People are so retarded. It seems that, since people can't grasp the time evolution has had to work(over 3 billion years), and since people can't grasp that number they just assume it's not true. It's a failure of the human mind to not accept the evidence for evolution.
Ugh...Dr. Ross..how can you made such elementary mistakes?? Most mutations are NEUTRAL, not damaging. And mathematical models actually do support a common descent. A simple look up in the field of bioinformatics will tell you that.
You guys hear what you want to hear, not what has been said. Hugh say there are more negative mutations than beneficial ones. Likelihood is at best 1:10000. Neutral are... neutral - have no influence.
@kswiatlo ah ok i just re-heard it again. Yes you are correct. Although i gotta say, ignoring neutral mutation when talking about mutations is a big no-no, consider they make up majority of the mutations. Sounds like he is purposely leaving out certain info to emphasis on the point he wants to get across (i.e. sneaky). And also i'm very interested to see where he gets that likelihood from, if it is actually cited in any peer-reviewed articles.
@greatgulffixed The argument is that negative mutations are too common such that it prevents evolution from happening. This is obviously wrong, since most mutations are neutral. If most mutations are beneficial, then you would expect evolution to happen at a much faster rate. But we know the timescale of evolution is in the order of millions of years, and this correspond to the idea that most mutations are neutral, and beneficial mutations are rare.
He did not help me to find how evolution doesn't exist. I personally think that Richard Dawkins has way more evidence than this little clip of 2 minutes that had him yabbering on about something he didn't even know for sure.
@budgerigar42 yea and notice how he, like all non-evolutionists, like to assert claims as if they are facts, yet if you look up those claims in peer-reviewed journals, they are not supported at all. But at least he believes world is not 6000 years old....unlike Hovind the greatest retard of all.
Any good mathematics student will understand the as the change caused by a mutation or particular gene combination in a pool approaches 0, the probability that it results in a positive change one approaches 0.5. Since natural selection is very sensitive to even minute changes, evolution will take place and it will be taking a very gradual path. If you do not understan, please ask questions. I am happy to explain.
"evolution will take place and it will be taking a very gradual path" - that idea has been abandoned by prominent evolutionists 1:05 overwhelmed by fossil record. That is why you have a very improbable model of Punctuated Equilibrium.
@kswiatlo Evolution taking a gradual path is not abandoned by evolutionists. One must remember transitions happen relatively fast and the stable states last for longer hence much more fossils of stable states than the transition ones. The other fact is that with overwhelming DNA evidence that support evolution, one does not even need fossils at all to prove the evolution fact.
Yes, the vast majority of mutations are negative or neutral, but significant mutations only appear in a small minority of the population, therefore natural selection will tend to kill of the negative mutations, leaving the rest of the population intact because they don't have a chance to breed. Neutral mutations (or slightly negative) may or may not stay in the genome.due to chance.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
THIS GUY IS ALWAYS WRONG BECAUSE IT IS CONTRARY TO WHAT I LEARNED AT MY SOCIALIST PUBLIC SCHOOL WITH STANDARDIZED TEACHING. LET ME GIVE A POLITICALLY CHARGED ARGUMENT AND GIVE IT A THUMBS DOWN.
Haahaahaa, God likes horses and whales, when they die he makes new ones....ROLF. Yes, I guess this "doctor" also thinks God makes babies too. Good grief. I wonder why Christians permit this kind of stupidity that makes them look like a bunch of 8 yr. olds. Might as well say the stork brings babies after God makes them.
The guy obviously has his mathematics totally wrong (he is merely theorising to fit his world view) because the fossil record (with it's numerous transitional forms) and biogeography are the most compelling evidence. Punctuated evolution is absolutely fine because there is no need to assume that evolution advances at a steady and consistent rate. The bloke should stick to quadratic equations and not meddle with branches of science where he is not qualified to do so.
He has it wrong? Haha! Basically you are saying he has it wrong simply because you don't agree with his conclusion. Nothing in your comment advances your position beyond your original assumption that evolution happened. And you are fine with punctuation. So freaking what? This is science, not "evolution must be true because it fits MY worldview". Maybe you shouldn't make comments until you figure out what you are talking about. But hey, it's your right to advance your worldview.
@circusOFprecision You didn't make one single point in that verebal diatribe to counter what i said. Playing games with numbers is anything but science. The numbers mean nothing when the fossil record quite clearly and categorically proves an evolutionary precess beyond all doubt. On this subject i listen to professional palaeontologists and not a mathematician (may just as well listen to my bin man). BTW can you tell me why punctated evolution is not fine? Can you make ANY points?
P.E. has no mechanism of action. It simply assumes rapid evolutionary change in small populations. It isn't observable, and it really doesn't explain anything. Smaller populations would evolve quicker because the changes could spread more easily? I think not. I think that P.E. is just moving the goal posts because gradualism doesn't work. So if you know of a mechanism operating in P.E. that is scientifically verifiable, please share.
@circusOFprecision Not observable? It's been observed in the lab & in the wild numerous times. As i said some ill thought out mathemetical model is not going to disprove what we know for sure from the Fossils & Biogeography. Smaller populations allow allele frequency to develop independently of the main population. When that allele change has an advantage then the smaller populate succeeeds. Of course it works. Maths is as only as good as the validity the model. PE is dependent on environs.
P.E. has been observed? I'm sorry, you are confused. P.E. makes the claim that evolution occurred too quickly to leave behind the evidence of transitions. What has been observed is adaptation, where the allele frequency spikes, then returns to average after the environment is normalized. Very different than new organs developing or new types of organisms.
@circusOFprecision The rapid evolution of the cecal valve in the Italian Wall Lizard demonstrates my point. It seems you are under the illusion that evolution occurs at a consistent rate. You really don't understand about allele shift in populations. An allele change in a small population is proportionally higher than in a larger one. Hence when that small population is isolated it diverges from the main one. Check Ring Species & yet again, check the fossil sequence & biogeography.
Do you know what caused this to occur? I'm pretty sure there was a bacteria present that was required for the lizards to digest a new food source. Because the bacteria was present it allowed genes to be expressed that produced the valves. These weren't mutations, if they were, something was most likely broken in order for the lizards to adapt. This was also possibly an instance of symbiogenesis. How does this turn a lizard into something else?
@circusOFprecision "I'm pretty sure there was a bacteria ...". You shouldn't be "pretty sure" because i have never heard any scientist in the field cite bacteria as the cause. Why don't creo "scientists" do an experiment to expose unaffected lixards to this bacteria? Dead easy but they won't will they. Even if it was bacteria it is still evolution. Oh don't forget the change in jaw size and shape.
"How does this turn a lizard into something else?" It does and has. What do you expect? Wings?
Since you can't think for yourself, let me do it for you. The "evolved" population and the parent population are genetically indistinguishable. The change in jaw size and shape can easily be contributed to the development of the lizard (adaptation 101, sigh). Also, yes microorganisms are present, hence the cecal valves. It is all explainable quite easily, no evolution required, simply adaptation. The fact this is your best evidence is not good for your side.
@circusOFprecision "the change in jaw size and shape can easily be contributed to the development of the lizard" Yes development in that context means evolution.
"Also, yes microorganisms are present, hence the cecal valves."
What is the source of these microorganisms? Why can't they be introduced to the original population to prove your point? Are you saying the valves are not inherited? In that case it should be possible to inject them to kill the microorganisms to remove the valve.
No it doesn't. You are mistaken. When I said development, I was referring to the growth of the lizard. As it matures, eating the tougher food source develops a more rigid jaw. There was no genetic difference between the "evolved" population and the parent population. Go look it up for yourself.
The bacteria are present because of the food source. They go hand in hand. It's called symbiosis. If a permanent change occurs to the host, it will become symbiogenesis.
@circusOFprecision So if you took captive young & fed them on the original diet, they would not exhibit these traits? Another simple experiment for Creationist scientists” to carry out but they won’t will they as they know the results will be an embarrassment.
“There was no genetic difference “ You mean extremely little genetic difference.
You have unwittingly given a powerful example of the evolution of symbiosis. Thankyou.
And if the changes are inheritable then it’s evolution.
Actually, you are the one that expects wings, eyes, fins and so forth. You are the one that believes a bacteria mutated and replicated into all living things. It's so ridiculous, somehow you want to pin that belief on me? Haha! I feel sorry for you. You are probably at least intelligent enough to wipe your own ass, why do you believe such junk science? Go back and read my comments. I destroyed your examples and you came back with nothing but stupidity. Try again? Nah, goodbye.
@circusOFprecision “Actually, you are the one that expects wings, eyes, fins and so forth.”
News to me. I wouldn’t expect that at all and is more akin to creationism.
“I destroyed your examples”. You have, at best, been woefully inadequate. Isn’t it about time you DID make some responses? If you don’t know, just say so.
And it even seems you think the cecal valves & microorganisms poofed into existence at the same instant. If so, it would be no surprise coming from a creationist.
The articles say that the populations were genetically indistinguishable. Quit twisting the facts to fit your theory. Symbiosis yes, symbiogenesis..,that has not been shown. By the way, I have no problem with symbiosis. In fact it is observable, unlike Neo-Darwinism. The only thing that your theory has shown is that sometimes broken genes can lead to adaptive response. So when are you gonna give me evidence for evolution? Empty promises. You guys never fail to disappoint.
@circusOFprecision “The articles say the populations were genetically indistinguishable.” That’s the mitochondrial DNA. So, what drives the cecal valve protein building?
“Symbiogenesis”? WTF does that have to do with anything?
“In fact it (symbiosis) is observable” Nobody observed the cecal valves develop on the Island population. So, according to Creationist “logic” it could never have happened. “unlike Neo-Darwinism” No such thing but there's Evolution & a Scientific Theory to explain it.
Cecal valves aren't proof of evolution. Neo-Darwinian evolution is the name of the theory that you support. Evolution is a concept, not a theory. You did actually ask one good question between all of your nonsensical statements. Try finding it and answering it.
Many of the points...? Oh, you mean the ones that I raised. Why do you avoid the actual terminology that describes what you believe in? Are you ashamed? Apparently, you must know how ridiculous it is. No, evolution is not a fact. No one has ever demonstrated how new information is introduced into genetic systems. Evolution is a concept. So tell me, how did the genetic expression system come about? Or gene regulatory systems? Developmental systems? Body plans? Cellular machinery?
1) And IF true (has any scientist involved on the project stated this?), btw redundant genes prove evolution.
2) I meant explain why the traits are passed down to subsequent generations i.e. inherited
3) Yes it makes perfect sense to carry out a simple experiment to prove a hypothesis but creation “scientists” never do this because all they do is sit in their armchairs scouring the work of real scientists and take sections out of context to forward their world view.
@circusOFprecision “No one has ever demonstrated how new information is introduced into genetic systems.”
