plastered into your brain just like it happened to billions of people before you.
So i again, more than ever claim, the best tactic to defend "creationist science" (lol) is to actually just stop listening to anybody who won't agree
realbojay 6 months ago
@realbojay
You write: "the best tactic... is to actually just stop listening to anybody who won't agree"
You must be great fun at parties.
puupembnc 6 months ago
@puupembnc
it is not about not agreeing.. it is about being ignored
if i get ignored i don't talk, as simple as that
at least i listen to all the morbidly fictive bullsh!t so many theists have to offer before i reject them but when i try to respond and punch some reason into their heads they flee into their imaginary world and drop on their knees to ask their imaginary friend for guidence
realbojay 6 months ago
@realbojay
"if i get ignored i don't talk"
Promise?
puupembnc 6 months ago
@2:18
It's the experimental evidence that must be repeatable, not the event.
If fingerprints are taken from a crime scene, more than one person must be able to match them to the suspect's fingerprints. But it is not necessary for the crime to be repeated to validate the fingerprints!
The fusion site of Human Chromosome 2 proves we are related to Chimps.
That is a repeatable experiment.
We don't need to wait 6MY.
kandtell 6 months ago
@kandtell
You write: "That is a repeatable experiment."
No it is not. Reference please.
puupembnc 6 months ago
@puupembnc
I think you may have misunderstood me.
What I am saying is that many labs around the world now have the capabilities to sequence both Human and Chimp DNA. Hence the *experiment* is repeatable.
If any lab found that Chimp Chs 2A and 2B did not match closely to Human Ch2, or they could not find the old deactivated Telomere and Centromeres in Human Ch 2 then the attempt to repeat the experiment would be deemed to have failed.
cont...
kandtell 6 months ago
@kandtell
I didn`t `misunderstand` you. You wrote: "The fusion site of Human Chromosome 2 proves we are related to Chimps. That is a repeatable experiment."
A repeatable experiment means an experiment which can be conducted and repeated. This experiment has never been conducted. It has never been repeated. Your statement is quite simply wrong, & your quote proves it (speculating that something happened is not the same as conducting & repeating an experiment - surely you realise that?)
puupembnc 6 months ago
@puupembnc
Now I am afraid I do not understand you.
Are you saying that the published genomes of Human and/or Chimp DNA are inventions?
kandtell 6 months ago
@kandtell
Genome mapping is fine. What I have an issue with is the claim that the actual fusion of chimp chromosomes 12 & 13 to form the human chromosome 2 is a repeatable experiment. Are you saying this experiment is repeatable?
puupembnc 6 months ago
@puupembnc
No. I'm saying that the experiments that demonstrate that that is what *apparently* happened are repeatable.
You can argue with the conclusion if you like, but my sole point here is that they are repeatable experiments.
kandtell 6 months ago
@kandtell
"I'm saying that the experiments that demonstrate that that is what *apparently* happened are repeatable."
Whoa- that sentence makes my head hurt. Anyway, this is quite different from what you seemed to be claiming originally. Now you`re just saying that genome mapping produces consistent results!
"You can argue with the conclusion". A highly hypothetical conclusion, claiming an extreme, unobserved, unrepeatable event that contradicts modern mutations research? Yes, I can.
puupembnc 5 months ago
@puupembnc "...just saying that genome mapping produces consistent results!"
Essentially, yes, that's what I was saying all along. But I may have not made myself clear at first.
I was arguing with the speaker on the video who says that it's not Science if you can't repeat the *event*. I'm saying it *is* science because it is the experiment that is supposed to be repeatable not the event.
Anyway, assuming you are happy with that, I'm happy to move on to discuss human ch2 in detail?
cont...
kandtell 5 months ago
@kandtell
He doesnt say “its not science if you cant repeat the event”, but, in reference to electricity “that is repeatable, testable science!” ie not 'historical' science (which posits a past event but can never reproduce it). I'm making the same point to you; DNA mapping is repeatable science, but your fusion hypothesis is not & doesn't qualify for the same validity status.
Key point: the verifiability of data doesnt automatically validate a conclusion deduced from it.
puupembnc 5 months ago
@puupembnc
1. I take his comments between 2:10 and 2:22 to mean "evolution is not science because the event can't be repeated". Maybe I'm wrong and that's not what he meant. But it sure sounds like it to me, and it's an argument I've heard many times before.
Of course specieation *has* been observed, but that's a whole other argument.
I wholeheartedly agree " the verifiability of data doesnt automatically validate a conclusion deduced from it."
cont...
kandtell 5 months ago
@kandtell
U write: I take his comments... to mean "evolution is not science because the event can't be repeated".
This would be a strange thing for a creationist to say, as we`re arguing for 6-day creation - about as non-repeatable an experiment as you can get! So I don`t think that can be what he means.
"Of course specieation *has* been observed". Yes, in the wild & in labs. I have no problem with it. Like natural selection, it`s not an example of microbes-to-man-type evolution.
puupembnc 5 months ago
cont:
2. But in this case the conclusion looks inescapable:
a) telomere sequences in the middle of the cr.
b) an inactivated centromere as well as an active one.
c) both in the right place for a fusion between 2a and 2b after we diverged from the Last Common Ancestor with chimps.
d) excellent match between chimp 2a and 2b and human 2.
