Adaptation can and has been observed,it has absolute limits,that too is observed. Never has an entirely new morphological feature arisen through mutation that survives dna recombination. This has been proven in labs for many years. Every scientist that was involved in mutation research knows this. Defining evolution/adaptation makes no difference,the fact remains no species has ever been observed evolving or adapting into another,it can only be assumed
So what new morphological feature do I have? I'm sure I've developed various immunity properties,bug resistance etc. I tend to eat leftovers that have been in the fridge too long,probably I've developed a fair resistance to various bacteria. Whether you want to call that evolution or adaptation,I'm no closer to being another creature. Did you find the research via the link I sent?
No. I didn't get a link from you. Further, if you are getting your information from NF, the only dna they sequenced was the mitochondrial Dna to confirm that there was no crossbreeding.
If I can find the research,pretty sure you can. Science daily website has the public article,there are links to supporting data pages through the article.
Found it. It is evolution, it is not a reactivated gene. They have only tested the mitochondria Dna to confirm that there was no crossbreeding. Sadly this article was poorly written and did not go into enough detail.
Dude,that absolutely is not confirmed. They have not confirmed existence of the valve gene or not,everyone who has emailed to ask them gets that answer. Yes,the science daily article is'nt detailed,but the links to the research data is,there is where I found the statement that I quoted(About genomic dna) The geneticist also said the differences in the population appear to be genetic based,but more work needs to done. It's a premature claim
What dictates the morphological formations in a population? The Dna. Did this population of lizard come from a population without these features? Yes. What must have changed? The Dna
Ok,I'll outline it once more. They extracted total genomic dna,that's in the supporting data page. Why did they?-"to corroborate morphological identities" What did they say about the dna?-That the 2 populations are indistinguishable,identical. The valve already exists in the species,albeit only 1%. They believe the lizard had already existed on the second island but gone extinct. This kind of "mutation"has never been observed all last century in the lab or nature.
These are the the facts of this case,to call it fast paced mutative evolution is assumptive and speculative,by far not the best explanation of evidence available.
Further more, if this was a reactivated gene, then the populations would not be genetically identical because there would have to be a change in the dna to activate the dormant gene. And we have observed mutations that led to new traits in the lab. My favorite example is Nylonase.
Apart from the facts in data,try to visualize what is proposed. Go outside and eat some fibrous vegetation. Do you honestly believe there's any chance you or your offspring will mutate a complete functioning digestive organism that no-one else has? I'm passionate about surfing and spearfishing,which means i spend a lot of time underwater,training my system to cope longer without oxygen. Will I or my kids ever come close to developing gills?
A lizard chews on a stick and the complete blueprints materialize in the dna code to produce this valve? C'mon dude,think critically. As for saying they only tested mtc dna,the research paper differs from that view,I've quoted it twice now,it's there.
Actually it doesn't, you are quoting it out of context because you didn't understand it or didn't want to. Extracted does not mean tested, the only dna tested was the mitochondrial dna. Decoding the entire genome of a species, which you claim they did, is not something you can do on a whim. That is why the human Genome project was such a big deal.
And strawmaning what happened will not help your case. We had 5 mating pairs breed under harsh natural selective pressures.
Over about 30 generations, those that were best able to compete in the terrain won. Those individuals with the mutations and natural variations that helped them best survived.
Once again, your ignorance on how evolution works does not count as a point against science.
A lengthening a section of the intestine into a separate structure where plant material is slowed down is not an entirely new "functioning digestive organism" or like growing gills.
Ignorance on how evolution works is an oxymoron. What is ignorant is making the claim the valve gene is'nt in the parent population when the research team won't even claim that. I have acknowledged that it is not stated either way,I'm suggesting it needs confirmation before making absolute claims,what you are doing scores points against science,not wanting confirmation. Mate,your'e 22 and already in the trench of dogmatic denial on principle,not conducive to learning.
Congratulations,you've just proven evolution to me,i'm tearing up everything i thought i knew. You've proven the first case of observed surviving morphological mutation by adding information to the gene. Because you say the gene did'nt exist,it must be true.
DNA was extracted but was not tested. The only dna tested was the mitochondrial Dna to make sure that these lizards were in fact from those 5 mating pairs of Italian wall lizards.
No. The valve does not already exist in this species. It exists in 1 percent of all lizard species put together.
The species that had existed on the island was not the Italian wall lizard. The Italian wall lizards that were implanted on that island out competed them.
err, no. Evolution still is Change of the allele frequency in a population over time.
Adaptation (aka. what you would call microevolution) works by the same mechanism as macroevolution. If you accept adaptation aka microevolution then you don't have any problem with evolution.
"no, evolution is this idea that says that complex things came from simpler things, evolution is not adaptation."
evolution is adaptation, and complexity is a man-made method of quantifying, what you may think of as complex i may not so yeah... your argument is invalid
also you don't know what evolution is so don't tell others what it is, it's incredibly dishonest
deriveape and silentbob, do you honestly believe that darwin became famous for discovering that animals adapt? do you really believe darwin was the first one who discovered that animals adapt?
´´If you accept adaptation aka microevolution then you don't have any problem with evolution.´´
lamark also accepted adaptation ¿was he also correct?
"deriveape and silentbob, do you honestly believe that darwin became famous for discovering that animals adapt? do you really believe darwin was the first one who discovered that animals adapt?"
no, darwins contribution was the theory of evolution through natural selection
"lamark also accepted adaptation ¿was he also correct?"
ya see thats the thing, lamarkian evolution was discredited by the scientific community, the theory of evolution through natural selection still stands
evolution is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time. get a college-level education in biology before trying to criticize evolutionary theory.
"yes, which is not just adaptation, the fact that animals adapt does not prove darwinian evolution"
well yeah it kinda does, natural selection is the best mechanism we have that fits our observations. If natural selection weren't true then it wouldn't go along with all our predictions, which it does.