You are ill informed. Gene duplication is well documented with the advantage that the original gene is left to build the original protein development, while the new gene can be expressed in the development of a totally new protein. Other "new information" examples have been demonstrated.
Some plants have even duplicated their whole genome and I underestand many times over in some cases.
Gene duplication? Are you serious? How did I know this would be your response. So let me get this straight. The original gene keeps it's function while the new one magically mutates until it produces a new trait. Sounds great, where's the evidence? Some plants? So what?
@circusOFprecision How did I know this would be your response.” You are aware of the numerous proofs by the scientific community. No magic involved. It’s been observed & proven.
The duplication can lay dormant for ages & mutation, over time, may or may not result in novel functionality. The original gene also may or may not alter.
Now if you want real magic then check out Genesis where the invisible magic man in the sky poofs all life out of nothing (tbh i dpn't know if you're a literalist).
@circusOFprecision “So tell me, how did the genetic expression system come about? Or gene regulatory systems? Developmental systems? Body plans? Cellular machinery?”
Body plans (overall basic body plans) pertain to a specific phylum andw on't change but if they did it would be deleterious..
Cellular machinery is virtually the same across all eukaryotes.
Haven’t got a clue what Development systems are.
Obviously, since the traits are hereditary, then the valves are a result of gene expression.
@circusOFprecision But you miss the point. If inheritable then this must be classed as evolution. While the detail is interesting it is not needed for the argument.
So, don’t ask me which specific genes as I do not know but I am sure if you check the work of those involved in the study e.g. Andrew Hendry, a biology professor at Montreal's McGill University or Duncan Irschick, another study author and biology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, then you may find out.
FIne, you say it's evolution. I'd call it adaptation. But since the beginning you've been claiming this as evidence for universal common ancestry via unguided natural processes. Do you really think this kind of thing is what created the entire ecosystem from chemicals? Go back and look at my questions again, you can't answer said questions with this kind of process, even if it is how you say it is.
Let's be scientific here. There are only a few possibilities. 1. Mutations and selection lead to new cecal valves in an extremely short amount of time (extremely improbable and not shown, only speculated by you). 2. The presence of certain bacteria reactivated a latent gene. 3. The lizards bred with another isolated population that already possessed the trait. No matter which is true, or one that I missed, none of this is leading to speciation.
Well yes. # 3 is a non starter as the lizards, without or without the trait, had never been catalogued prior to introduction of the 5 pairs.#2) Again, a “latent” gene supports evolution.
#1) Again, let Creationist “scientists” map the genomes and compare and prove #2 or disprove #1. Now that WOULD be “scientific here”
Even if #2 was true, then the inherited traits are STILL evolution.
Sooner or later you will have to address these points
The evidence for design is overwhelming. Pseudogenes regulate protein synthesis, introns transcribe many RNAs that perform countless functions. The whole genetic expression system is more clever than we possibly imagined. To say it just happened via the mechanisms you describe sounds like pure ignorance to me. The entire argument from "junk DNA" is pure bullshit, yet I notice you still use it. Running out of arguments that work scientifically? Don't worry, science will progress.
Hawkings tries to account for nature using nature. But it doesn't work. He doesn't start with "nothing". So there is your first problem. The second problem is accounting for the specific sequencing of the genetic expression system, not to mention the multiple layers of "programming" therein. You can say "nature" did it. That's a non-explanation. It is also refuted by the highly conserved nature of genetic information. Life can replicate and adapt. It's dynamic.
@circusOFprecision I’m afraid bringing in an Astrophysistist is not going to further any debate on biological evolution.
“The second problem is accounting for the specific sequencing of the genetic expression system, not to mention the multiple layers of "programming" therein.”
Your argument falls down at the first hurdle a the so called designer by definition must be even more complex and you merely move the problem further back. However this is not necessary with natural explanations.
@circusOFprecision But you miss the point again. Evolution is under no doubt whatsoever because of plain observation (Palaeontology, biogeography, vestigialilty, embryology etc).
OK not all underlying mechanisms are fully understand. That’s where you guys step in with your desperate “So god must have done it”. Trouble is throught history “God Done its” have been gradually replaced by naturalistic explanations but NEVER the reverse.
“Life can replicate & adapt. It's dynamic.“ It’s evolution.
Unfortunately, in the case of the cell, it's information rich structure only becomes more and more complex as our understanding increases. So claiming that a natural explanation will be found, while the evidence continues to move in the complete opposite direction is ignorance on your part, not ID proponents. Adaptation is evolution, that's true. Macro-evolution via unguided natural processes is evolution, but that's false. Therefore adaptation can't equal macro-evolution.
@circusOFprecision “more complex as our understanding increases.” You could say the same about understanding lighting. It all boils down to quantum levels which we are still learning about but the “God Did it” argument is still the biggest cop out and the last desperate refuge of the religious.
“while the evidence continues to move in the complete opposite direction”
But evolution has gone from simple to complex over geological time.
Quantum? Wow, that's a good sign. Perhaps you are finally ready to talk science instead of religion. So here is some science for you. Living organisms adapt. Cells can engineer their own genomes. The genetic expression system is poly-functional. The environment absolutely effects that adaptation and evolution of organisms. That being said, design is not proven...yet. But life isn't slave to mutations and selection. You seem to be stuck on that, for religious reasons it seems.
@circusOFprecision I only mentioned quantum to refute your absurd increase in complexity claim re the cell.
It's not part of the evolutionary debate. “The environment absolutely effects that adaptation” So now you are supporting Lamarckism which even predated Darwin. “
“and evolution of organisms.” So now you accept evolution as true! You are confused.
@circusOFprecision But as typical of all creationists, the keyword is “can” (assuming it's even true in the first place) which is NOT “instead of” mutations. Seriously, the genome project has actually measured mutations from parent to child. You have them, I have them and there is no refuting they are a necessary part of gradual change in a population. That’s evolution. That's what NS acts upon be it advantageous or not.
Such comments make you appear to be arguing against even microevolution.
From the beginning you have been claiming that adaptations turn one kind of organism into another. Yet you have provided zero evidence. If you knew anything beyond Darwinian apologetics, you would know that inheritance is not the primary driver of change within species. Like I said, go read Shapiro's work on natural genetic engineering. You think scientists still think like you, it's actually pretty funny.
@circusOFprecision You’ve really lost the plot because you are the one who coined the phrase “adaptation”.
Your comprehension skills are worsening day by day.
Re “Darwinian apologetics” But Darwinian Evolution it is fact and all we are discussing are the possible mechanisms and finer detail at that. I side with the scientific majority while you latch on to and misrepresent another scientist.
Do we deny Gravity just because we may disagree over the explanation?
@circusOFprecision “you would know that inheritance is not the primary driver”
I have never claimed inheritance is the driver. It’s more the result. Let’s do this, again for your benefit.
If traits are not inherited then, using our Italian Wall lizard example, what you are saying is that if a lizard, born on one island, was moved to the other island, then it would aquire the traits of the rest of the population of that island.
What are you even saying here? Now you are questioning natural selection, but only if the scenario goes against evolution via mutation? Baffling. 1 year generation times means that the adapted sub-population would disappear rapidly once reintroduced into the original population, if indeed said population was more fit. The adaptive advantages would only hold if the environmental reasons for it also held.
@circusOFprecision When have I ever questioned Natural Selection? 100% wrong but Epigenetics (which you are pushing as the norm rather than the exception), known since WW2 and studied in 1990, is independent of Environment and hence Natural Selection (i can provide examples).
If adaption was the sole, or even the prime driver, then those studying it (you know, the pesky scientists) would make that claim. They don’t, yet you choose to do so in order to bolster your world view.
@circusOFprecision If you reintroduce the changed lizards into the original population then they won't have an evolutionary advantage & their allele frequency will gradually be diminished over generations due to environmental pressures. The same goes if you introduce some of the original population onto the new island.
Those with alleles best suited to the environment, if the % frequency is high enough, will eventually dominate.
Your “adaption” is at population level, not via individual.
Everything else you say is just fart noise coming out of your asshole mouth. Someone needs to put you in check. You equivocate, deceive, misinterpret, all to defend Darwinism. Your a fucking idiot and the only reason you continue on cherry picking evidence and reciting overturned hypotheses is because it's part of your religion. No more respect for you, you don't deserve it. Go reeducate yourself.
@circusOFprecision “ You seem to be stuck on that, for religious reasons it seems.”
Science is not religion. Now believing blindly with no evidence in an absent invisible sky daddy IS religion. Show me a temple to Evolution where daily worship takes place.
I'm assuming they do have dictionaries where you live. Get one! Look up Religion.
@circusOFprecision “Adaptation is evolution” No wrong. Organisms do not adapt or react to the environment.
Beneficial (at the time) alleles, if present in a reasonable proportion, are selected for. You are putting the cart before the horse.
“Macro-evolution via unguided natural processes is evolution, but that's false”
Is true unless you can prove otherwise. Just claiming it false is yet another in the long line of creationists slogans with no science (or even philosophy to back it up).
Yes they do. It's called epigenetics. The more you speak, the more retarded you sound. Your mechanism doesn't work. If it did, why did biology leave it behind decades ago? Go read up on natural genetic engineering by Shapiro. He's an actual scientist. You are just a Darwinian apologist, and I have come to realize you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
@circusOFprecision “Your mechanism doesn't work.” You must be lacking comprehension skills. Epigenetics is a possible gene expression independent of DNA (though it switches genes on/off) in ADDITION to expression via DNA. It is NOT an alternative nor is it a majority case. And the key point is that it is inheritable, hence still evolution.
Re Shapiro. Why not check out his work? He is no creationist & guess what, not only does he cite gene duplication but also whole genome doublings.
Shapiro isn't a creationist. He's an evolutionary microbiologist that happens to know from actual scientific research that Neo-Darwinism is bunk. That's why you don't check out his work. Because it challenges your preconceived and utterly false assumptions about living things. Give me one example of where a gene duplicated itself, mutated and turned into a completely new gene.
I never twisted anything. You've been claiming all along that random variation and selection causes an organism to turn into a fundamentally different organism. I showed you that bacteria can regulate their own genome under environmental pressure which flies in the face of your baseless assertions. It doesn't disprove evolution, that wasn't my point. It shows that your view of genomes is oversimplified, organisms are not hostages of random mutations and selection.
@circusOFprecision “random variation and selection causes an organism to turn into a fundamentally different organism”
Well the fossil record proves that as fact. The actual mechanism is interesting to debate but cannot alter that fact. But yes of course, miniscule changes do accumulate to big changes over time and that includes speciation. If you claim these changes can happen at micro level then what is the limiting factor to prevent changes at macro level?
@circusOFprecision “I showed you that bacteria can regulate their own genome under environmental pressure which flies in the face of your baseless assertions.”
You have pointed out Shapiro's work. You've not proven this is the main mechanism of change & more importantly neither has Shapiro nor has he claimed it.