I personally can't think of an explanation for the way human ch 2 looks unless it's the result of a fusion.
cont...
kandtell 5 months ago
cont:
3) Fusions are common enough BTW. People can live there whole lives not knowing they have fused chromosomes.
kandtell 5 months ago
@kandtell
"Fusions are common enough BTW. People can live there whole lives not knowing they have fused chromosomes." So humans could originally have had 48 chromosomes, with fusion resulting in 46?
puupembnc 5 months ago
@puupembnc
The consensus view (if I understand it) is that Homo Sapiens started with 46. The fusion happened to in one of our ancestor species shortly after the divergence from our LCA with chimps was complete.
It may be that the fusion helped with the speciation event, but my understand is that most scientists working in this field believe that speciation was complete before the fusion event.
Ie Human and Chimp ancestry diverged 6-8MYA. Fusion probably less than 1MY later. We arrived 0.2MYA
kandtell 5 months ago
@kandtell
So are you saying that the fusion event could have occured *after* the (supposed) divergence from a common chimp-human ancestor? In which case the fusion event caused humans to... turn into humans! So I`m not sure how this translates as evidence for a common ancestor any more than evolutionists have been claiming all along. In effect, this timeline theory would just put the debate back to where we started - common ancestor/divergence versus non-divergence, right?
puupembnc 5 months ago
@puupembnc
A couple of quick pedantic points, then I'll address your main question.
"fusion event caused humans to... turn into humans!"
Except in the sense that it *may* have helped the speciation event the fusion event did not turn anything into anything. You seem to know a lot more about the subject than most people I debate, so I'm sure you know that modern evolutionary theory does not consider anything but the most drastic molecular change to be the creation of a new species.
cont...
kandtell 5 months ago
cont...
The vast majority of new species (all as far as I know) come about over many generations due to the accumulation of many differences until a point in time where two groups of individuals can be said to be separate species (usually because they can no longer interbreed but even this is a fuzzy definition).
Also, as I said earlier, the fusion is not though to have happened to humans, but to our hominid ancestors.
Still the same species of hominids.
cont...
kandtell 5 months ago
Cont…
To return to your main question, yes, to an extent you are correct.
The only alternative explanation to CA I have seen which agrees with the evidence of the human ch2 fusion site is one supported for example by Casey Luskin.
In this explanation our ancestors started with DNA designed very similar to that of the ancestors of chimps, and there was then a fusion event in our ancestor and not in the ancestry of the other great apes.
cont...
kandtell 5 months ago
Cont...
However there is an enormous problem with this explanation which for evolutionary scientists is enough to make it un-tenable.
This problem is that we *share* other apparent events with Chimps and other closely related species.
The closer our relatedness the more of these events we share and the more statistically "recent" looking ones we find.
One example is the loss of the Gene required to manufacture vitamin C.
kandtell 5 months ago
@puupembnc
If you are happy to focus on why ch2 is accepted as evidence of a LCA which Chimps I'd like to ask first if you accept that human ch2 is strong evidence for a chromosomal fusion in Human DNA in the past?
kandtell 5 months ago
cont...
It never has, so we now accept that Human DNA *apparently* fussed some time in our descent from our common ancestor with Chimps.
I don’t think I need to reference the fact that sequencing is repeatable do I? Quite a few full sequences have been obtained from different Humans.
But if you still want a reference I can point you to the original article analysing Chimp DNA: genome.gov/Pages/Research/DIR/Chimp_Analysis.pdf
cont...
kandtell 6 months ago
cont...
Here is a quote: “Human chromosome 2 resulted from a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes that remained separate in the chimpanzee lineage (chromosomes 2A and 2B in the revised nomenclature formerly chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13); the precise fusion point has been mapped and its duplication structure described in detail”
kandtell 6 months ago
@chyrd Jesus is the hungry shepherd.
KeistasZmogelis 8 months ago
The theory of evolution, when tested against the observed evidence and facts of scientific research, is shown to be a complete and miserable failure with no physical evidence of its supposed occurrence ever being found, despite what people have been taught to the contrary! Secular control of the govt, schools and media has ensured that only secular philosophies are preached to keep the masses dumbed down with pseudo-science and mindless drivel, and sadly it has worked a treat! Time to wake up!!!
mikeeboy1000 8 months ago
@mikeeboy1000 What's wrong with secularism? You would think a secular discourse in science would unveil confirmation of fundamentalist Christian beliefs. Why do we need a Christian discourse to do that?
btw, some of the "no physical evidence" includes fossils, atavisms, molecular and anatomical vestiges, ERVs, biogeography, and more.
evolutionisscience 8 months ago
@OrthodoxDarwinist
Post again without swearing please. Cheers.
puupembnc 10 months ago
Small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change = big change. Tell me how this could not happen.
philateliceun 10 months ago
@philateliceun
Take a page of text. Randomly switch a couple of words. Randomly delete a letter. Randomly duplicate a letter. Keep making these `small changes` & see what happens to your page of text.