I'm sure you've heard the ol' "find me a fossil bunny in the pre-cambrian"... well get to it if you want to prove us wrong
finding a bunny in the precambrian would not change the fact that animals adapt, therefore darwinian evolution is not = to adaptation ¿how do you know if evolution is true if you don´t even know waht it is?
It seems that you are the one that does not understand what the theory of evolution is. There is nothing funnier than an ignorant person trying to act smart and correct someone that actually knows what he or she is talking about.
we used darwins theory as a basis and as new evidence has arisen we have built on it, like i said darwins contribution to evolution was natural selection. alleles having come to light have been incorporated accordingly to our understanding of evolution
i don't get what your arguing against anyway. even if the mechanism that is natural selection becomes invalidated, adaptations will inevitably accumulate and speciation will occur.
your problem im assuming is speciation, but you do not seem to reject adaptation. if so you are making a huge leap of logic and clearly don't understand evolution
you said that evolution = adaptation, that is wrong that is my point you are the one who does not understand evolution nor creation, evolution is this idea of simple things ´´changing´´ in to more complex things for example a modern eye evolving form a primitive eye THAT IS EVOLUTION, it is possible to accept adaptation and speciation without accepting evolution THEY ARE NOT EQUIVALENT TERMS evolution is not adapatatation
"evolution is this idea of simple things ´´changing´´ in to more complex things"
no that is a strawman, that has been fed to you by creationists, and like i said there is no objective standard of complexity
"for example a modern eye evolving form a primitive eye THAT IS EVOLUTION,"
i dont think the eye is complex in the slightest, it does its job rather simply. primitive eyes are seen in nature anyway such as photosensitive skin cells
Adaptation is an important part of evolution, is an important piece of the puzzle, man do I really have to explain you your own theory? Reed the blind watch maker, I have to admit that dawkins makes an excellent job in explaining evolution, reed the book; the videos on youtube do explain it as well as the book.
"Adaptation is an important part of evolution, is an important piece of the puzzle, man do I really have to explain you your own theory?"
When did i argue against adaptation? You really don't know what evolution is do you? i doubt you've read the blind watch maker because you continue to rehash terrible arguments against evolution that have already been debunked
I would think it does since evolution is change in alleles over time showing that organism alleles changed over time would prove evolution. Adapting to a new environment means that the alleles of the population had to have changed.
I have never read that book, but if that is what Dawkins said that he is wrong, but I doubt that he said that. Again, evolution is the change in alleles in a population over time. Natural selection is that populations have heritable traits that are variable in a population and those different traits lead to some organism having a higher fitness than others do.
Adaptation is apart of evolution. You are putting together a straw man again, who claims that evolution is something changing into something more complex. That is simply wrong, and I think you know it. Again, evolution is the change in alleles in a population over time.
what's your point? darwin did not understand a lot of things back then. besides, we are talking about the modern theory, not the first version darwin made. again, get a college-level biology education before criticizing evolutionary theory.
Yes, which is why we rarely use the term 'Darwinian evolution'. Darwin's theory was synthesized with Mendalian allelics, and later with modern genetics. Evolutionary theory today has Darwin's broad outlines, but the details have been rewritten.
No part of Darwins theory states anything about alleles does it? Darwin only know that there was variation within population and those variations would lead some organism to have a higher fitness than the others.
yes, which is not just adaptation, the fact that animals adapt does not prove darwinian evolution"
How do you think animals adapt then? Wht promotes the adaptation? The only suggested alternative is Lamarckian evolution which has been disproven already. What's you theory? God going into each cell and monkeying around with the DNA?
animals adapt through changes and natural selection, but this does not mean that natural selection creates complexity ¿if I am wrong, then tell me why did darwin becamo so famous?
"this does not mean that natural selection creates complexity"
Darwin coined the term and posited the concept of 'natural selection', so if you think natural selection delivers adaptation you have a basic acceptance of evolution. Your focus on complexity is a red-herring. Evolution isn't a ladder or staircase continually stepping up a level. it goes every which way at the environment demands. Who is more successful mankind with a population of 6 billion or spiders with trillions of individuals.
Dwains main contribution was to provide an explanation that account for the complexity of life (organs tissues, systems etc.) since long before Darwin people knew that animals adapt everybody knew that hairless dogs are less likely to survive in cold climates
I HAVE ALREADY SAID THIS AND IT IS STARTING TO ANNOY ME!
THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF COMPLEXITY!
COMPLEXITY IS A MAN-MADE METHOD OF QUANTIFYING! WHAT STANDARD ARE YOU USING TO JUSTIFY SOMETHINGS "COMPLEXITY"? PLEASE TELL ME!
AND YES YOU ARE WRONG, BECAUSE YOU ARE USING A STUPID ARGUMENT WHICH MAKES NO SENSE, IF YOU KNEW WHAT EVOLUTION WAS YOU WOULDNT KEEP USING "COMPLEXITY"!
and no my outburst does not result from a weakness in my argument, it comes from your glaring stupidity
I am simply showing the facts to you, if you don´t want to accept them is your problem not mine, I reed the book, if you don´t believe it I don´t care, if I misunderstood something then reed the book and tell me where am I wrong
You are right; natural selection does not create complexity. Mutations add new information for natural selection to work with, so mutations add new complexity if that is what you want to call it.
Darwin became famous because of his theory of natural selection, which I have explained before.
"...the fact that animals adapt does not prove darwinian evolution"
No, the fact that they adapt through variation and natural selection proves Darwinian evolution.
"finding a bunny in the precambrian would not change the fact that animals adapt..."
No, but it would disprove the idea that they adapt in a roughly linear way via subtle variation and natural selection, because we don't have any transitional pre-bunny Precambrian fossils.
The theory of natural selection states that organism will have variation in a population and within that variation; some traits will be better selected than others will and because of that, they will be passed down more frequent.