Though you would like me to, I am not denying his work nor of others working on Epigenetics but like all Creos you latch onto some "new" development as “evidence” against Evolution.
1) I don't know. Maybe they don't have access to the data. Or maybe they have, and neither of us are aware. What I do know is that creationists probably wouldn't even take issue with such rapid, local adaptation. It fits with a lot of their views actually.
2) Like I said before, the trait is hereditary and it was suggested that it was already present. Natural selection chose the lizards with more pronounced gut muscles and jaws, and the environment stimulated the physiology.
@circusOFprecision1) I know. Because cretion "scientists" don't actually do the work. They just put on a white coat and quote mine the work of real scientists. High profile Christian scientists like Francis Collins and Ken Miller won't touch the likes of the Discovery Institute & Creation Ministries with a barge pole.
2)If the trait is heridatary then that is evolution. Don't confuse inheritance with a redundant gene being "switched" back on. THe environment selected those with a advantage.
3) I asked you to address the alle % because I don't know the answer
What I am attacking is your belief that an adaptive response, even new traits emerging that help a population survive better in a new environment, is not the mechanism that produced all the diversity we see. In fact, it couldn't possibly be. What kind of environmental pressure is going to turn a population of fish into non-fish? None, because it would be detrimental to the population as a whole which is already adapted.
@circusOFprecision 3) I wasn't asking you for the actual % figure. I was just making the point as to how evolution works and i wanted your rebuttal.
"is not the mechanism that produced all the diversity we see. "
Well actually over vast amounts of time the accumulation and enhancement of traits is responsible for diversity. You need to provide the limiting function that prevents this accumulation.
@circusOFprecision "What kind of environmental pressure is going to turn a population of fish into non-fish?"
But this doesn't happen overnight.
Do you have any photos of yourself as a baby? I'm sure you do. No compare that photo to a recent photo.
At what stage did you turn into a young adult from a baby? Daft question of course but that is what you are asking of me. Small (indiscernable even) changes over vast periods of time (and selected for) is the answer.
Development is not the same thing as one type of creature physiologically changing into another. You continue to exercise circular reasoning, even though I try to point out to you that it simply doesn't work. Yes, changes in populations don't happen over night, but over generations. Statistically these changes fluctuate around a median, that's raw data. But the extrapolation that they produce new biological systems and organisms, there is no raw data to support that.
Haha! Feel sorry for yourself if you are going to feel sorry for anyone. If common ancestry between whales and cow like creatures is true, show me a mechanism. You are barking up the wrong tree. If you really want science, how about start with James Shapiro's work. He'll catch you up to speed. Apparently you are stuck in the 1950s
@circusOFprecision "If common ancestry between whales and cow like creatures is true, show me a mechanism. " I have spent days explaining the mechanisms (at a very high level) yet you still trot out the same tired old defeated slogans on others.
"Apparently you are stuck in the 1950s" I think you will find that the vast vast vast majority of biologists in 2011 support evolution. Yet another tired baseless slogan. You need to get up to date yourself.
@circusOFprecision “Development is not the same thing as one type of creature physiologically changing into another.” I have explained this. Why don’t you pay attention and actually address the points I make? You clearly have no understanding of what evolution states. Individuals do not change from generation to generation. I even gave you the analogy of photos to help you out but sadly you do not understand.
@circusOFprecision “fluctuate around a median, that's raw data.” No, NS doesn’t revolve around medians.
If so, you wouldn’t even have microevolution. If you want to talk statistically then return to a particular beneficial allele predominating in a population having more chance of being passed on (selected for) & occupying a higher % in future populations.
That's why initially small populations (e.g. our friends the Wall Lizards) are more prone to % allele frquency & hence change.
@circusOFprecision BTW when ever was my entire argument based on “Junk” DNA? Please pay attention.
Junk DNA is a generic phrase coined early on in it’s discovery of non coding DNA.
Scientists, real scientists, are gradually discovering the numerous various causes behind such DNA. Unfortunately for you, the ever diminishing unexplained sequences cannot be defaulted to design. That is NOT science.
“Don't worry, science will progress.” Yes indeed, which is why creationism is on it’s deathbed.
I did my homework. The wall lizards did indeed adapt to a new environment/food source. While the original population ate primarily insects, the population released on the new island was forced to go back to a vegetarian diet. That in itself explains a lot. Most lizards are vegetarian. The muscles required for the cecal valves were already present, but they were enlarged to produce ferment chambers in the new population. Natural selection and adaptation my friend.
@circusOFprecision “I did my homework” After all this time you have only just discovered they were forced to change to a vegetarian diet? That is the WHOLE point. That is why Natural Selection the very cornerstone of Darwin’s Theory took over. Your word for “adaption” is nearly another word for Natural Selection. It is dead simple. The whole process of Natural Selection preferring certain alleles is called Evolution. You are merely playing with words as a get out.
You do realize that these findings are not inconsistent with my views right? I mean, even if the lizards became a whole new species with brand new traits (which they did not as far as I can tell), as long as there is solid evidence to support it, I would completely accept it. What I will not accept is your claim that what happened to these lizards is the same thing that turned a cow into a whale. And let me explain why...
@circusOFprecision “What I will not accept is your claim that what happened to these lizards is the same thing that turned a cow into a whale” No evolutionist would ever claim a cow turned into a whale.
A cow will ALWAYS give birth to a cow. A whale will ALWAYS give birth to a whale.
However, evolution is not about individuals over a few generations but about populations over many generations.
First of all, no one has ever witnessed life starting, but it is assumed it only started once. That's just an assumption. Second, there is no naturalistic account for the genetic expression system and how the various body plans formed. There is just the assumption of rapid evolution. My bet is life started multiple times because it was inevitable, it was supposed to happen. Certain kinds of organisms went about surviving and adapted to different environments/food sources, diversifying.
@circusOFprecision “First of all, no one has ever witnessed life starting,"
Yes of course life started but is unlikely to start anew due to environmental pressures (I can explain this if you ask) but what does that have to do with subsequent speciation? Necessary but nothing to do with what happened afterewards.
“there is no naturalistic account for the genetic expression” There are plenty of works. Difficult to understand but there is much work done e.g. on the conserved core body plan.
There is NOTHING in evolution that states that change occurs at a consistent rate.
Let me help you. We all agree that mutations happen but NS is the great controller.
When the environment goes through a slow gradual change then there are less selective pressures but get a catastrophe e.g. Meteorite and the selective pressures go into overdrive.
@circusOFprecision Dinos could not cope with post meteorite conditions but small mammals living underground survived and ultimately took over when the climate restabilised.
If you take environments that have changed relatively little such as oceans and rivers you will find creatures have changed much less due to less pressure from that environment e.g. sharks and crocs have changed little over millions of years whereas many land animals have gone through extraordinary changes or gone extinct..
Is mammalian evolution vertical? No it isn't, at least not entirely. Novel traits don't come from organic soup, or random mutations, gene duplications, and so forth. If you read outside of your bias you would know that.
@circusOFprecision “Is mammalian evolution vertical? No it isn't, at least not entirely.”
Oh really? Please give examples. I agree that Horizontal Gene Transfer does occur in much lower life forms (as discovered by evolutionary biologists) but I have not heard about it in higher life forms. I await your answer but even if true it would be extremely rare and does not compromise the over all verticality of evolution of the higher organisms.
@circusOFprecision “Novel traits don't come from organic soup, or random mutations, gene duplications, and so forth.” Apart from “organic soup” (whatever that was all about), I think you will find that scientists have proved that they do. Shame that you choose not to explore the wonderful word of science and all in the name of defending a bronze age superstition. Priceless.
But due to known genetic barriers, the harmful nature of mutations (primarily), and the overwhelming complexity of the genetic expression system, it is ridiculous to believe that the theories put forth at present to explain an evolutionary process through unguided natural mechanisms fail to account for the complexity of life. Yes, things look designed and follow design. Is there a purely natural explanation? If there is, we don't know about it yet. We can't even explain how simple life arose.
@circusOFprecision “But due to known genetic barriers,” There we have it. What are these supposed “genetic barriers”? You really need to support that claim because there are absolutely none from generation to generation as you will agree but over tens of thousands of generations the small advantages that are selected for accumulate. Interestingly a sudden environmental change could render previously advantageous changes as disadvantageous possibly resulting in extinction.
@circusOFprecision You see the mutations are random and while NS is not random it is by chance i.e. is the population by an active volcano or an inactive one?
“, and the overwhelming complexity of the genetic expression system,”
Oh dear oh dear. I despair. “It is complicated therefore god did it”. Not only is that not science but blind faith but you cannot even get that argument of the ground until you prove this god bloke actually exists
I know you will say that we do know how, or that there is an explanation for evolution. But your explanations quickly leave the realm of science and descend into the absurd because they are based more upon what is not known than what is known. Also, to constrict reality to the 5 human senses is not warranted. I know it keeps science "in bounds", but it is possible that there truly is more going on that simply the effects we perceive. My bet is on design, from the quantum up, but we don't know.
@circusOFprecision “But your explanations quickly leave the realm of science”
Nope. The people who do the studies in their own particular fields are called scientists. Their works are rigorously peer reviewed by other scientists, itching to find errors (for their own fame). Even Einstein was proved wrong by his fellow scientists on the Steady State Theory.
That’s how it works yet the scientific community as a whole support evolution to the hilt.
@circusOFprecision If you want absurd then try applying science to Genesis
The truth is you DO need to be a scientist to prove evolution but you don’t need to be a scientist to disprove creationism. A layman can do that quite easily.
Have you ever read Genesis? It’s a complete and utter joke. Nice story for kids though.
"it is ridiculous to believe that the theories put forth at present to explain an evolutionary process through unguided natural mechanisms fail to account for the complexity of life."
I meant to say it is ridiculous to believe this scenario, not that it fails. I believe it does fail. I believe people accept it for two reasons. First, intellectual peer pressure. Second, it's the best that scientific naturalism has going at present. Yet there are obvious gaps, huge gaps, in this understanding.
@circusOFprecision “First, intellectual peer pressure” What the hell is intellectual peer pressure. There is only ONE type of peer pressure that counts & that's from other scientists
“Second, it's the best that scientific naturalism has going at present.”
That’s true. If somebody can come up with a Viable (i.e. not “we don't know so god did it”) alternative theory backed up by evidence then so be it. That happens a lot in science.
However, most scientists agree with Evolutionso this is unlikely
Oh, I'm sorry, it's religious indoctrination. But I have bad news. Science left your bullshit in the dust 30 years ago. Hence PE, evo-devo, and a host of other naturalistic theories that exist because Neo-Darwinism is inept.
@circusOFprecision “Oh, I'm sorry, it's religious indoctrination.” It does appear that is what you are suffering from but thanks for the apology. Quite big of you.
“Science left your bullshit in the dust 30 years ago.”
Yet the vast majority of today’s biologists, the people who do the actual work, support evolution.