Seriously. Try it.
puupembnc 10 months ago
@puupembnc Natural selection is not random.
philateliceun 10 months ago
@puupembnc I think you have a fairly basic misunderstanding of what is going on in evolution, lets use a limited version of your example, "neat" evolving into "good"
neat
qrso
gcvp
gbnd
gpod
gxod
good
and there we have it, through a process of natural selection where the forces favour the word good neat has changed through the random changing of letters with the only rule being that once a letter appears in the place it is supposed to, in short this is the non random survival of random variation
kanuckadisk 10 months ago
@kanuckadisk
1) there are 26 letters in the English alphabet -you`ve managed to to decide your `random` changes pretty quickly & conveniently, haven`t you? Somebody`s cheating...!
2) "with the only rule being that once a letter appears in the place it is supposed to". How would it know? Can mutations see the future? According to natural selection, if a mutation isn`t beneficial, it will be weeded out, no?
3) so changing `neat` to `good` in a sentence will improve (evolve) its meaning? Why?
puupembnc 10 months ago
@puupembnc "How would it know? Can mutations see the future?" [sic]
thats used to drive me crazy. when i thought about fruit trees, using fruit to spread their seed, a nice little sugar case, and sugar being somewhat moreish :) but its not that it knew to do it, it happened, and it was successful, so it flourished, the same could be said for lactose tolerance in humans, very few people (in comparison to the many) are lactose intolerant. but human natural selection has been manipulated. imo:)
frackcha 9 months ago
Where did this video come from?
qabala 10 months ago
@qabala
Bit of a long story. Can I ask why?
puupembnc 10 months ago
@puupembnc
I'd like to watch the whole thing.
qabala 10 months ago
@qabala
I`ll see what I can do.
puupembnc 10 months ago
2:20 "Can you see apes evolve into people today?" We don't see galaxies form today, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen during the early universe, nor does it mean that cosmology is not a science. Creationists just don't know what they're talking about when it comes to... well, pretty much everything.
jessemaurais 10 months ago
wow that was lame by an evolutionists......
vvysoc 10 months ago
testable, repeatable, falsifiable? well lets see- the chronology of fossils making sense in terms of evolutionary theory (no poodles next to dinosaurs, no birds seen before jurrasic period)- tick. Finding related sequences of DNA in phylogenetically related species, Hypothesis: species believed to be evolutionarily more related should have more related sequences than less related species. Tick. Repeatability? Pick any proteins for comparison, you will find they follow the same pattern...
LordYon13 10 months ago
@LordYon13
Hmmm... Make your own list of unsubstantiated claims & tick the boxes yourself; if that`s your idea of the scientific method, then no wonder you believe in evolution!
How about you be a little less greedy & pick one. Then we can discuss it & see why you`re wrong.
puupembnc 10 months ago
@puupembnc
Ok, well since no one has ever published a paper saying "no poodles in Cretaceous period" (as it is impossible to say definitively that there are none, no matter how preposterous an idea it is) we'll have a quick look at protein phylogenies shall we?
Hypothesis: proteins diverge from each other. More related species show more similar protein-coding sequences. If this is evidence of evolution, rather than a fluke, this should occur in every protein to different extents.
LordYon13 10 months ago
@puupembnc
Evidence: now it did take me a good 5 minutes to find these papers, and another 5 to read them so I can understand why it would be so difficult for you to do this yourself...
Kagan et al (1997) Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Vol 117B(3): 379-385
Phylogeny of Methyltransferase- as predicted
Chen et al (1994) Protein science. vol 3:600-607
Isoprenyl diphospate synthase- phylogeny as predicted
Hanks et al (1988) Science vol 241(4861): 42-52
Protein kinases- phylogeny as predicted
LordYon13 10 months ago
@LordYon13
Only your 3rd post here & already you`re refering me to research papers. In my experience this often indicates that someone:
- doesn`t properly understand their own argument
- hasn`t read the papers themselves
- hasn`t understood them
- they don`t contain what is being claimed, or
- a combination of these
Feel free to prove otherwise by summarising one (If you did indeed read all 3 in 5 minutes, this should take a rockstar like you about 7 seconds, right?).
Thanks
puupembnc 10 months ago
@puupembnc
You stated that the claims were unsubstantiated. I gave you references to peer-reviewed research papers to show that the claims of repeatability, falsifiability etc are not unsubstantiated and these papers are evidence of that.
LordYon13 10 months ago
@puupembnc
Brief summary: The various authors have used different sequencing techniques and analytical software to compare the degree of similarity between the various proteins in different species. The differences/similarities were then used to predict evolutionary relationships between the species. In all cases the same pattern was found (e.g. sequences from humans were most similar to mice and all variations could be traced back to a bacterial sequence).
LordYon13 10 months ago
Guy did a very effective demonstration on how the phrase "just a theory" simply does not make sense. All the creationist can say is, "rah rah rah Evolution ain't a theory like Electricity theory." I love it when people miss the point in an argument.
evolutionisscience 10 months ago
@evolutionisscience
Did you notice that the evolutionist in this clip, NOT the creationist, used the phrase "just a theory"?
Likewise, you`ve used it, while I never do (see below).
Different theories carry different levels of validity or verifiability (the point the creationist in the clip is trying to make). Would you agree with this statement?
puupembnc 10 months ago
@puupembnc Yes, I have noticed. I have also noticed that the word "theory" means the same thing when referring to either evolutionary theory or electricity theory. Regardless of the "levels of validity or verifiability" of a theory, there is a minimum standard to which an idea qualifies to be considered a theory. ET doesn't just meet this standard - it surpasses this standard even better than electricity theory does.