"do you honestly believe that darwin became famous for discovering that animals adapt?"
No, people already knew that animals adapt--he became famous for figuring out HOW they adapt.
"lamark also accepted adaptation ¿was he also correct?"
Lamarck accepted macroevolution, but he proposed a faulty mechanism. You, strangely, understand the mechanism, and accept the fact that it works for microevolution, but you reject the conclusion of macroevolution.
Darwin became famous because he was the one that came up with the theory of natural selection. Natural selection is the process that guilds that changes in the alleles of a population.
"no, evolution is this idea that says that complex things came from simpler things, evolution is not adaptation."
Is a seal, which has two fore flippers and conjoined rear limbs more complex than its four limbed non-aquatic mammalian ancestor? From something that can run around on land to something that can only flop about a bit on land and swim more efficiently. No. Evolution suggests it had adapted to an aquatic lifestyle.
no, evolution is not just adaptation and yes evolution predicts that the seal had a more complex genome that their ansestors.Claiming that adaptation is evolution is like claiming that cakes and eggs are the same thing, of course you need eggs(adaptation) to obtain a cake(evolution) but it doesnt mean that an egg and a cake are the same thing.
you can call evolution anything you want, but darwins contribution to science (supposedly) is that complex structures appeared trough natural selection from simpler structures.
"darwins contribution ... complex structures appeared trough natural selection from simpler structures."
Nope. He proposed that all modern lifeforms all descended from a common ancestor trough a process of natural selection. Nothing about increasing complexity. Here's a link to the 6th edition of the Origin of Species
an organ is mre complex than an other when the first has more molecules involved in it´s function specially if they are codependent with other molecules.
for example we are suppose to believe that the eye evolved from something that was simpler
´´True, but some creatures have evolved to lose their eyes through natural selection.´´
ok yes that is natural selecction, but creationist don´t reject that part.
Darwinian evolution is an important part f science because it explains the complexity of life without a god. Reducing complexity does not help to explain the complexity of life, losing information is part of natural selection but it is not an important contribution.
You now have several people telling you that evolution doesn't posit anything about complexity, only change. What survives the natural selection process is whatever is most able to exploit the environment and successfully reproduce, how 'complex' it is is irrelevant. If 'more complex' = 'more efficient' that will survive, but it could equally well be the opposite.
Supposedly Darwinian evolution is better than others because it is the only one that accounts for complexity, the fact that Darwin provides an explanation for complexity of life made Darwin important scientists.
"Supposedly Darwinian evolution is better than others because it is the only one that accounts for complexity, the fact that Darwin provides an explanation for complexity of life made Darwin important scientists."
Thus,from the war of nature,from famine and death,the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving,namely,the production of the higher animals,directly follows.There is grandeur inthis view of life,with its several powers,having been originally breathed by the Creator into afew forms or into one;and that,whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity,from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been,and are being,evolved.
BTW the phrase "By the Creator" in the final sentence did not appear in the first edition of Origin of Species. It was added to the second edition to conciliate angry clerics. Darwin later wrote, "I have long since regretted that I truckled to public opinion and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process." (Gardner, 1984)
Evolution (supposed fact) complex forms came from simpler forms, DNA came from a simpler molecule, the eye came from a simpler organ, the digestive system came from a simpler system etc.
Evolutionary theory: complex forms came from simpler forms do to a process called natural selection (proposed by Darwin)
That is only part part of evolution, it falls far short of the definition. Evolution by natural selection also explains why we still have bacterial forms; why some species remain stuck in an evolutionary niche; why certain lifeforms have parasitic and symbiotic relationships; why obligate parasites lose the ability to exist outside of the host; and the common stupid creationist question. IF we evolved from apes, why are there still chimpanzees.
So you accept that evolution by natural selection can also predict genome reduction through selection. That is genomes staying relatively small with less junk DNA (non-functional sequences), e.g. bacteria becoming more efficient through natural selection, with genes that are no longer required becoming switched off and eventually lost. An example being obligate parasites losing the ability to exist outside of the host?
That's a decrease in complexity. Specialization can lead in both directions.
yes that is true, but that part of evolution is accepted by creationists, lamarkists, and many other ´´enemies´´ of darwin those are not important contributions
"that part of evolution is accepted by creationists"
No it isn't, they accept degrading or devolution but only within the mythical "kind". Creationists don't believe that a seal came from a four legged mammal, or that organs can change function (legs can become flippers, penguin?), or structures can be lost and become vestigial.
"creationists accept changes and adaptation within the available information, as simple as that"
But they can't or won't define what they mean by information.
If we use the very basic unit of information "a bit", a single nucleotide in a sequence can be made from one of 4 different bases, thus it represents 2 bits. 2 nucleotides = 16 bits.
if you believe that we came from simpler organisms just provide a process that would make that possible, weather if you want to call it new information or not is irrelevant
- no ervs do not prove that, besides the claim is untestable, you can not claim that erv prove evolution if you don´t provide a potencial falsification
"you can not claim that erv prove evolution if you don´t provide a potencial falsification"
Watch the video watch?v=dbbh1P6DW5I
Please watch the whole thing but please pay particular attention to the part from 6:18 on. If common descent were not true the distribution of common ERVs across species would not precisely match the pattern described. This would immediately falsify evolution.
yes we do find ERV in chimps and gorillas but not in humans, the predictions where tested and failed to be consistent to what evolution predicts. So ether reject evolution or admit that evolution is untestable.
Yes desertphile decided to go for alternative #2 ´´evolution is not testable´´ I repeat if you want to se the argument on ERVs you have to provide potential falsifications, you can not simply predict all the possible results, and then claim that your theory has correct predictions
The falsifiability is that ERVs in their multitude found in the same place across species should not exist at all unless a common ancestor of those two species was infected, which means that a common ancestor must exist.