How the hell do PE and Evo-Devo disprove evolution? More baseless Creo Slogans.
@circusOFprecision Also, by necessity any scientific theory MUST be falsifiable.
Evolution is no exception to this e.g. find a mammal in Cambrian & Evolution needs to serious reassessment. Of course even IF Evolution was disproven, then in no way does that prove Creationism.
Creationism of course is NOT falsifiable i.e. despite all the evidence against it, all you have to say is “I have faith that your particular flavour of god did it” and hence it cannot qualify as science.
Cecal valves, could have been a gene that was inactive. And the presence of bacteria in association with the new food source could have been an environmental signal that reactivated the gene. You never pointed to the mutation and how selection pressures helped it spread so quickly through the sub-population. Who isn't addressing issues here? Oh yeah, it's you. So there you go, set things straight...or you can just keep saying meaningless bullshit like "evolution is a fact".
@circusOFprecision “Cecal valves, could have been a gene that was inactive.”
Ah yes. The usual creationist explanation “could have”. “Could have” been Martians that created the valves too.
However, i will say that it is at least possible but you do realise that such redundant genes (e.g. teeth in birds) SUPPORT evolution.
Again, if true, it should be easy to reactivate that gene in a member of the original population. Another simple experiment for creationist “scientists”.
No wait, you don't even have all the details. Yet you KNOW it was evolution. When you say evolution, are you saying common descent? What exactly are you claiming? Like I said before, common descent doesn't equal evolution in a Darwinian sense.
@circusOFprecision “You never pointed to the mutation & how selection pressures helped it spread so quickly through the sub-population“ The selective pressures were the enforced change in diet. Such rapid enforcement results in rapid change else, extinction.
Re mutation, nobody was on the island to observe intermediate stages. But the island population started as 5 adult pairs so the allele change caused by mutations would be a high % of the population & this high % retained as passed down.
@circusOFprecision “How do you even know there were intermediate stages? There is too much speculation here,”
I don’t. Nobody does. That’s why I said so. But what I do know is that an isolated population developed completely new traits from the parent population due to environmental pressures.
Either way inheritability proves evolution.
You claim the gene was already there but that means that evolution would have rendered it redundant.
Btw you have not addressed the % allele frequency point.
@circusOFprecision “or you can just keep saying meaningless bullshit like "evolution is a fact".”
The fossil record, biogeography, ring species, vestigials, atavisms, embryology etc etc are all mere OBSERVATIONS confirming the fact.
The job of the Scientific Theory is to explain those facts. BTW all those listed, at the same time also obliterate completely creationism for the myth that it is.
The cecal valves develop because of the bacteria. I don't know how the cecal valves are genetically coded, but I do know the bacteria need them. It's possible And since the lizards use the same food source, and the bacteria aid in the digestion of this food source, they both need each other. But again, they have not found a genetic difference from the reading I've done. So if this a new trait, the mutation needs to be identified. Otherwise it looks like symbiosis to me.
Are you implying the bacteria didn’t exist before?
I don’t know if they occur in the original population but that's not so important as mutations causing the cecal valve giving the evolutionary advantage of forming fermentation chambers Thus the valve evolution will have preceded the enhanced fermenting. The bacteria would disperse too quickly prior to this novelty.
It should be easy to determine if these traits are inheritable or not.
Yes, I expect wings. I expect a pump, or a photo sensor. Apparently natural selection and mutation produced all of these things already, from nothing. Let's take e coli. A gene was broken that changed an enzyme just enough for the struggling population to use nylon as a food source. Once said population was reintroduced to their natural food source and the parent population, natural selection selected the bacteria with the broken gene out. So again, a favorite example, and a complete bust.
@circusOFprecision "Yes, I expect wings", maybe you really meant "I want to see wings" as over so few generations, that would actually disprove evolution. I know you lot are desperate for evidence against evolution & that would do quite nicely for you.
Have to laugh at your explanation for ecoli evolution. Is that the same explanation for ALL viruses & bacteria mutations in nature?
"Broken gene"? More like a broken argument.
How you getting on with the fossils, biogeography and ring species?
No, I'm quite desperate for evidence. Studies of HIV and malaria have yielded no new biological functions, not even a single new protein-protein interaction. Your complete ignorance about e coli is striking. It's actually mind boggling. I guess you don't know anything about science, you just get on here and preach evolution like a religious mantra. Yes, a gene was damaged that altered an enzyme just enough so that the e coli could metabolize nylon.
@circusOFprecision “Studies of HIV and malaria have yielded no new biological functions,”
And what NEW biological function would you expect? Wings? Tusks? NB HIV is a virus & malaria a parasite.
If it wasn’t for understanding evolution we would be totally at a loss as to why antibiotics/vaccines work one day & not the next. Luckily we DO understand evolution which helps us develop the next antibiotic.
How you getting on with the Fossil record, Biogeogrpahy & Ring Species? Just asking again.
According to evolutionary theory all creatures came from a bacterium. What I would expect to see is a new lineage that utilizes a different host, or at least a new protein-protein interaction. Nothing. I know how anti-biotic resistance works. Apparently you don't because you somehow think it has something to do with evolution and common ancestry. I'm getting along great. You seem completely lost. Actually, you sound more like a religious witness, keep it to yourself.
WHY ARE YOU GUYS WASTING YOUR BREATHS TRYING TO write intelligent counter-arguments against this? Would you stop to try and argue with a 1 year old about mathematics?
We have *seen* speciation, including among creatures *not* fitting the mathematical model. For instance, cichlids (*fish*) in Africa, and fruit flies in laboratory settings (in populations *nowhere near* quadrillions). Therefore, the premise is false, and this video is a complete bucket of shit.
This video does not disprove evolution in any way because, in typical creationist fashion, the creationist assumes that evolution is based on random chance rather than natural selection.
Species don't spontaneously change, they gradually change based on what traits are best for the population's long term survival.
@kswiatlo Gradual change is not observed....? Are you fucking serious? Not only can we observe gradual change in REAL TIME, but we also have an extensive fossil record to back up these claims. Until you actual take the time to understand evolution you'll be stuck in your "I don't care how: God Dun It" mindset without any chance to actually understand this amazing world around us. And if you don't think god would want you to understand how the world actually works... well then your going to hell.
@kswiatlo First off, yes, gradual change is observed in every population between every generation. The fossil record may not show gradual change at the same level, but that is because of the specific nature of fossilization, providing several discrete points rather than a continuous spectrum.
Even with those discrete bits, though, scientists HAVE filled in the gaps with so many points, that the trend has become much more gradual as we fill in the fossil record.
Ah so all this hardwork and rigor that scientists have been doing is wrong and the answer is simply that mr magical man in the sky likes horses so if they start to die he makes new ones!
That makes much more sense then documented observations and experiments that have undergone the scrutiny of thousands of scientists and hundreds of years.
This video is rife with the same unsubstantiated nonsense that non-evolutionists claim when it's not in their holy book.
Read something else - and I'm aware that the bible says that it's all you really need to read - and your mind may just be opened enough to be inclined to read something else.
I became a non-believer through education. Not in school, but reading in my spare time the things that actually matter.
Knowledge is power only when when that knowledge makes rational sense.
People are so retarded. It seems that, since people can't grasp the time evolution has had to work(over 3 billion years), and since people can't grasp that number they just assume it's not true. It's a failure of the human mind to not accept the evidence for evolution.
Faerlon123 15 hours ago
Ugh...Dr. Ross..how can you made such elementary mistakes?? Most mutations are NEUTRAL, not damaging. And mathematical models actually do support a common descent. A simple look up in the field of bioinformatics will tell you that.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr
You guys hear what you want to hear, not what has been said. Hugh say there are more negative mutations than beneficial ones. Likelihood is at best 1:10000. Neutral are... neutral - have no influence.
kswiatlo 1 month ago
@kswiatlo ah ok i just re-heard it again. Yes you are correct. Although i gotta say, ignoring neutral mutation when talking about mutations is a big no-no, consider they make up majority of the mutations. Sounds like he is purposely leaving out certain info to emphasis on the point he wants to get across (i.e. sneaky). And also i'm very interested to see where he gets that likelihood from, if it is actually cited in any peer-reviewed articles.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr
Neutral mutations would have NO selective advantage whatsoever. The proportion of negatives to positives is what is important.
greatgulffixed 3 weeks ago
@greatgulffixed The argument is that negative mutations are too common such that it prevents evolution from happening. This is obviously wrong, since most mutations are neutral. If most mutations are beneficial, then you would expect evolution to happen at a much faster rate. But we know the timescale of evolution is in the order of millions of years, and this correspond to the idea that most mutations are neutral, and beneficial mutations are rare.
Casshyr 3 weeks ago
He did not help me to find how evolution doesn't exist. I personally think that Richard Dawkins has way more evidence than this little clip of 2 minutes that had him yabbering on about something he didn't even know for sure.
budgerigar42 1 month ago
@budgerigar42 yea and notice how he, like all non-evolutionists, like to assert claims as if they are facts, yet if you look up those claims in peer-reviewed journals, they are not supported at all. But at least he believes world is not 6000 years old....unlike Hovind the greatest retard of all.
Casshyr 1 month ago
sigh, i almost had some respect for hugh ross learning he is an old earth creationist, but of course hes retarded after all
oneadamtwelve86 2 months ago
Comical haha.
petterthowsen92 2 months ago
This guy is a joker.
Any good mathematics student will understand the as the change caused by a mutation or particular gene combination in a pool approaches 0, the probability that it results in a positive change one approaches 0.5. Since natural selection is very sensitive to even minute changes, evolution will take place and it will be taking a very gradual path. If you do not understan, please ask questions. I am happy to explain.
nsugathadasa 3 months ago 3
@nsugathadasa
"evolution will take place and it will be taking a very gradual path" - that idea has been abandoned by prominent evolutionists 1:05 overwhelmed by fossil record. That is why you have a very improbable model of Punctuated Equilibrium.
kswiatlo 1 month ago
@kswiatlo Evolution taking a gradual path is not abandoned by evolutionists. One must remember transitions happen relatively fast and the stable states last for longer hence much more fossils of stable states than the transition ones. The other fact is that with overwhelming DNA evidence that support evolution, one does not even need fossils at all to prove the evolution fact.
nsugathadasa 1 month ago
best part : 2:02...
krickrack 3 months ago
Poor people, immune to information and only hear what they want to hear.
BaraSkit07 4 months ago
Yes, the vast majority of mutations are negative or neutral, but significant mutations only appear in a small minority of the population, therefore natural selection will tend to kill of the negative mutations, leaving the rest of the population intact because they don't have a chance to breed. Neutral mutations (or slightly negative) may or may not stay in the genome.due to chance.
AdumbroDeus 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 months ago
is this guy for real?
chrisosatx 5 months ago
This Dr Ross is an imbecile!!
jjoneil73 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jjoneil73. Dr Ross is not an imbecile, he is just blinded by Christian mythology.