As for verifiability, observation is nonessential for verification. Daft Gish.
evolutionisscience 10 months ago
@evolutionisscience
So you can flip a switch & make evolution happen? Predict & observe its rate & properties? Manipulate it to produce a desired result? I mean, can you do ANYTHING other than theorize about evolution?
All theories are quite obviously NOT the same.
"there is a minimum standard to which an idea qualifies to be considered a theory".
What absolute rubbish. Source?
"(evolution) surpasses this standard".
You just make this up as you go, don`t you? Source please!
puupembnc 10 months ago
@puupembnc Can you flip a switch and make a volcano erupt? What predictions and manipulations can you induce about volcanic activity? Alleged past eruptions - can you do anything other than theorize about them? Get the point? All scientific theories are supported using the same method. As far as standards for theories go, the differences are not as large as you'd try to make them appear.
"Source" Concise Handbook of Experimental Methods for the Behavioral and Biological Sciences - Jay E. Gould.
evolutionisscience 10 months ago
@evolutionisscience
Exactly!
We *can`t* flip a switch & make a volcano erupt. We *can`t* predict & induce volcanic activity accurately. We can ONLY theorize about past eruptions, but never repeat them.
However, we can do all of these things with electricity!
But you still want to claim all theories are the same? Astounding.
Sorry - I must have mislaid my copy of Jay E.Gould; what are the rules for theorizing exactly, & how does never-observed, unrepeatable evolution fare?
puupembnc 10 months ago
@puupembnc Are you implying that if we can induce a phenomenon, we must be more confident in our knowledge of it? Hardly.
"all theories are the same" Wanna review my posts and tell us where I said that?
"never-observed, unrepeatable" Wrong.
Gould tips his hat to Fawcett's and Parse's philosophies on scientific theories. Perhaps you're familiar with their criteria. One which Gould mentions is the ability to organize established facts. Evolution is a unifying theory; electricity, not so much.
evolutionisscience 10 months ago
@evolutionisscience
You wrote: ""all theories are the same" Wanna review my posts and tell us where I said that?"
You previously wrote: "...the word "theory" means the same thing when referring to either evolutionary theory or electricity theory."
I agree these 2 statements are not identical, but it would help if you could clarify what your stance is here. I thought *I* was the one arguing that "theory" can mean different things & carry different `weight`.
puupembnc 10 months ago
When the word "theory" is used, it means the same thing. The idea matches a minimum standard utilized to indicate that it is sound for research and in practice. Go ahead and quantify them. EvoT goes beyond these standards more than EleT because it is consistent with a greater body of phenomena. It is a unifying theory for biology. We're still working on one for physics. This doesn't mean that both aren't sound for research and in practice. The difference is minimal here. Both work great.
evolutionisscience 10 months ago
@evolutionisscience
You`re contradicting yourself. You write
"When the word "theory" is used, it means the same thing."
But then you say "EvoT goes beyond these standards more than EleT"
So you`re saying EvoT is a better theory than EleT, right? So all theories are NOT the same then? Some are better than others?
And are you saying that being "consistent with a greater body of phenomena" is the only (main?) criteria for deciding the superiority of one theory over another?
puupembnc 10 months ago
The word "theory" has only one definition. It's an idea that meets a >minimum standard< which tells us with great confidence that it is sound both for research and in practice. Neither theory is "better" because they both fit the definition of a theory. It doesn't make sense to quantify theories from separate fields against each other BUT EvoT is a lot more important for its field than EleT is for its, if you look at it that way. Usefulness is the main criteria here; it's not the only criteria.
evolutionisscience 10 months ago
@evolutionisscience
So to paraphrase Orwell, you`re saying "All theories are equal but some are more equal than others". Hmm!
But I quite like this idea of yours that the being "consistent with a greater body of phenomena" makes one theory more superior (sorry - `equal`!) than another. In that case, the Genesis account of creation trumps everything hands down! (but let me guess - that doesn`t count, right?)
puupembnc 10 months ago
@puupembnc Sure. If a house matches most of my preferences, I might consider it superior to a house which matches only half of my preferences. That doesn't mean the latter isn't a house at all. Right now we're comparing a house (EvoT) which matches most of my preferences ("phenomena") to a house (EleT) which matches half of SOMEONE ELSE's preferences, which are totally different.
Good guess - it doesn't count because it violates other criteria for scientific theories. Wanna hear which ones?
evolutionisscience 10 months ago
@evolutionisscience
"it violates other criteria for scientific theories. Wanna hear which ones?"