Viruses don't come from ERVS. You don't understand what an ERV is.
The E means endogenous which mean it has placed itself in the genome. The R means Retro because it translates from RNA to DNA which is the opposite way it normally happens.
Viruses of a specific type called retro-viruses infect the host and become embedded in the host genome and that's when they are called endogenous. An ERV is alike a fossil record of a virus infection.
No you are assuming all that, you are assuming that erv are in fact retroviral incretions, but you don´t know that, erv are functional proteins and we need them to survive, proteins can only be functional in specific locations, for example some ervs are part of the reproductive system, since all mammals have a similar reproductive system we would expect them to have ervs in the same place in mammals
You are the one who is claiming nonsense, ¿do you believe that the ERV randomly inserted in the exact same location where it can be functional? ¿how did the erv knows, what location of insertion would be good?
Fact 2 proteins can only be functional in specific parts of the genome
Knowing these facts, why did the ERV inserted in the exact location where it can be functional, out of millions of possible locations it decided to insert in to the only location in which it can be functional.
ERVs where thought to be ´´junk´´ research has been made and we now know that they are functional., the function of all ervs has not been discovered yet, but it is possible that all of them are functional.
a01011399: Okay, ERV inserts itself randomly, it becomes junk, no functionality, because if it is working, it would produce viruses. Agreed?
But junk DNA can acquire functionality, like DNA duplication, it is new material in DNA that can then mutate further, and any beneficial effect is more likely to be continued.
So in effect ERV becomes a part of a working DNA, but not its original function.
That is circular reasoning, first you claim that ervs prove evolution, and then you assume evolution in order for ERVs to fit in to your theory. You are basically saying that ervs where originally function-less because that is what evolution predicts.
No, ERVs really are ancient virus remnants, ERVs would have been major problem for evolution if they had not been organized the only way that support theory of evolution.
Virus has been reconstructed from the remnants in human DNA, wouldn't that show that they are, indeed, functionless?
Again, if they had function, they would produce viruses.
Removing junk DNA should not have any effect on organism, and this has been done on mice, relust was a normal mouse.
There is not assumption there; the genetic evidence shows that they are retroviral incretions. ERVs also appear to be functionless, that is why there is not selective pressure on them and they can freely accumulate mutations.
So you believe that God placed these ERV like sequences in the genome of all these species, or infected each species individually in exactly the same place in the genome for dozen of species and made it look just common ancestors had been infected?
That's what you're saying. Thus you're implying a deceitful God.
"Chimps and humans share ERVs for the same reason they both have fingers in their hands WE SIMPLY NEED THEM."
Some of them yes, but the vast majority of them, no. Despite the continuous whining of creationists, we have very good tests for determining coding genes (~1%) and operational genes (~4%). We know for a fact that ~95% of our genome never codes, and never interacts with translational RNA--including ERVs and dozens of other DNA chains. But we still share them other animals.
You are right chimps and humans share ERVs for the same reason we both have fingers on our hands. It is because we inherited that trait from our ancestors.
HAHA! Another great joke. Therefore, you believe that god created us to have DNA that creates virus that attacks our own body. What a cruel god you worship. Well you can believe whatever you want, but it does not make it true. ERVs are leftover DNA from a virus that once infected a host. They do not create more viruses.
HAHA! ERVs have functions. Good joke. Nevertheless, ERV are leftover virus DNA left in a body. The virus infected a sex cell that later became a child. The DNA of the virus, not being detrimental was never selected against.
Not true. If an ERV was found in a human, the same one was found in a cow, and there was not one found in any other primate it would falsify evolution.
ERV allow science to make predictions that would only be correct if natural selection was true. It is very testable. If we were to find an ERV in humans that was the same with cows that was not shared by any other primate it would falsify evolution. Also, would should be able to find old ERVs that are shared among only primates, including humans, not no other animals.
You are missing a key part of how evolution works. Natural selection is the driving force of evolution but in order to get new information for natural selection to work with you needs mutations. Mutations provide the new information for natural selection.
I just posted the last sentence in the Origin of Species. Darwin speaks of a few or one original form. I believe he spoke of up to around 10 original forms. He, of course, knew nothing about DNA (or even atomic structures) and so could not speculate about how life was connected to each other at the molecular level. The point though is that he posited common ancestry, varying through natural selection. Why are you finding this so hard to understand?
"Supposedly Darwinian evolution is better than others because it is the only one that accounts for complexity..."
No, Darwin's idea was better than others because it accounted for ADAPTATION. Why do animals adapt? Why do some animals have different beak sizes, feather colors, and so on? Because of random variations and natural selection.
How is losing your eye losing complexity, in order for a creature to lose their eye that means their other senses would have to become better, or more complex. They would also have to grow bone over were the eye socket so more complexity.
"an organ is mre complex than an other when the first has more molecules involved in it´s function specially if they are codependent with other molecules."
when you say molecules im assuming you mean cells.
1. Cells are codependent because of their nucleui, all cells have these and i don't see how the quantity of them changes anything.
2. Cells replicate constantly, which by your logic means an organs complexity is always shifting.
then im sorry but i really dont see where your going with this, how do molecules disprove evolution?
I would further assume you are talking about biomolecules, but if you are using molecules to disprove evolution you may as well use molecules to disprove covalent crystal formation, it'd make just as much sense
There are hundreds of videos about how the eye evolved on youtube. I suggest you look them up. You act as if all the animals in the world have the same sort of eye. There are tons of different eyes out there and I would not say ours is the best either.
Lamarck never had more than a basic hypothesis. He couldn't think of a method of adaptation. He thought the giraffe willed itself to have a longer neck and the trait was then passed on. No-one took this idea seriously. The prevailing view before Darwin was immutability with variation.