KevZen2000 5 months ago
Only in America.
wholtone 6 months ago 3
And was that last comment a joke? Sorta works lol. I really don't seem to care HOW God created everything...
turtleking9999 6 months ago
THIS GUY IS ALWAYS WRONG BECAUSE IT IS CONTRARY TO WHAT I LEARNED AT MY SOCIALIST PUBLIC SCHOOL WITH STANDARDIZED TEACHING. LET ME GIVE A POLITICALLY CHARGED ARGUMENT AND GIVE IT A THUMBS DOWN.
turtleking9999 6 months ago
Comment removed
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
Haahaahaa, God likes horses and whales, when they die he makes new ones....ROLF. Yes, I guess this "doctor" also thinks God makes babies too. Good grief. I wonder why Christians permit this kind of stupidity that makes them look like a bunch of 8 yr. olds. Might as well say the stork brings babies after God makes them.
matreyia 6 months ago
The guy obviously has his mathematics totally wrong (he is merely theorising to fit his world view) because the fossil record (with it's numerous transitional forms) and biogeography are the most compelling evidence. Punctuated evolution is absolutely fine because there is no need to assume that evolution advances at a steady and consistent rate. The bloke should stick to quadratic equations and not meddle with branches of science where he is not qualified to do so.
pilgrimpater 7 months ago
@pilgrimpater
He has it wrong? Haha! Basically you are saying he has it wrong simply because you don't agree with his conclusion. Nothing in your comment advances your position beyond your original assumption that evolution happened. And you are fine with punctuation. So freaking what? This is science, not "evolution must be true because it fits MY worldview". Maybe you shouldn't make comments until you figure out what you are talking about. But hey, it's your right to advance your worldview.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision You didn't make one single point in that verebal diatribe to counter what i said. Playing games with numbers is anything but science. The numbers mean nothing when the fossil record quite clearly and categorically proves an evolutionary precess beyond all doubt. On this subject i listen to professional palaeontologists and not a mathematician (may just as well listen to my bin man). BTW can you tell me why punctated evolution is not fine? Can you make ANY points?
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
P.E. has no mechanism of action. It simply assumes rapid evolutionary change in small populations. It isn't observable, and it really doesn't explain anything. Smaller populations would evolve quicker because the changes could spread more easily? I think not. I think that P.E. is just moving the goal posts because gradualism doesn't work. So if you know of a mechanism operating in P.E. that is scientifically verifiable, please share.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision Not observable? It's been observed in the lab & in the wild numerous times. As i said some ill thought out mathemetical model is not going to disprove what we know for sure from the Fossils & Biogeography. Smaller populations allow allele frequency to develop independently of the main population. When that allele change has an advantage then the smaller populate succeeeds. Of course it works. Maths is as only as good as the validity the model. PE is dependent on environs.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
P.E. has been observed? I'm sorry, you are confused. P.E. makes the claim that evolution occurred too quickly to leave behind the evidence of transitions. What has been observed is adaptation, where the allele frequency spikes, then returns to average after the environment is normalized. Very different than new organs developing or new types of organisms.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision The rapid evolution of the cecal valve in the Italian Wall Lizard demonstrates my point. It seems you are under the illusion that evolution occurs at a consistent rate. You really don't understand about allele shift in populations. An allele change in a small population is proportionally higher than in a larger one. Hence when that small population is isolated it diverges from the main one. Check Ring Species & yet again, check the fossil sequence & biogeography.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
Do you know what caused this to occur? I'm pretty sure there was a bacteria present that was required for the lizards to digest a new food source. Because the bacteria was present it allowed genes to be expressed that produced the valves. These weren't mutations, if they were, something was most likely broken in order for the lizards to adapt. This was also possibly an instance of symbiogenesis. How does this turn a lizard into something else?
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision "I'm pretty sure there was a bacteria ...". You shouldn't be "pretty sure" because i have never heard any scientist in the field cite bacteria as the cause. Why don't creo "scientists" do an experiment to expose unaffected lixards to this bacteria? Dead easy but they won't will they. Even if it was bacteria it is still evolution. Oh don't forget the change in jaw size and shape.
"How does this turn a lizard into something else?" It does and has. What do you expect? Wings?
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
Since you can't think for yourself, let me do it for you. The "evolved" population and the parent population are genetically indistinguishable. The change in jaw size and shape can easily be contributed to the development of the lizard (adaptation 101, sigh). Also, yes microorganisms are present, hence the cecal valves. It is all explainable quite easily, no evolution required, simply adaptation. The fact this is your best evidence is not good for your side.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision "the change in jaw size and shape can easily be contributed to the development of the lizard" Yes development in that context means evolution.
"Also, yes microorganisms are present, hence the cecal valves."
What is the source of these microorganisms? Why can't they be introduced to the original population to prove your point? Are you saying the valves are not inherited? In that case it should be possible to inject them to kill the microorganisms to remove the valve.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
No it doesn't. You are mistaken. When I said development, I was referring to the growth of the lizard. As it matures, eating the tougher food source develops a more rigid jaw. There was no genetic difference between the "evolved" population and the parent population. Go look it up for yourself.
The bacteria are present because of the food source. They go hand in hand. It's called symbiosis. If a permanent change occurs to the host, it will become symbiogenesis.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision So if you took captive young & fed them on the original diet, they would not exhibit these traits? Another simple experiment for Creationist scientists” to carry out but they won’t will they as they know the results will be an embarrassment.
“There was no genetic difference “ You mean extremely little genetic difference.
You have unwittingly given a powerful example of the evolution of symbiosis. Thankyou.
And if the changes are inheritable then it’s evolution.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
Actually, you are the one that expects wings, eyes, fins and so forth. You are the one that believes a bacteria mutated and replicated into all living things. It's so ridiculous, somehow you want to pin that belief on me? Haha! I feel sorry for you. You are probably at least intelligent enough to wipe your own ass, why do you believe such junk science? Go back and read my comments. I destroyed your examples and you came back with nothing but stupidity. Try again? Nah, goodbye.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “Actually, you are the one that expects wings, eyes, fins and so forth.”
News to me. I wouldn’t expect that at all and is more akin to creationism.
“I destroyed your examples”. You have, at best, been woefully inadequate. Isn’t it about time you DID make some responses? If you don’t know, just say so.
And it even seems you think the cecal valves & microorganisms poofed into existence at the same instant. If so, it would be no surprise coming from a creationist.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
The articles say that the populations were genetically indistinguishable. Quit twisting the facts to fit your theory. Symbiosis yes, symbiogenesis..,that has not been shown. By the way, I have no problem with symbiosis. In fact it is observable, unlike Neo-Darwinism. The only thing that your theory has shown is that sometimes broken genes can lead to adaptive response. So when are you gonna give me evidence for evolution? Empty promises. You guys never fail to disappoint.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “The articles say the populations were genetically indistinguishable.” That’s the mitochondrial DNA. So, what drives the cecal valve protein building?
“Symbiogenesis”? WTF does that have to do with anything?
“In fact it (symbiosis) is observable” Nobody observed the cecal valves develop on the Island population. So, according to Creationist “logic” it could never have happened. “unlike Neo-Darwinism” No such thing but there's Evolution & a Scientific Theory to explain it.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
Cecal valves aren't proof of evolution. Neo-Darwinian evolution is the name of the theory that you support. Evolution is a concept, not a theory. You did actually ask one good question between all of your nonsensical statements. Try finding it and answering it.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “Cecal valves aren't proof of evolution.” Until you can address the many issues I have raised, then I'm afraid they are.
“Neo-Darwinian evolution” No such branch of science exists. It’s just a creationist label & means nothing.
“Evolution is a concept, not a theory” It is a fact just as gravity is a fact. The Scientific Theories explain those facts.
“Try finding it and answering it.” I'm spoilt for choice. Could be any one of the many points you have failed to address.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
Many of the points...? Oh, you mean the ones that I raised. Why do you avoid the actual terminology that describes what you believe in? Are you ashamed? Apparently, you must know how ridiculous it is. No, evolution is not a fact. No one has ever demonstrated how new information is introduced into genetic systems. Evolution is a concept. So tell me, how did the genetic expression system come about? Or gene regulatory systems? Developmental systems? Body plans? Cellular machinery?
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “Many of the points” OK you win, i will repeat the top 3 to save you the effort.
1) Explain how the valves and microorganisms poofed into existence at the same time.
(to be fair you attempt this in your next comment)
2) Explain why the Island population traits are inherited
3) Explain why no creationist experiment has reverted a living Island species to the original by reverting to the original diet.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
1) Inactive gene becomes activated by bacteria
2) Doesn't even make sense, try to word your question better
3) Doesn't even make sense, try to word your question better
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision
1) And IF true (has any scientist involved on the project stated this?), btw redundant genes prove evolution.
2) I meant explain why the traits are passed down to subsequent generations i.e. inherited
3) Yes it makes perfect sense to carry out a simple experiment to prove a hypothesis but creation “scientists” never do this because all they do is sit in their armchairs scouring the work of real scientists and take sections out of context to forward their world view.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “No one has ever demonstrated how new information is introduced into genetic systems.”
You are ill informed. Gene duplication is well documented with the advantage that the original gene is left to build the original protein development, while the new gene can be expressed in the development of a totally new protein. Other "new information" examples have been demonstrated.
Some plants have even duplicated their whole genome and I underestand many times over in some cases.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
Gene duplication? Are you serious? How did I know this would be your response. So let me get this straight. The original gene keeps it's function while the new one magically mutates until it produces a new trait. Sounds great, where's the evidence? Some plants? So what?
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision How did I know this would be your response.” You are aware of the numerous proofs by the scientific community. No magic involved. It’s been observed & proven.
The duplication can lay dormant for ages & mutation, over time, may or may not result in novel functionality. The original gene also may or may not alter.
Now if you want real magic then check out Genesis where the invisible magic man in the sky poofs all life out of nothing (tbh i dpn't know if you're a literalist).
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “So tell me, how did the genetic expression system come about? Or gene regulatory systems? Developmental systems? Body plans? Cellular machinery?”
Body plans (overall basic body plans) pertain to a specific phylum andw on't change but if they did it would be deleterious..
Cellular machinery is virtually the same across all eukaryotes.
Haven’t got a clue what Development systems are.
Obviously, since the traits are hereditary, then the valves are a result of gene expression.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision But you miss the point. If inheritable then this must be classed as evolution. While the detail is interesting it is not needed for the argument.
So, don’t ask me which specific genes as I do not know but I am sure if you check the work of those involved in the study e.g. Andrew Hendry, a biology professor at Montreal's McGill University or Duncan Irschick, another study author and biology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, then you may find out.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
FIne, you say it's evolution. I'd call it adaptation. But since the beginning you've been claiming this as evidence for universal common ancestry via unguided natural processes. Do you really think this kind of thing is what created the entire ecosystem from chemicals? Go back and look at my questions again, you can't answer said questions with this kind of process, even if it is how you say it is.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision Evolution?/Adaption? Who cares what you label it?