Actually, just give me a clear definition of this "minimum standard [of a theory]" that you keep mentioning, & we can kill 2 birds with 1 stone.
puupembnc 10 months ago
@puupembnc If I remember correctly, a scientific theory must be tentative and correctable, useful, consistent within itself and with evidence, parsimonious, based on repeatable experiments, and empirically testable and falsifiable. An idea which meets these requirements is a theory.
evolutionisscience 10 months ago
Just because somethings a theory doesn't mean its not real, GRAVITY IS A THEORY?!? DOES THAT MEAN I CAN FLY AROUND?
junkbot15 11 months ago
@junkbot15
I agree that just because something is called/considered a `theory`, this in itself is not evidence of its worth. Gravity can be tested & its effects observed. These tests can be repeated & assumptions & predictions confirmed, disproved or refined. This cannot be said of evolution. This is the key difference between these two `theories`, not the term `theory` itself.
puupembnc 11 months ago
@puupembnc :S
Excuse My manner of speaking, I thought this video was posted by an illiterate narcissist, but evolution can be tested in the study of micro evolution, as macro evolution is hundreds of successful micro evolutions cultivated into a subsidized species properly fitted to thrive within is environment. as can be said for anyone well studied in genetic variation would understand.
junkbot15 11 months ago
@junkbot15
I`m afraid you`re getting misled by terminology again; `micro evolution` is not actually evolution, as no novel, functional code is ever added to the genome - yet this is at the heart of microbes-to-man-type evolution. Micro-creation (as I`ve decided to call it instead - why not? it makes as much/little difference to the hard facts as calling it `micro-evolution`) is actually just dominant/recessive genes or mutations followed by good old fashioned natural selection.
puupembnc 11 months ago
@puupembnc
Evolution does not "Add code" It merely alters it, and if that slight variation benefits the outcome of the creature say, it successfully passes its traits to its offspring, then evolution is successful.
Now tell me why that isn't evolution?
And micro-creation? Really?
No matter what you call it, Micro-evolution IS Evolution.
junkbot15 11 months ago
@junkbot15
You wrote that:
"Evolution does not "Add code" It merely alters it"
But this completely avoids any explanation for where all that complex, functional code materialised from!
This reminds me of my sister as a child claiming she`d "written a song" when all she`d done was change a few words from a popular song of the time.
Basically, you`re still talking about NATURAL SELECTION. You seem to be under the impression that it & evolution are the same. They`re definitely not!
puupembnc 10 months ago
@puupembnc evolution CAN add information, but works over enormous time scales. We have only been looking for this within the last several decades, while evolution has been going on for billions of years. The fact that we do not see the addition of information should not been seen as a mark against evolution because we should not expect to see that often. You may want to also read on symbiogenesis, a decent theory for modern complexities. It appeared in a recent scientific american article
floyd316 10 months ago
@floyd316
`Addition` of genetic information can be observed & is well documented. BUT this is only through processes such as duplication, so this additional information is actually nothing novel or new, & thus doesn`t explain evolution, which needs something functional & new to be added.
Symbiosis is another theory that plays with the highly complex, functional DNA *already there*, but cannot explain where IT came from. It is also not supported by observed research.
Time is not relevant.
puupembnc 10 months ago
@puupembnc I dont understand how time could be irrelevant in this debate, seeing as evolution takes enormous amounts of time. That seems like an argument from ignorance. Its like saying, we haven't seen planet form in the last 5 minutes, so it never happens. Time is the reason we don't see these things happen; we haven't been looking long enough. Give it time
floyd316 10 months ago
@floyd316
Time would be relevant if we could observe & document any - even miniscule - additions of functional new code to genomes. In that case, one might well argue that more time would yield more significant changes. However, despite the claims of evolutionists, this NEVER actually happens, so the `give it time` argument in this case is like saying if you keep rolling a marble for long enough, it will turn into a beachball. Not gonna happen no matter what letters you add to "-illions"
puupembnc 10 months ago
@puupembnc That is a horrible analogy. Saying 'give it time' is like saying "if you keep rolling a marble you notice a small particle of sand gets embedded in or attached to it somehow". Also, what is an 'evolutionist'? As to your other post, symbiosis is occurring IN YOUR BODY. Right now. This second. Symbiogenesis, which I referenced, is also VERY well supported by evidence. Do some research, get back to me. Start here, it will answer some questions about addition of information, see next post
floyd316 10 months ago
@floyd316
It`s a perfectly valid analogy. You just don`t like it. How about if I say "the marble gradually gets scratched and worn"? This would resemble even more closely what we see again & again in genetic research, with the by-&-large destructive influence of mutations.
So let`s hear some of this evidence that supports symbiogenesis as an (the?) agent of evolution. What are some examples of an organism evolving into another through symbiogenesis?
And yes, I`ve looked.
puupembnc 10 months ago
@puupembnc check out the talkorigins website, they have all relevant research on the topic of genetic information being added to organisms. Aprils copy of SciAm makes a good case for symiogenesis, just read that. If you have indeed looked for evidence, you're either lying or only looked for sources that already support your view that it is not correct. It is as much a fact as the theory of gravity or the theory of electromagnetism, deal with it
floyd316 10 months ago
@floyd316
Talkorigins, SciAm & the net generally have very little re symbiogenesis, & I`m not just saying that to be difficult. Surely if it were such a great argument for evolution, that there would be more about it?
I`m fine with symbiosis (a case of observable, documented science!) by the way, but the whole idea of symbiogenesis is purely hypothetical, & ignores the most probable explanation for the existence of symbiosis between organisms - speciation.