Once he began to think about natural selection he then proposed a single common ancestor for all life including plants. That was the crux of contribution. No-one before had proposed common ancestry for all life.
yes lamark was taken seriosly even after darwin. Common ancestry is a hypothesis (even according to evolutionists) Darwin said that we all evolved from a common ancestor or from a few ancestors. In other words if the primordial soup produced 10 ancient cells, evolutionary theory wont be shaken a lot, and Darwinism would not be rejected
Life emerged from self-replicating molecules that evolved into DNA. There weren't initial cells.
8% of human DNA is composed of fossil DNA from retro-viruses. You could say that we are descended from viruses. Mitochondria appear to be organisms that entered into a symbiotic relationship with primitive cells. Yes there are potentially multiple ancestral roots, but all life is based on self-replicating DNA and it is posited that this gives everything a common ancestry.
No. No-one took Lamarckism seriously before Darwin, because species were thought to be immutable with variation, that was by far the dominant belief. After Darwin, the thoughts on immutability were shattered. Before Mendel's work was rediscovered Lamarckism was indeed thought to play some role in the process, even by Darwin. Trofim Lysenko, the Soviet agriculturalist held back Russian bio-technology because of his dogmatic belief in Lamrckism.
Lamark theory was take seriously because it seemed to go along with the evidence at hand. When new evidence was, shown Lamarks theory went by the waist side. This would also be true of Darwins theory if new evidence were to come up to show it wrong.
Ok, someone used natural selection and mutation producing more 'information', someone used ERVs, that is irrelevant. Nylonase and E. Coli C+ citrate metabolization are both examples of new and novel functionality. EVERYONE IGNORE a0!!! HE HAS BEEN DISCREDITED NEARLY ALL OF HIS ATTEMPTS, HE WILL NOT SUBMIT TO LOGIC OR REASON, HE WILL NOT LEARN, DEAL WITH IT.
Your analogy does not work because if you look at the definition of evolution it is the change of alleles in a population over time, so if an adoption leads to a change in alleles in a population than it is evolution. Eggs are defined as a female gamete: an ovum and cake is defined as a sweet, baked, breadlike food, made with or with shortening, and usually containing flour, sugar, baking powder or soda, eggs, and liquid flavoring. Do you see how their definitions do not equal the same thing?
Mitochondrial DNA is a double helix, I think what you meant is that is not chromosomal. Chromosomes are contained in the nucleus of the cell. Mitochondria (one per cell) are also in the nucleus and inside the mitochondria is the mitochondrial DNA. mitochondrial in a ring structure and does not have 3' and 5' ends like chromosomes.
Adaptation can and has been observed,it has absolute limits,that too is observed. Never has an entirely new morphological feature arisen through mutation that survives dna recombination. This has been proven in labs for many years. Every scientist that was involved in mutation research knows this. Defining evolution/adaptation makes no difference,the fact remains no species has ever been observed evolving or adapting into another,it can only be assumed
Copsweet 1 year ago
Actually we have observed speciation over 100 times. Just google "observed speciation".
There is no limit. There is no magical force allowing some changes but preventing others.
k87jury 1 year ago
The magical force is gene correction,it cannot and has not been breached,it prevents morphological change to an organism.
Copsweet 1 year ago
But it is not perfect. For example you are a mutant. You have about 100 mutations since before you were born.
k87jury 1 year ago
So what new morphological feature do I have? I'm sure I've developed various immunity properties,bug resistance etc. I tend to eat leftovers that have been in the fridge too long,probably I've developed a fair resistance to various bacteria. Whether you want to call that evolution or adaptation,I'm no closer to being another creature. Did you find the research via the link I sent?
Copsweet 1 year ago
No. I didn't get a link from you. Further, if you are getting your information from NF, the only dna they sequenced was the mitochondrial Dna to confirm that there was no crossbreeding.
k87jury 1 year ago
If I can find the research,pretty sure you can. Science daily website has the public article,there are links to supporting data pages through the article.
Copsweet 1 year ago
Found it. It is evolution, it is not a reactivated gene. They have only tested the mitochondria Dna to confirm that there was no crossbreeding. Sadly this article was poorly written and did not go into enough detail.
k87jury 1 year ago
Dude,that absolutely is not confirmed. They have not confirmed existence of the valve gene or not,everyone who has emailed to ask them gets that answer. Yes,the science daily article is'nt detailed,but the links to the research data is,there is where I found the statement that I quoted(About genomic dna) The geneticist also said the differences in the population appear to be genetic based,but more work needs to done. It's a premature claim
Copsweet 1 year ago
What dictates the morphological formations in a population? The Dna. Did this population of lizard come from a population without these features? Yes. What must have changed? The Dna
Evolution
k87jury 1 year ago
Ok,I'll outline it once more. They extracted total genomic dna,that's in the supporting data page. Why did they?-"to corroborate morphological identities" What did they say about the dna?-That the 2 populations are indistinguishable,identical. The valve already exists in the species,albeit only 1%. They believe the lizard had already existed on the second island but gone extinct. This kind of "mutation"has never been observed all last century in the lab or nature.
Copsweet 1 year ago
These are the the facts of this case,to call it fast paced mutative evolution is assumptive and speculative,by far not the best explanation of evidence available.
Copsweet 1 year ago
Further more, if this was a reactivated gene, then the populations would not be genetically identical because there would have to be a change in the dna to activate the dormant gene. And we have observed mutations that led to new traits in the lab. My favorite example is Nylonase.
k87jury 1 year ago
Apart from the facts in data,try to visualize what is proposed. Go outside and eat some fibrous vegetation. Do you honestly believe there's any chance you or your offspring will mutate a complete functioning digestive organism that no-one else has? I'm passionate about surfing and spearfishing,which means i spend a lot of time underwater,training my system to cope longer without oxygen. Will I or my kids ever come close to developing gills?