“Unguided process”. Yes well done. You got it.
“Do you really think this kind of thing is what created the entire ecosystem from chemicals?”
Well every process involving DNA, RNA, Proteins etc etc ARE chemical reactions.
Do you have any evidence for design? There are many evidences against.
What questions? I have answered each one.
Ask the question again if you don’t understand my reply.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
Let's be scientific here. There are only a few possibilities. 1. Mutations and selection lead to new cecal valves in an extremely short amount of time (extremely improbable and not shown, only speculated by you). 2. The presence of certain bacteria reactivated a latent gene. 3. The lizards bred with another isolated population that already possessed the trait. No matter which is true, or one that I missed, none of this is leading to speciation.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “Let's be scientific here”
Well yes. # 3 is a non starter as the lizards, without or without the trait, had never been catalogued prior to introduction of the 5 pairs.#2) Again, a “latent” gene supports evolution.
#1) Again, let Creationist “scientists” map the genomes and compare and prove #2 or disprove #1. Now that WOULD be “scientific here”
Even if #2 was true, then the inherited traits are STILL evolution.
Sooner or later you will have to address these points
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
The evidence for design is overwhelming. Pseudogenes regulate protein synthesis, introns transcribe many RNAs that perform countless functions. The whole genetic expression system is more clever than we possibly imagined. To say it just happened via the mechanisms you describe sounds like pure ignorance to me. The entire argument from "junk DNA" is pure bullshit, yet I notice you still use it. Running out of arguments that work scientifically? Don't worry, science will progress.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “The evidence for design is overwhelming.”
“The whole genetic expression system is more clever than we possibly imagined.”
I nearly choked on my coffee. More like underwhelming. Let me translate your statement into plain English.
“It is complicated therefore God Did It”. What type of science is that?
In fact complexity suggests anything BUT design.
Nobody has ever proved a link of any natural process with being designed. Wishful thinking is not science..
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
Hawkings tries to account for nature using nature. But it doesn't work. He doesn't start with "nothing". So there is your first problem. The second problem is accounting for the specific sequencing of the genetic expression system, not to mention the multiple layers of "programming" therein. You can say "nature" did it. That's a non-explanation. It is also refuted by the highly conserved nature of genetic information. Life can replicate and adapt. It's dynamic.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision I’m afraid bringing in an Astrophysistist is not going to further any debate on biological evolution.
“The second problem is accounting for the specific sequencing of the genetic expression system, not to mention the multiple layers of "programming" therein.”
Your argument falls down at the first hurdle a the so called designer by definition must be even more complex and you merely move the problem further back. However this is not necessary with natural explanations.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision But you miss the point again. Evolution is under no doubt whatsoever because of plain observation (Palaeontology, biogeography, vestigialilty, embryology etc).
OK not all underlying mechanisms are fully understand. That’s where you guys step in with your desperate “So god must have done it”. Trouble is throught history “God Done its” have been gradually replaced by naturalistic explanations but NEVER the reverse.
“Life can replicate & adapt. It's dynamic.“ It’s evolution.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
Unfortunately, in the case of the cell, it's information rich structure only becomes more and more complex as our understanding increases. So claiming that a natural explanation will be found, while the evidence continues to move in the complete opposite direction is ignorance on your part, not ID proponents. Adaptation is evolution, that's true. Macro-evolution via unguided natural processes is evolution, but that's false. Therefore adaptation can't equal macro-evolution.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “more complex as our understanding increases.” You could say the same about understanding lighting. It all boils down to quantum levels which we are still learning about but the “God Did it” argument is still the biggest cop out and the last desperate refuge of the religious.
“while the evidence continues to move in the complete opposite direction”
But evolution has gone from simple to complex over geological time.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
Quantum? Wow, that's a good sign. Perhaps you are finally ready to talk science instead of religion. So here is some science for you. Living organisms adapt. Cells can engineer their own genomes. The genetic expression system is poly-functional. The environment absolutely effects that adaptation and evolution of organisms. That being said, design is not proven...yet. But life isn't slave to mutations and selection. You seem to be stuck on that, for religious reasons it seems.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Here's some science for you.
Evolution happens.
Design is an opinion.
It is you that has no idea what you are talking about, and your mistakes are obvious in every post you waste our time with.
SORRY.
odinata 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision I only mentioned quantum to refute your absurd increase in complexity claim re the cell.
It's not part of the evolutionary debate. “The environment absolutely effects that adaptation” So now you are supporting Lamarckism which even predated Darwin. “
“and evolution of organisms.” So now you accept evolution as true! You are confused.
So what is it? Lamarckism or Natural Selection?
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision But as typical of all creationists, the keyword is “can” (assuming it's even true in the first place) which is NOT “instead of” mutations. Seriously, the genome project has actually measured mutations from parent to child. You have them, I have them and there is no refuting they are a necessary part of gradual change in a population. That’s evolution. That's what NS acts upon be it advantageous or not.
Such comments make you appear to be arguing against even microevolution.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision ” That being said, design is not proven...yet.”
Nobody is remotely close to proving such guff.
“But life isn't slave to mutations and selection.”
I’m afraid selection has been proved e.g animal husbandry fast tracks/simulates the natural process.
And as for Mobile DNA, it would be as prone to mutations as anything else.
Are you saying we no longer claim that different alleles for a specific gene don't exist?
Either way we are talking about inheritance & hence evolution.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
From the beginning you have been claiming that adaptations turn one kind of organism into another. Yet you have provided zero evidence. If you knew anything beyond Darwinian apologetics, you would know that inheritance is not the primary driver of change within species. Like I said, go read Shapiro's work on natural genetic engineering. You think scientists still think like you, it's actually pretty funny.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision You’ve really lost the plot because you are the one who coined the phrase “adaptation”.
Your comprehension skills are worsening day by day.
Re “Darwinian apologetics” But Darwinian Evolution it is fact and all we are discussing are the possible mechanisms and finer detail at that. I side with the scientific majority while you latch on to and misrepresent another scientist.
Do we deny Gravity just because we may disagree over the explanation?
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “you would know that inheritance is not the primary driver”
I have never claimed inheritance is the driver. It’s more the result. Let’s do this, again for your benefit.
If traits are not inherited then, using our Italian Wall lizard example, what you are saying is that if a lizard, born on one island, was moved to the other island, then it would aquire the traits of the rest of the population of that island.
That is complete and utter madness.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
What are you even saying here? Now you are questioning natural selection, but only if the scenario goes against evolution via mutation? Baffling. 1 year generation times means that the adapted sub-population would disappear rapidly once reintroduced into the original population, if indeed said population was more fit. The adaptive advantages would only hold if the environmental reasons for it also held.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision When have I ever questioned Natural Selection? 100% wrong but Epigenetics (which you are pushing as the norm rather than the exception), known since WW2 and studied in 1990, is independent of Environment and hence Natural Selection (i can provide examples).
If adaption was the sole, or even the prime driver, then those studying it (you know, the pesky scientists) would make that claim. They don’t, yet you choose to do so in order to bolster your world view.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision If you reintroduce the changed lizards into the original population then they won't have an evolutionary advantage & their allele frequency will gradually be diminished over generations due to environmental pressures. The same goes if you introduce some of the original population onto the new island.
Those with alleles best suited to the environment, if the % frequency is high enough, will eventually dominate.
Your “adaption” is at population level, not via individual.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision Let’s humour you & pretend that individuals (necessary by your argument) adapt to environmental pressures .
Does each individual adapt in exactly the same rate & manner as the next? Really?
If the valve developed gradually then isn’t that the same net effect as the standard explanation for change of a population. Isn't it still Evolution?
Are these adaptions passed onto the next generation or does each new born have to adapt from scratch?
Big problems without inheritance.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
Everything else you say is just fart noise coming out of your asshole mouth. Someone needs to put you in check. You equivocate, deceive, misinterpret, all to defend Darwinism. Your a fucking idiot and the only reason you continue on cherry picking evidence and reciting overturned hypotheses is because it's part of your religion. No more respect for you, you don't deserve it. Go reeducate yourself.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “Everything else etc “.
Nothing of worthy of a response in such an immature rant, I’m afraid.
Funny though because you are the one who is cherry picking in a desperate attempt to disprove evolution.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “ You seem to be stuck on that, for religious reasons it seems.”
Science is not religion. Now believing blindly with no evidence in an absent invisible sky daddy IS religion. Show me a temple to Evolution where daily worship takes place.
I'm assuming they do have dictionaries where you live. Get one! Look up Religion.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “Adaptation is evolution” No wrong. Organisms do not adapt or react to the environment.
Beneficial (at the time) alleles, if present in a reasonable proportion, are selected for. You are putting the cart before the horse.
“Macro-evolution via unguided natural processes is evolution, but that's false”
Is true unless you can prove otherwise. Just claiming it false is yet another in the long line of creationists slogans with no science (or even philosophy to back it up).
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
Yes they do. It's called epigenetics. The more you speak, the more retarded you sound. Your mechanism doesn't work. If it did, why did biology leave it behind decades ago? Go read up on natural genetic engineering by Shapiro. He's an actual scientist. You are just a Darwinian apologist, and I have come to realize you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “Your mechanism doesn't work.” You must be lacking comprehension skills. Epigenetics is a possible gene expression independent of DNA (though it switches genes on/off) in ADDITION to expression via DNA. It is NOT an alternative nor is it a majority case. And the key point is that it is inheritable, hence still evolution.
Re Shapiro. Why not check out his work? He is no creationist & guess what, not only does he cite gene duplication but also whole genome doublings.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
Shapiro isn't a creationist. He's an evolutionary microbiologist that happens to know from actual scientific research that Neo-Darwinism is bunk. That's why you don't check out his work. Because it challenges your preconceived and utterly false assumptions about living things. Give me one example of where a gene duplicated itself, mutated and turned into a completely new gene.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision
The fact that organisms evolve isn't being challenged.
Its being confirmed.
The reason you cherrypick your science is that your religious opinions are being shown to be idiotic....
odinata 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision Yes, an evolutionary microbiologist, yet too dumb to realise his work disproves evolution unlike a genius such as you.
Why do creos (you must be one judging by the obscenities) take other people’s work & twist it’s meaning to suit their world view?
Example of Gene Duplication? Let’s see. A quick Google.
genetics.org/content/138/4/1331.short.
Or ask Shapiro as he cites Whole Gene Duplications & why assume change to the duplicated gene happens at the same time as duplication?