There - dealt with!
puupembnc 10 months ago
@puupembnc And my post was somewhat of a joke.
junkbot15 11 months ago
I personally don't understand why science debates creationists. It almost validates their agenda. If the creationists have evidence, they would have peer reviewed papers on the topic. They don't... so, there is no debate.
chyrd 1 year ago 10
@chyrd
"...why science debates creationists"
-Science doesn`t debate creationists. Evolutionist scientists maybe, but not `science`. That concept doesn`t even make sense.
"their agenda"
- Oh no! The infidel has discovered our agenda! I guess you know about our secret handshake & everything? No, no agenda, unless you call scientific honesty an `agenda`
"peer review"
- haha - seen what that`s been doing for anthropomorphic climate change sceptics recently?
"no debate"
- bye then!
puupembnc 11 months ago
@puupembnc Now you get it... bye
chyrd 11 months ago
@puupembnc What has it been doing? It certainly hasn't been disproven.
FatherTime89 11 months ago
@chyrd The problem comes in when it's being taught in schools that "creationism has as much validity as evolution theory" and when the charistian majority in america perpertrate the myth onto their lesser educated and their children, it needs to be fought about so that more people know how unsubstantiated creationism is
deanobeany 8 months ago
humans didnt evolve from apes.......all apes evolved at the same time...
moron.....
azmanabdula 1 year ago
he is pointing out that you would have to be insane to argue against evolution without any credible argument against it....
azmanabdula 1 year ago
This typical of evolutionists, science beats them every time so they must resort to shock tactics, name calling and anything else to deflect the real issues involved.
You should read the critiques of Plimer's book Telling Lies for God, more holes in it than swiss cheese.
ozredneck22 1 year ago
I see apes turning into people every time one of you monkeys is born ^_^ humans are apes. I've never seen a god breath into mud to make a human :D
PinkProgram 1 year ago
@PinkProgram
Monkeys, apes, humans - all the same, eh?
And no-one`s ever seen evolution happen either.
puupembnc 1 year ago
@puupembnc I have... it happens all the time. Every time organic constructs procreate in fact. You aren't a clone of your mother are you? Even parthenogenic species have some genetic drift. Every time there is a coding error there is room for evolution. Unfortunately humans have started breeding towards stupidity. Statistically intelligent humans are less likely to have children. Lucky for you apes I'm not a product of organic procreation ^_^ I can only upgrade :D
PinkProgram 1 year ago
@PinkProgram
I`m glad you used the word `error`, because it makes it easier for me to point out the implausability of your theory that evolution can result from screwing up previously functional genetic code.
I hope you`re taking a more sensible approach to your "upgrades" or you`re not going to remain pretty in pink for long.
puupembnc 1 year ago
@puupembnc it was one such error that seperates humans from other great apes. There is a fusion of the second and 13th chromosome. If I was to fix this coding error you would be the same as every other ape. Without coding errors every organism would be identical. I have observed this to be the case. The truth can be implausible. That does not mean it isn't true. What is the plausibility of a deity appearing? What is required for a deity to be born. Where does a god come from?
PinkProgram 1 year ago
@PinkProgram
A mulitude of `errors`/mutations have been identified, observed, & in some cases can be predicted with some accuracy. Your fusion hypothesis, leading to theoretical ape-to-human evolution is NOT one of them, unless you`ve got some whacky research going in your back yard you`d like to share.
And in fact, even observed cases of fusion, duplication, & translocation don`t qualify as evolution, as they add no novel functional code to a genome, hence the terms themselves.
puupembnc 1 year ago
@puupembnc clearly you don't understand biology then. There is no Ape to Human evolution. Humans are still apes. They just have one less chromosome pair due to a fusion error that led to a speciation event. Tell me how humans were created by a deity. You are designed just like every other ape so your designer wasn't very creative. How does genesis say Adam was built? Some inflated mud? Prove a god made humans from clay. You aren't that unique. Humans are animals not golems or homunculi.
PinkProgram 1 year ago
@PinkProgram
I`m glad you used the word `error`, because it makes it easier for me to point out the implausability of your theory that evolution can result from randomly screwing up previously functional genetic code.
I hope you`re taking a more sensible approach to your "upgrades" or you`re not going to remain pretty in pink for long!
puupembnc 1 year ago
Comment pending approval?? Oh, it's a creationist's video, I forgot.
hejcoze 1 year ago
"Can you see apes evolving into people today?" Any european high-school student would destroy him. Nuff said.
hejcoze 1 year ago
@hejcoze
He didn`t say "...evolving into people in one generation" which I agree would be a false interpretation of most evolutionists` beliefs. Assuming he meant "showing any signs of evolving into people" then I think his question is completely valid.
*CAN* you see apes developing any of the strings of DNA code unique to humans? Has this ever been observed or documented? What are the chances of it happening?