Copsweet 1 year ago
A lizard chews on a stick and the complete blueprints materialize in the dna code to produce this valve? C'mon dude,think critically. As for saying they only tested mtc dna,the research paper differs from that view,I've quoted it twice now,it's there.
Copsweet 1 year ago
Actually it doesn't, you are quoting it out of context because you didn't understand it or didn't want to. Extracted does not mean tested, the only dna tested was the mitochondrial dna. Decoding the entire genome of a species, which you claim they did, is not something you can do on a whim. That is why the human Genome project was such a big deal.
And strawmaning what happened will not help your case. We had 5 mating pairs breed under harsh natural selective pressures.
k87jury 1 year ago
Over about 30 generations, those that were best able to compete in the terrain won. Those individuals with the mutations and natural variations that helped them best survived.
Evolution, dear Watson.
k87jury 1 year ago
Once again, your ignorance on how evolution works does not count as a point against science.
A lengthening a section of the intestine into a separate structure where plant material is slowed down is not an entirely new "functioning digestive organism" or like growing gills.
k87jury 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ignorance on how evolution works is an oxymoron. What is ignorant is making the claim the valve gene is'nt in the parent population when the research team won't even claim that. I have acknowledged that it is not stated either way,I'm suggesting it needs confirmation before making absolute claims,what you are doing scores points against science,not wanting confirmation. Mate,your'e 22 and already in the trench of dogmatic denial on principle,not conducive to learning.
Copsweet 1 year ago
What is there to deny? The populations were split. They suffered different selective pressures. Evolution happened.
k87jury 1 year ago
Congratulations,you've just proven evolution to me,i'm tearing up everything i thought i knew. You've proven the first case of observed surviving morphological mutation by adding information to the gene. Because you say the gene did'nt exist,it must be true.
Copsweet 1 year ago
Comment removed
Copsweet 1 year ago
DNA was extracted but was not tested. The only dna tested was the mitochondrial Dna to make sure that these lizards were in fact from those 5 mating pairs of Italian wall lizards.
No. The valve does not already exist in this species. It exists in 1 percent of all lizard species put together.
The species that had existed on the island was not the Italian wall lizard. The Italian wall lizards that were implanted on that island out competed them.
k87jury 1 year ago
PMing you the peer-review journal article now
k87jury 1 year ago
"you said that evolution = adaptation"
you don't seem to argue against adaptation, this is a good start
"evolution is this idea of simple things ´´changing´´ in to more complex things"
ohhh there we go arguing against "change" which adaptation would involve
contradict yourself much?
silentbob36 3 years ago
no, evolution is this idea that says that complex things came from simpler things, evolution is not adaptation.
a01011399 3 years ago
err, no. Evolution still is Change of the allele frequency in a population over time.
Adaptation (aka. what you would call microevolution) works by the same mechanism as macroevolution. If you accept adaptation aka microevolution then you don't have any problem with evolution.
You have problem with the time scale.
DerivedApe 3 years ago 2
"no, evolution is this idea that says that complex things came from simpler things, evolution is not adaptation."
evolution is adaptation, and complexity is a man-made method of quantifying, what you may think of as complex i may not so yeah... your argument is invalid
also you don't know what evolution is so don't tell others what it is, it's incredibly dishonest
silentbob36 3 years ago
deriveape and silentbob, do you honestly believe that darwin became famous for discovering that animals adapt? do you really believe darwin was the first one who discovered that animals adapt?
´´If you accept adaptation aka microevolution then you don't have any problem with evolution.´´
lamark also accepted adaptation ¿was he also correct?
a01011399 3 years ago
"deriveape and silentbob, do you honestly believe that darwin became famous for discovering that animals adapt? do you really believe darwin was the first one who discovered that animals adapt?"
no, darwins contribution was the theory of evolution through natural selection
"lamark also accepted adaptation ¿was he also correct?"
ya see thats the thing, lamarkian evolution was discredited by the scientific community, the theory of evolution through natural selection still stands
silentbob36 3 years ago
´´no, darwins contribution was the theory of evolution through natural selection´´
yes, which is not just adaptation, the fact that animals adapt does not prove darwinian evolution
a01011399 3 years ago
evolution is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time. get a college-level education in biology before trying to criticize evolutionary theory.
nightoftherobots 3 years ago
"yes, which is not just adaptation, the fact that animals adapt does not prove darwinian evolution"
well yeah it kinda does, natural selection is the best mechanism we have that fits our observations. If natural selection weren't true then it wouldn't go along with all our predictions, which it does.
I'm sure you've heard the ol' "find me a fossil bunny in the pre-cambrian"... well get to it if you want to prove us wrong
silentbob36 3 years ago
finding a bunny in the precambrian would not change the fact that animals adapt, therefore darwinian evolution is not = to adaptation ¿how do you know if evolution is true if you don´t even know waht it is?
a01011399 3 years ago
Finding bunny from precambrian would violate the predictions set by evolutionary theory thus falsifying the the evolutionary theory.
DerivedApe 3 years ago
It seems that you are the one that does not understand what the theory of evolution is. There is nothing funnier than an ignorant person trying to act smart and correct someone that actually knows what he or she is talking about.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
no, darwin did not even know what an allele was
a01011399 3 years ago
"finding a bunny in the precambrian would not change the fact that animals adapt"
no, my point was it would disprove natural selection
"therefore darwinian evolution is not = to adaptation"
how on earth did you come to this conclusion? adaptation, change in allele frequencies and natural selection etc... it all plays a role in evolution
"¿how do you know if evolution is true if you don´t even know waht it is?"