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
I never twisted anything. You've been claiming all along that random variation and selection causes an organism to turn into a fundamentally different organism. I showed you that bacteria can regulate their own genome under environmental pressure which flies in the face of your baseless assertions. It doesn't disprove evolution, that wasn't my point. It shows that your view of genomes is oversimplified, organisms are not hostages of random mutations and selection.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “random variation and selection causes an organism to turn into a fundamentally different organism”
Well the fossil record proves that as fact. The actual mechanism is interesting to debate but cannot alter that fact. But yes of course, miniscule changes do accumulate to big changes over time and that includes speciation. If you claim these changes can happen at micro level then what is the limiting factor to prevent changes at macro level?
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “I showed you that bacteria can regulate their own genome under environmental pressure which flies in the face of your baseless assertions.”
You have pointed out Shapiro's work. You've not proven this is the main mechanism of change & more importantly neither has Shapiro nor has he claimed it.
Though you would like me to, I am not denying his work nor of others working on Epigenetics but like all Creos you latch onto some "new" development as “evidence” against Evolution.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision Finally, you have tried to topic shift in order to avoid some basic questions.
1) Why have creation “scientists” not compared genomes of the two populations
2) Why have they not proved that the traits are not hereditary?
3) Why have you not addressed the allele % at population level?
I know the answer to the first two and hopefully the penny will drop with you.
As for the 3rd I will await to see if you fully understand that which are attacking
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
1) I don't know. Maybe they don't have access to the data. Or maybe they have, and neither of us are aware. What I do know is that creationists probably wouldn't even take issue with such rapid, local adaptation. It fits with a lot of their views actually.
2) Like I said before, the trait is hereditary and it was suggested that it was already present. Natural selection chose the lizards with more pronounced gut muscles and jaws, and the environment stimulated the physiology.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision1) I know. Because cretion "scientists" don't actually do the work. They just put on a white coat and quote mine the work of real scientists. High profile Christian scientists like Francis Collins and Ken Miller won't touch the likes of the Discovery Institute & Creation Ministries with a barge pole.
2)If the trait is heridatary then that is evolution. Don't confuse inheritance with a redundant gene being "switched" back on. THe environment selected those with a advantage.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
3) I asked you to address the alle % because I don't know the answer
What I am attacking is your belief that an adaptive response, even new traits emerging that help a population survive better in a new environment, is not the mechanism that produced all the diversity we see. In fact, it couldn't possibly be. What kind of environmental pressure is going to turn a population of fish into non-fish? None, because it would be detrimental to the population as a whole which is already adapted.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision 3) I wasn't asking you for the actual % figure. I was just making the point as to how evolution works and i wanted your rebuttal.
"is not the mechanism that produced all the diversity we see. "
Well actually over vast amounts of time the accumulation and enhancement of traits is responsible for diversity. You need to provide the limiting function that prevents this accumulation.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision "What kind of environmental pressure is going to turn a population of fish into non-fish?"
But this doesn't happen overnight.
Do you have any photos of yourself as a baby? I'm sure you do. No compare that photo to a recent photo.
At what stage did you turn into a young adult from a baby? Daft question of course but that is what you are asking of me. Small (indiscernable even) changes over vast periods of time (and selected for) is the answer.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
Development is not the same thing as one type of creature physiologically changing into another. You continue to exercise circular reasoning, even though I try to point out to you that it simply doesn't work. Yes, changes in populations don't happen over night, but over generations. Statistically these changes fluctuate around a median, that's raw data. But the extrapolation that they produce new biological systems and organisms, there is no raw data to support that.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Evolution happens. Speciation happens.
The raw data is conclusive--there is NO question that, for example, that whales evolved from land mammals.
None.
Sorry bud.
odinata 6 months ago
@odinata
Haha! Feel sorry for yourself if you are going to feel sorry for anyone. If common ancestry between whales and cow like creatures is true, show me a mechanism. You are barking up the wrong tree. If you really want science, how about start with James Shapiro's work. He'll catch you up to speed. Apparently you are stuck in the 1950s
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Hahahahh..uhhh....What?
Who claimed that cow-like creatures are the ancestors of whales?
odinata 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision "If common ancestry between whales and cow like creatures is true, show me a mechanism. " I have spent days explaining the mechanisms (at a very high level) yet you still trot out the same tired old defeated slogans on others.
"Apparently you are stuck in the 1950s" I think you will find that the vast vast vast majority of biologists in 2011 support evolution. Yet another tired baseless slogan. You need to get up to date yourself.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “Development is not the same thing as one type of creature physiologically changing into another.” I have explained this. Why don’t you pay attention and actually address the points I make? You clearly have no understanding of what evolution states. Individuals do not change from generation to generation. I even gave you the analogy of photos to help you out but sadly you do not understand.
Btw please define Development.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “fluctuate around a median, that's raw data.” No, NS doesn’t revolve around medians.
If so, you wouldn’t even have microevolution. If you want to talk statistically then return to a particular beneficial allele predominating in a population having more chance of being passed on (selected for) & occupying a higher % in future populations.
That's why initially small populations (e.g. our friends the Wall Lizards) are more prone to % allele frquency & hence change.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision BTW when ever was my entire argument based on “Junk” DNA? Please pay attention.
Junk DNA is a generic phrase coined early on in it’s discovery of non coding DNA.
Scientists, real scientists, are gradually discovering the numerous various causes behind such DNA. Unfortunately for you, the ever diminishing unexplained sequences cannot be defaulted to design. That is NOT science.
“Don't worry, science will progress.” Yes indeed, which is why creationism is on it’s deathbed.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
I did my homework. The wall lizards did indeed adapt to a new environment/food source. While the original population ate primarily insects, the population released on the new island was forced to go back to a vegetarian diet. That in itself explains a lot. Most lizards are vegetarian. The muscles required for the cecal valves were already present, but they were enlarged to produce ferment chambers in the new population. Natural selection and adaptation my friend.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “I did my homework” After all this time you have only just discovered they were forced to change to a vegetarian diet? That is the WHOLE point. That is why Natural Selection the very cornerstone of Darwin’s Theory took over. Your word for “adaption” is nearly another word for Natural Selection. It is dead simple. The whole process of Natural Selection preferring certain alleles is called Evolution. You are merely playing with words as a get out.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
You do realize that these findings are not inconsistent with my views right? I mean, even if the lizards became a whole new species with brand new traits (which they did not as far as I can tell), as long as there is solid evidence to support it, I would completely accept it. What I will not accept is your claim that what happened to these lizards is the same thing that turned a cow into a whale. And let me explain why...
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “What I will not accept is your claim that what happened to these lizards is the same thing that turned a cow into a whale” No evolutionist would ever claim a cow turned into a whale.
A cow will ALWAYS give birth to a cow. A whale will ALWAYS give birth to a whale.
However, evolution is not about individuals over a few generations but about populations over many generations.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
First of all, no one has ever witnessed life starting, but it is assumed it only started once. That's just an assumption. Second, there is no naturalistic account for the genetic expression system and how the various body plans formed. There is just the assumption of rapid evolution. My bet is life started multiple times because it was inevitable, it was supposed to happen. Certain kinds of organisms went about surviving and adapted to different environments/food sources, diversifying.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “First of all, no one has ever witnessed life starting,"
Yes of course life started but is unlikely to start anew due to environmental pressures (I can explain this if you ask) but what does that have to do with subsequent speciation? Necessary but nothing to do with what happened afterewards.
“there is no naturalistic account for the genetic expression” There are plenty of works. Difficult to understand but there is much work done e.g. on the conserved core body plan.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “There is just the assumption of rapid evolution.”
There is NOTHING in evolution that states that change occurs at a consistent rate.
Let me help you. We all agree that mutations happen but NS is the great controller.
When the environment goes through a slow gradual change then there are less selective pressures but get a catastrophe e.g. Meteorite and the selective pressures go into overdrive.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision Dinos could not cope with post meteorite conditions but small mammals living underground survived and ultimately took over when the climate restabilised.
If you take environments that have changed relatively little such as oceans and rivers you will find creatures have changed much less due to less pressure from that environment e.g. sharks and crocs have changed little over millions of years whereas many land animals have gone through extraordinary changes or gone extinct..
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “My bet is life started multiple times”
Yes “bet” another word for “blind faith”.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
Is mammalian evolution vertical? No it isn't, at least not entirely. Novel traits don't come from organic soup, or random mutations, gene duplications, and so forth. If you read outside of your bias you would know that.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “Is mammalian evolution vertical? No it isn't, at least not entirely.”
Oh really? Please give examples. I agree that Horizontal Gene Transfer does occur in much lower life forms (as discovered by evolutionary biologists) but I have not heard about it in higher life forms. I await your answer but even if true it would be extremely rare and does not compromise the over all verticality of evolution of the higher organisms.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “Novel traits don't come from organic soup, or random mutations, gene duplications, and so forth.” Apart from “organic soup” (whatever that was all about), I think you will find that scientists have proved that they do. Shame that you choose not to explore the wonderful word of science and all in the name of defending a bronze age superstition. Priceless.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
But due to known genetic barriers, the harmful nature of mutations (primarily), and the overwhelming complexity of the genetic expression system, it is ridiculous to believe that the theories put forth at present to explain an evolutionary process through unguided natural mechanisms fail to account for the complexity of life. Yes, things look designed and follow design. Is there a purely natural explanation? If there is, we don't know about it yet. We can't even explain how simple life arose.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “But due to known genetic barriers,” There we have it. What are these supposed “genetic barriers”? You really need to support that claim because there are absolutely none from generation to generation as you will agree but over tens of thousands of generations the small advantages that are selected for accumulate. Interestingly a sudden environmental change could render previously advantageous changes as disadvantageous possibly resulting in extinction.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision You see the mutations are random and while NS is not random it is by chance i.e. is the population by an active volcano or an inactive one?
“, and the overwhelming complexity of the genetic expression system,”
Oh dear oh dear. I despair. “It is complicated therefore god did it”. Not only is that not science but blind faith but you cannot even get that argument of the ground until you prove this god bloke actually exists
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
I know you will say that we do know how, or that there is an explanation for evolution. But your explanations quickly leave the realm of science and descend into the absurd because they are based more upon what is not known than what is known. Also, to constrict reality to the 5 human senses is not warranted. I know it keeps science "in bounds", but it is possible that there truly is more going on that simply the effects we perceive. My bet is on design, from the quantum up, but we don't know.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “But your explanations quickly leave the realm of science”
Nope. The people who do the studies in their own particular fields are called scientists. Their works are rigorously peer reviewed by other scientists, itching to find errors (for their own fame). Even Einstein was proved wrong by his fellow scientists on the Steady State Theory.
That’s how it works yet the scientific community as a whole support evolution to the hilt.
You are just using creationst slogans now.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision If you want absurd then try applying science to Genesis
The truth is you DO need to be a scientist to prove evolution but you don’t need to be a scientist to disprove creationism. A layman can do that quite easily.