Yes, I screen posts, & approve almost all, tho not always promptly.
puupembnc 1 year ago
@puupembnc Since modern apes and genus Homo are two evolutionary distinct species, a progression from apes to humans would actually disprove evolution. If there would be Homo heidelbergensis in a zoo, we could maybe see some progression (after several thousands years), but not from monkeys to humans. So to answer you: The chances of monkeys evolving into humans are equal to zero. My question: Do you think you might have misunderstood evolution?
hejcoze 1 year ago
@hejcoze
Originally you quoted a reference to "apes", but now you are talking about "the chances of *monkeys* evolving into humans". Most evolutionists believe man (and modern apes such as monkeys) descended from a common ape-like ancestor. Can I just check that this is what you believe?
puupembnc 1 year ago
@puupembnc You said: "*CAN* you see apes developing any of the strings of DNA code unique to humans?" , I simply answered. I used *monkeys* for intention of mockery. (Reference to popular: "My grandpa wasn't a monkey!") You started with argument that we haven't observed monkeys (or apes) evolving into humans.
hejcoze 1 year ago
@hejcoze
It might be a good idea to leave monkeys - & mockery - aside for a moment. Otherwise, we will both get confused about what each other is talking about.
Again, if you don`t mind: Do you believe humans - & modern, extant apes - evolved from a common ancestor?
puupembnc 1 year ago
@puupembnc I don't believe. I (sorry for the irony) know we had a common ancestor. Furthermore, if you're asking this question, you obviously have another point of view concerning our origin. Can you elaborate?
hejcoze 1 year ago
@hejcoze
Ironic indeed, but perhaps not the way you intended...
Anyway, if humans & modern apes evolved from a common ancestor - i.e. developed new , additional strings of functional DNA that weren`t present in the common ancestor - then is this process still underway, or has it stopped? The former & we should be able to detect the process that generated the unique strings of functional DNA thatt distinguish humans from, say chimps. If the latter, then why?
puupembnc 1 year ago
@puupembnc Simply put: "Are we still evolving?" Is that the question you are asking, while avoiding my question? Answer: Yes. First of all, you don't need 'additional strings of functional DNA', you can evolve even with losing some genes. Secondly, an analogy: can you detect atoms of hydrogen fusing into helium in VY Canis Majoris? No. Can we say that it is happening? Yes. Moreover: Do you think that something other than evolution is the cause of our existence?
hejcoze 1 year ago
@hejcoze
Not avoiding your question; I`m quite happy to answer it once you`ve finished explaining how something can evolve by losing information. So would losing lots of information result in an organism evolving a lot? Where did the lost information come from? When you say we`re still evolving, do you mean we`re losing info...?
I suspect you might be using the term `evolve` to just mean `better adapted`. However this isn`t the `ape-to-man`, scientific, theory-of-evolution definition.
puupembnc 1 year ago
@puupembnc You seem to have very linear kind of thinking. You don't just loose or gain genes. Evolutionary process is combination of both. (+ natural selection)
hejcoze 1 year ago
@hejcoze
I`m just trying to follow your own line (pardon the pun) of reasoning i.e. that losing information causes evolution, so presumably lose all of it & we`d then be perfectly evolved! Hmmm...
Oh - but now in your last post you`re suddenly saying "gains" are also needed. Well, I agree with you there. So how does this happen exactly? Natural selection certainly doesn`t add anything to an organism`s genome. This process simply selects from what is *already there*.
puupembnc 1 year ago
@puupembnc Mutation, translocation, duplication and so on. It's not rocket science, but basic genetics. If you want a perfect example of gaining complexity by duplication, translocation and mutation is human coagulation system.
It's 21st century and thanks to American (I suppose) educational system, there are people who think that evolution is a hoax. (And mocking my "losing genes argument"? Really? Reductio ad absurdum doesn't work if you don't understand your target.)
hejcoze 1 year ago
@hejcoze
Indeed it`s not rocket science. In fact a lot of it is basic English: what does the term `translocation` suggest? Something moved from somewhere else, no? `Duplication`? Copying something that *already exists*, right?
Neither explains where the complex strings of code being moved, copied or removed came to be there i.e you`re *not explaining evolution*.
You`re like an English Lit student moving around bits of a Shakespeare script (randomly!) & claiming the result as your own.
puupembnc 1 year ago
@puupembnc I'm from Czech Republic, sorry if I confused you with my worplay. And this is the end of the line. You clearly don't (and don't want to) understand evolution or genetics. Clearly you have much comprehensive theory of our origin. So come on, bring it forth.
hejcoze 1 year ago
@hejcoze
"You clearly don't (and don't want to) understand evolution or genetics."
Oh - you`re out of line saying that!
Scroll down & you`ll see I`ve taken a lot of time to not only explain & justify my views, but to understand the views of evolutionists & the theory of evution itself. In fact, I suspect I know more about genetics & the theory of evolution than you.
And that`s not feeding you a line!
puupembnc 1 year ago
@puupembnc And what's so difficult to write: "Well, actually panspermia explains our origin much better." or "God is the cause of all things." or "Allahu akbar!". I'm not asking for much. And clearly if you stumble when you hear about duplication, you are a) being very obnoxious or b) ignorant of genetics.
hejcoze 1 year ago
@hejcoze
Why do you say "you stumble when you hear about duplication"? You mentioned it & I commented on it & in fact would love to discuss it more. In fact, I`m looking forward to trying get you to say duplication doesn`t involve duplication. Go on - make me laugh - write "duplication doesn`t involve duplication". You know you want to.