*sigh* i know what evolution is, you don't, thats the problem
silentbob36 3 years ago
"no, darwin did not even know what an allele was"
your point being?
we used darwins theory as a basis and as new evidence has arisen we have built on it, like i said darwins contribution to evolution was natural selection. alleles having come to light have been incorporated accordingly to our understanding of evolution
silentbob36 3 years ago
i don't get what your arguing against anyway. even if the mechanism that is natural selection becomes invalidated, adaptations will inevitably accumulate and speciation will occur.
your problem im assuming is speciation, but you do not seem to reject adaptation. if so you are making a huge leap of logic and clearly don't understand evolution
silentbob36 3 years ago
you said that evolution = adaptation, that is wrong that is my point you are the one who does not understand evolution nor creation, evolution is this idea of simple things ´´changing´´ in to more complex things for example a modern eye evolving form a primitive eye THAT IS EVOLUTION, it is possible to accept adaptation and speciation without accepting evolution THEY ARE NOT EQUIVALENT TERMS evolution is not adapatatation
a01011399 3 years ago
"you said that evolution = adaptation, that is wrong that is my point you are the one who does not understand evolution nor creation,"
umm... no, you don't understand evolution.
silentbob36 3 years ago
"evolution is this idea of simple things ´´changing´´ in to more complex things"
no that is a strawman, that has been fed to you by creationists, and like i said there is no objective standard of complexity
"for example a modern eye evolving form a primitive eye THAT IS EVOLUTION,"
i dont think the eye is complex in the slightest, it does its job rather simply. primitive eyes are seen in nature anyway such as photosensitive skin cells
silentbob36 3 years ago
"it is possible to accept adaptation and speciation without accepting evolution THEY ARE NOT EQUIVALENT TERMS evolution is not adapatatation"
evolution is adaptation, adaptation is the same "change" that you previously argued against. what exactly is it you are arguing for and against?
"simple things ´´changing´´ in to more complex things"
what? i'll say it again "simple" and "complex" are subjective. your argument seems to ride on this alone, it is quite frankly moot
silentbob36 3 years ago
Adaptation is an important part of evolution, is an important piece of the puzzle, man do I really have to explain you your own theory? Reed the blind watch maker, I have to admit that dawkins makes an excellent job in explaining evolution, reed the book; the videos on youtube do explain it as well as the book.
a01011399 3 years ago
"Adaptation is an important part of evolution, is an important piece of the puzzle, man do I really have to explain you your own theory?"
When did i argue against adaptation? You really don't know what evolution is do you? i doubt you've read the blind watch maker because you continue to rehash terrible arguments against evolution that have already been debunked
silentbob36 3 years ago
Proving adaptation does not prove evolution, nor evolutionary theory
a01011399 3 years ago
I would think it does since evolution is change in alleles over time showing that organism alleles changed over time would prove evolution. Adapting to a new environment means that the alleles of the population had to have changed.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
I have never read that book, but if that is what Dawkins said that he is wrong, but I doubt that he said that. Again, evolution is the change in alleles in a population over time. Natural selection is that populations have heritable traits that are variable in a population and those different traits lead to some organism having a higher fitness than others do.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
"...it is possible to accept adaptation and speciation without accepting evolution THEY ARE NOT EQUIVALENT TERMS evolution is not adapatatation"
Yes, it is. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over time.
"animals adapt through changes and natural selection, but this does not mean that natural selection creates complexity"
No, the changes create the complexity; then natural selection selects the complexity that is best fitted to the environment.
Hooya2 3 years ago
Adaptation is apart of evolution. You are putting together a straw man again, who claims that evolution is something changing into something more complex. That is simply wrong, and I think you know it. Again, evolution is the change in alleles in a population over time.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
"no, darwin did not even know what an allele was"
what's your point? darwin did not understand a lot of things back then. besides, we are talking about the modern theory, not the first version darwin made. again, get a college-level biology education before criticizing evolutionary theory.
nightoftherobots 3 years ago
"no, darwin did not even know what an allele was"
Yes, which is why we rarely use the term 'Darwinian evolution'. Darwin's theory was synthesized with Mendalian allelics, and later with modern genetics. Evolutionary theory today has Darwin's broad outlines, but the details have been rewritten.
Hooya2 3 years ago
No part of Darwins theory states anything about alleles does it? Darwin only know that there was variation within population and those variations would lead some organism to have a higher fitness than the others.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
@a01011399
"evolution through natural selection´´
yes, which is not just adaptation, the fact that animals adapt does not prove darwinian evolution"
How do you think animals adapt then? Wht promotes the adaptation? The only suggested alternative is Lamarckian evolution which has been disproven already. What's you theory? God going into each cell and monkeying around with the DNA?
Minttzz 3 years ago
animals adapt through changes and natural selection, but this does not mean that natural selection creates complexity ¿if I am wrong, then tell me why did darwin becamo so famous?
a01011399 3 years ago
"this does not mean that natural selection creates complexity"
Darwin coined the term and posited the concept of 'natural selection', so if you think natural selection delivers adaptation you have a basic acceptance of evolution. Your focus on complexity is a red-herring. Evolution isn't a ladder or staircase continually stepping up a level. it goes every which way at the environment demands. Who is more successful mankind with a population of 6 billion or spiders with trillions of individuals.
Minttzz 3 years ago
Dwains main contribution was to provide an explanation that account for the complexity of life (organs tissues, systems etc.) since long before Darwin people knew that animals adapt everybody knew that hairless dogs are less likely to survive in cold climates
a01011399 3 years ago
Darwin proposed the theory for this to work. Moreover, this theory has stood the test of time.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
I HAVE ALREADY SAID THIS AND IT IS STARTING TO ANNOY ME!
THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF COMPLEXITY!
COMPLEXITY IS A MAN-MADE METHOD OF QUANTIFYING! WHAT STANDARD ARE YOU USING TO JUSTIFY SOMETHINGS "COMPLEXITY"? PLEASE TELL ME!