Have you ever read Genesis? It’s a complete and utter joke. Nice story for kids though.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
"it is ridiculous to believe that the theories put forth at present to explain an evolutionary process through unguided natural mechanisms fail to account for the complexity of life."
I meant to say it is ridiculous to believe this scenario, not that it fails. I believe it does fail. I believe people accept it for two reasons. First, intellectual peer pressure. Second, it's the best that scientific naturalism has going at present. Yet there are obvious gaps, huge gaps, in this understanding.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “First, intellectual peer pressure” What the hell is intellectual peer pressure. There is only ONE type of peer pressure that counts & that's from other scientists
“Second, it's the best that scientific naturalism has going at present.”
That’s true. If somebody can come up with a Viable (i.e. not “we don't know so god did it”) alternative theory backed up by evidence then so be it. That happens a lot in science.
However, most scientists agree with Evolutionso this is unlikely
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
Oh, I'm sorry, it's religious indoctrination. But I have bad news. Science left your bullshit in the dust 30 years ago. Hence PE, evo-devo, and a host of other naturalistic theories that exist because Neo-Darwinism is inept.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “Oh, I'm sorry, it's religious indoctrination.” It does appear that is what you are suffering from but thanks for the apology. Quite big of you.
“Science left your bullshit in the dust 30 years ago.”
Yet the vast majority of today’s biologists, the people who do the actual work, support evolution.
How the hell do PE and Evo-Devo disprove evolution? More baseless Creo Slogans.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “Yet there are obvious gaps, huge gaps, in this understanding.”
The'll ALWAYS be gaps in ALL scientific theories e.g. Theory of Gravity can't currently explain why it's the weak force but do you deny gravity?
Any gaps are rapidly being filled & even 150 years ago, Darwin had more than enough evidence for evolution even if he didn’t know the “mechanisms”.
150 years later we've added so much more. Detail, eg PE, may have come as a surprise but doesn’t alter the overall theory.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision Also, by necessity any scientific theory MUST be falsifiable.
Evolution is no exception to this e.g. find a mammal in Cambrian & Evolution needs to serious reassessment. Of course even IF Evolution was disproven, then in no way does that prove Creationism.
Creationism of course is NOT falsifiable i.e. despite all the evidence against it, all you have to say is “I have faith that your particular flavour of god did it” and hence it cannot qualify as science.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
Cecal valves, could have been a gene that was inactive. And the presence of bacteria in association with the new food source could have been an environmental signal that reactivated the gene. You never pointed to the mutation and how selection pressures helped it spread so quickly through the sub-population. Who isn't addressing issues here? Oh yeah, it's you. So there you go, set things straight...or you can just keep saying meaningless bullshit like "evolution is a fact".
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “Cecal valves, could have been a gene that was inactive.”
Ah yes. The usual creationist explanation “could have”. “Could have” been Martians that created the valves too.
However, i will say that it is at least possible but you do realise that such redundant genes (e.g. teeth in birds) SUPPORT evolution.
Again, if true, it should be easy to reactivate that gene in a member of the original population. Another simple experiment for creationist “scientists”.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
No wait, you don't even have all the details. Yet you KNOW it was evolution. When you say evolution, are you saying common descent? What exactly are you claiming? Like I said before, common descent doesn't equal evolution in a Darwinian sense.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “No wait, you don't even have all the details.”
That’s as absurd as claiming that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is invalid just because I am not equipped to do the maths leading up to E=MC2.
“are you saying common descent?”
No I am saying that common ANCESTRY is a major feature of Evolution.
BTtw Talking of common ancestry, funny how genomic classification nigh on fits taxonomic classification.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “You never pointed to the mutation & how selection pressures helped it spread so quickly through the sub-population“ The selective pressures were the enforced change in diet. Such rapid enforcement results in rapid change else, extinction.
Re mutation, nobody was on the island to observe intermediate stages. But the island population started as 5 adult pairs so the allele change caused by mutations would be a high % of the population & this high % retained as passed down.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
How do you even know there were intermediate stages? There is too much speculation here, on both sides.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “How do you even know there were intermediate stages? There is too much speculation here,”
I don’t. Nobody does. That’s why I said so. But what I do know is that an isolated population developed completely new traits from the parent population due to environmental pressures.
Either way inheritability proves evolution.
You claim the gene was already there but that means that evolution would have rendered it redundant.
Btw you have not addressed the % allele frequency point.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “or you can just keep saying meaningless bullshit like "evolution is a fact".”
The fossil record, biogeography, ring species, vestigials, atavisms, embryology etc etc are all mere OBSERVATIONS confirming the fact.
The job of the Scientific Theory is to explain those facts. BTW all those listed, at the same time also obliterate completely creationism for the myth that it is.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
The cecal valves develop because of the bacteria. I don't know how the cecal valves are genetically coded, but I do know the bacteria need them. It's possible And since the lizards use the same food source, and the bacteria aid in the digestion of this food source, they both need each other. But again, they have not found a genetic difference from the reading I've done. So if this a new trait, the mutation needs to be identified. Otherwise it looks like symbiosis to me.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “but I do know the bacteria need them.”
Are you implying the bacteria didn’t exist before?
I don’t know if they occur in the original population but that's not so important as mutations causing the cecal valve giving the evolutionary advantage of forming fermentation chambers Thus the valve evolution will have preceded the enhanced fermenting. The bacteria would disperse too quickly prior to this novelty.
It should be easy to determine if these traits are inheritable or not.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
Yes, I expect wings. I expect a pump, or a photo sensor. Apparently natural selection and mutation produced all of these things already, from nothing. Let's take e coli. A gene was broken that changed an enzyme just enough for the struggling population to use nylon as a food source. Once said population was reintroduced to their natural food source and the parent population, natural selection selected the bacteria with the broken gene out. So again, a favorite example, and a complete bust.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision "Yes, I expect wings", maybe you really meant "I want to see wings" as over so few generations, that would actually disprove evolution. I know you lot are desperate for evidence against evolution & that would do quite nicely for you.
Have to laugh at your explanation for ecoli evolution. Is that the same explanation for ALL viruses & bacteria mutations in nature?
"Broken gene"? More like a broken argument.
How you getting on with the fossils, biogeography and ring species?
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
No, I'm quite desperate for evidence. Studies of HIV and malaria have yielded no new biological functions, not even a single new protein-protein interaction. Your complete ignorance about e coli is striking. It's actually mind boggling. I guess you don't know anything about science, you just get on here and preach evolution like a religious mantra. Yes, a gene was damaged that altered an enzyme just enough so that the e coli could metabolize nylon.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “Studies of HIV and malaria have yielded no new biological functions,”
And what NEW biological function would you expect? Wings? Tusks? NB HIV is a virus & malaria a parasite.
If it wasn’t for understanding evolution we would be totally at a loss as to why antibiotics/vaccines work one day & not the next. Luckily we DO understand evolution which helps us develop the next antibiotic.
How you getting on with the Fossil record, Biogeogrpahy & Ring Species? Just asking again.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater
According to evolutionary theory all creatures came from a bacterium. What I would expect to see is a new lineage that utilizes a different host, or at least a new protein-protein interaction. Nothing. I know how anti-biotic resistance works. Apparently you don't because you somehow think it has something to do with evolution and common ancestry. I'm getting along great. You seem completely lost. Actually, you sound more like a religious witness, keep it to yourself.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@circusOFprecision “all creatures came from a bacterium “
But not over 6 days, eh! And I think you mean the LUA (Last Universal Ancestor).
“What I would expect to see is a new lineage that utilizes a different host, or at least a new protein-protein interaction.”
Would you indeed? In a handful of generations? I wonder what theory that would be.
How about the straight forward speciation that has been observed in the lab?
“keep it to yourself”. No point unless 99.9% of scientists do the same.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
WHY ARE YOU GUYS WASTING YOUR BREATHS TRYING TO write intelligent counter-arguments against this? Would you stop to try and argue with a 1 year old about mathematics?
martinbuzora 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We have *seen* speciation, including among creatures *not* fitting the mathematical model. For instance, cichlids (*fish*) in Africa, and fruit flies in laboratory settings (in populations *nowhere near* quadrillions). Therefore, the premise is false, and this video is a complete bucket of shit.
belladonna5012 10 months ago
Comment removed
belladonna5012 10 months ago
This video does not disprove evolution in any way because, in typical creationist fashion, the creationist assumes that evolution is based on random chance rather than natural selection.
Species don't spontaneously change, they gradually change based on what traits are best for the population's long term survival.
mcdrums8706 10 months ago 7
@mcdrums8706
The gradual change is not observed. That is why evolutionist came up with punctuated equilibrium, but this course of events is very improbable.
kswiatlo 10 months ago
@kswiatlo Gradual change is not observed....? Are you fucking serious? Not only can we observe gradual change in REAL TIME, but we also have an extensive fossil record to back up these claims. Until you actual take the time to understand evolution you'll be stuck in your "I don't care how: God Dun It" mindset without any chance to actually understand this amazing world around us. And if you don't think god would want you to understand how the world actually works... well then your going to hell.
JohnsJava 10 months ago 3
@kswiatlo First off, yes, gradual change is observed in every population between every generation. The fossil record may not show gradual change at the same level, but that is because of the specific nature of fossilization, providing several discrete points rather than a continuous spectrum.
Even with those discrete bits, though, scientists HAVE filled in the gaps with so many points, that the trend has become much more gradual as we fill in the fossil record.
mcdrums8706 9 months ago
@kswiatlo "The gradual change is not observed"
You're right it isn't. Except in the fossil record, the DNA records, and human observation.
But other than that - totally not observed, by golly!!!
ChaseKittens 8 months ago
@kswiatlo
not to mention that punctuated equilibrium is still absent any kind of observable mechanism, hence not a very scientifically valid hypothesis.
circusOFprecision 6 months ago
@kswiatlo your mental illness is keeping you from understanding reality....please seek psychiatric therapy!
itumugur 6 months ago
old earth creationists don't believe the bibles timeline, why do they still cling to their faith?
crockoduckevolved 10 months ago
Ah so all this hardwork and rigor that scientists have been doing is wrong and the answer is simply that mr magical man in the sky likes horses so if they start to die he makes new ones!
That makes much more sense then documented observations and experiments that have undergone the scrutiny of thousands of scientists and hundreds of years.
overhang88 11 months ago
This video is rife with the same unsubstantiated nonsense that non-evolutionists claim when it's not in their holy book.
Read something else - and I'm aware that the bible says that it's all you really need to read - and your mind may just be opened enough to be inclined to read something else.
I became a non-believer through education. Not in school, but reading in my spare time the things that actually matter.
Knowledge is power only when when that knowledge makes rational sense.
montrouslydiminutive 11 months ago
Just like the "scientists" who fudged numbers on "Global Warming" that's all they are doing here to match their moronic theory.
TheAmazingCreative 1 year ago