"human is an ape". So what? Humans are mammals & so are whales. So we evolved from them too???
puupembnc 1 year ago
@puupembnc FFS, yes I mentioned duplication to illustrate one way how you can get more genes, I also illustrated deletion as a way how to lose some genes (nor necessarily, they can be just inactivated), both part of evolutionary process. But I'm asking you for 5th time: "Do you have an alternative?"
hejcoze 1 year ago
@hejcoze
See, here`s the problem:
You`re not reading what I`m writing.
Duplication DUPLICATES. It does not CREATE genetic information. It DUPLICATES it. Getting more genes/sequences that are the same as ones that are already there is NOT creating new, additional information. Creationists are 100% fine with duplication. It doesn`t explain evolution! And losing info (think about it!) certainly doesn`t.
We`ll get to my alternative when you show you understand what I`m saying.
puupembnc 1 year ago
@puupembnc I accept your premise, I reject your conclusion. Your question is: "Who created the original gene(s) from which everything evolved?" (And for last time, you can evolve by losing genetic material.)
hejcoze 1 year ago
@hejcoze
You wrote:
"Your question is: "Who created the original gene(s) from which everything evolved?" "
When did I write this question? I don`t think I did, in which case:
- you should not be saying so
- you should be asking me if this is a suitable paraphrase, or representation of my thoughts
- you should definitely not be using quotation marks
An organism may become *more successful* by losing genetic material, but this will NOT lead to your microbes-to-man evolution.
puupembnc 1 year ago
@puupembnc Since you're not willing to put forth a clear argument, I was paraphrasing. And again, we didn't evolve from microbes. We evolved from common ancestor we had with microbes. (Don't accuse me of building straw-man, when you do the same.)
hejcoze 1 year ago
@hejcoze
Please make it clear if you`re paraphrasing me. Actually I haven`t been asking "Who created...". I`m still trying to get you to give an observed, repeatable genetic process that will progressively add novel, functional genetic code to an organism`s genome i.e. cause evolution.
"Don`t accuse me of building strawman..." I DIDN`T!!! Where did I write that??
puupembnc 1 year ago
@puupembnc I was paraphrasing, again. But: "...give an observed, repeatable genetic process that will progressively add novel, functional genetic code to an organism`s genome.." Mutation, duplication, deletion, translocation, replication mistakes. Is that enough? Add natural selection, and you get evolution. (Here I explained myself, now please expose your alternative.)
hejcoze 1 year ago
@hejcoze
You falsely attributed a quote to me. You claimed it was paraphrasing, but it wasn`t even that.
You said that I made a (strawman) accusation that I didn`t. Then you accused me of doing the same, without any accompanying justification.
You didn`t apologize.
I don`t mind disagreement, but you seem to have no regard for basic academic & social conventions, which makes it impossible to have a coherent discussion with you.
Congratulations - you`re my first blocked visitor!
puupembnc 1 year ago
@hejcoze " And again, we didn't evolve from microbes. We evolved from common ancestor we had with microbes"
That's hilarious, of course the common ancestor we supposedly had with microbes was not a microbe?
ozredneck22 1 year ago
@puupembnc Duplication can create more information. Having two copies of one gene means that one of these genes can mutate and it doesn't matter if it changes the function of the protein produced as the original protein is still being synthesised. If the new protein has a functional benefit to the organism then it will increase the organisms likelihood of survival therefore will be passed don generations. It's an amazing yet simple process.
maskofsan1ty 1 year ago
@maskofsan1ty
Firstly, I know duplication can create `more` information, but it`s not novel, new, functional code, which the theory of evolution demands.
Secondly, mutations are usually neutral or detrimental - some loss of function usually results (google `genetic mutations`). The more they accumulate, the worse the effects. This is what observed genetic research has made abundantly clear.
And why would the original genetic code be immune from such harmful effects? A fanciful idea
puupembnc 1 year ago
@puupembnc Duplication itself doesn't create new information but it allows for new information in the event of a mutation.
A neutral or detrimental mutation in a duplicated gene would have no impact on the survival of the organism as it will have another copy of the gene still producing proteins. I explained that in my comment.
maskofsan1ty 1 year ago
@maskofsan1ty
"A neutral or detrimental mutation in a duplicated gene would have no impact on the survival of the organism"
I`m sorry, but this is just wrong. You seem to be constructing your own fictional process which is at odds with all actual, observed genetic processes. Please provide a link to any research that shows that duplicated strings of DNA are immune from mutations &/or mutations in a duplicated string of code do not impact on an organism. I`d like to read it.
puupembnc 1 year ago
@puupembnc 'Frameshifts have traditionally been considered as negative events that are occasionally associated with disease. However, if a frameshift occurs in a copy of a duplicated gene, on which selective pressure might be reduced due to functional redundancy, then the mutation may not be critical'
Okamura K, Feuk L, Marques-Bonet T, Navarro A, Scherer SW: Frequent appearance of novel protein-coding sequences by frameshift translation. Genomics 2006 , 88(6):690-697
maskofsan1ty 1 year ago
@maskofsan1ty
"However, if...might be...may not..."
This differs hugely from your general, absolutist claim that "A neutral or detrimental mutation in a duplicated gene would have no impact on the survival of the organism."
Also, this quote is referring to a single, discrete mutation event. The theory of evolution supposes a massive number of accumulated mutations, no? This is why I used the plural & present simple tense in my question to you,"ARE immune to mutationS..." ie always
puupembnc 1 year ago