AND YES YOU ARE WRONG, BECAUSE YOU ARE USING A STUPID ARGUMENT WHICH MAKES NO SENSE, IF YOU KNEW WHAT EVOLUTION WAS YOU WOULDNT KEEP USING "COMPLEXITY"!
and no my outburst does not result from a weakness in my argument, it comes from your glaring stupidity
silentbob36 3 years ago
I am simply showing the facts to you, if you don´t want to accept them is your problem not mine, I reed the book, if you don´t believe it I don´t care, if I misunderstood something then reed the book and tell me where am I wrong
a01011399 3 years ago
You are right; natural selection does not create complexity. Mutations add new information for natural selection to work with, so mutations add new complexity if that is what you want to call it.
Darwin became famous because of his theory of natural selection, which I have explained before.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
yes then evolution is not just adaptation
a01011399 3 years ago
Of course, evolution is not just adaptation, but adaptation is a part of it.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
´´Of course, evolution is not just adaptation, but adaptation is a part of it.´´
yes I agree,
a01011399 3 years ago
"yes then evolution is not just adaptation "
Christ, where are we this. Last week you were saying adaptation and evolution were two different things.
Minttzz 3 years ago
"...the fact that animals adapt does not prove darwinian evolution"
No, the fact that they adapt through variation and natural selection proves Darwinian evolution.
"finding a bunny in the precambrian would not change the fact that animals adapt..."
No, but it would disprove the idea that they adapt in a roughly linear way via subtle variation and natural selection, because we don't have any transitional pre-bunny Precambrian fossils.
Hooya2 3 years ago
The theory of natural selection states that organism will have variation in a population and within that variation; some traits will be better selected than others will and because of that, they will be passed down more frequent.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Yes thats exactly Darwin became famous although I'm not sure if that was hes goal.
*lamark also accepted adaptation ¿was he also correct?
That comment makes no sense at all.
DerivedApe 3 years ago
"do you honestly believe that darwin became famous for discovering that animals adapt?"
No, people already knew that animals adapt--he became famous for figuring out HOW they adapt.
"lamark also accepted adaptation ¿was he also correct?"
Lamarck accepted macroevolution, but he proposed a faulty mechanism. You, strangely, understand the mechanism, and accept the fact that it works for microevolution, but you reject the conclusion of macroevolution.
Hooya2 3 years ago
Darwin became famous because he was the one that came up with the theory of natural selection. Natural selection is the process that guilds that changes in the alleles of a population.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
"no, evolution is this idea that says that complex things came from simpler things, evolution is not adaptation."
Is a seal, which has two fore flippers and conjoined rear limbs more complex than its four limbed non-aquatic mammalian ancestor? From something that can run around on land to something that can only flop about a bit on land and swim more efficiently. No. Evolution suggests it had adapted to an aquatic lifestyle.
Evolution and adaptation are the same thing.
Minttzz 3 years ago
no, evolution is not just adaptation and yes evolution predicts that the seal had a more complex genome that their ansestors.Claiming that adaptation is evolution is like claiming that cakes and eggs are the same thing, of course you need eggs(adaptation) to obtain a cake(evolution) but it doesnt mean that an egg and a cake are the same thing.
a01011399 3 years ago
"evolution predicts that the seal ha seal had a more complex genome that their ansestors"
Incorrect. You don't understand evolution.
Minttzz 3 years ago
no please do some research
a01011399 3 years ago
"no please do some research"
ROFL
Okay Teach, where do you want me to do my research? AiG?
Show me some academic reference that says that genomes MUST increase in complexity for it to be called 'evolution'?
Minttzz 3 years ago
you can call evolution anything you want, but darwins contribution to science (supposedly) is that complex structures appeared trough natural selection from simpler structures.
a01011399 3 years ago
"darwins contribution ... complex structures appeared trough natural selection from simpler structures."
Nope. He proposed that all modern lifeforms all descended from a common ancestor trough a process of natural selection. Nothing about increasing complexity. Here's a link to the 6th edition of the Origin of Species
ht tp:// darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F391&pageseq=1
You can find ALL of Darwin's writings on that site. How about you research it?
Minttzz 3 years ago
Wrong. Darwin came up with the theory of natural selection. Do I really have to state it again?
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
no how about you do some research.
i suggest looking at a non-biased source for evolution, instead of creationist websites, which will obviously have a biase and lie about evolution
"evolution predicts that the seal ha seal had a more complex genome that their ansestors"
ummm, how? oh let me guess, entropy right?
silentbob36 3 years ago
yes the seal is more complex than theoir ansestors (acording to evolution)
a01011399 3 years ago
"yes the seal is more complex than theoir ansestors (acording to evolution)"
No, it's according to you and your creationist strawmen, show me where a biologist admits to "complexity"
i have asked before and i'll keep asking it, what objective standard do you use to quantify complexity?
I have shown the problems with complexity several times during this discussion and you have never answered me.
I assume its because you know "complexity" is stupid, if not then give me an answer
silentbob36 3 years ago
an organ is mre complex than an other when the first has more molecules involved in it´s function specially if they are codependent with other molecules.
for example we are suppose to believe that the eye evolved from something that was simpler
a01011399 3 years ago
"for example we are suppose to believe that the eye evolved from something that was simpler"
True, but some creatures have evolved to lose their eyes through natural selection.
Minttzz 3 years ago
´´True, but some creatures have evolved to lose their eyes through natural selection.´´
ok yes that is natural selecction, but creationist don´t reject that part.
Darwinian evolution is an important part f science because it explains the complexity of life without a god. Reducing complexity does not help to explain the complexity of life, losing information is part of natural selection but it is not an important contribution.
a01011399 3 years ago
"ok yes that is natural selection .... "
I have no idea what you are trying to say here?
You now have several people telling you that evolution doesn't posit anything about complexity, only change. What survives the natural selection process is whatever is most able to exploit the environment and successfully reproduce, how 'complex' it is is irrelevant. If 'more complex' = 'more efficient' that will survive, but it could equally well be the opposite.
Minttzz 3 years ago
Supposedly Darwinian evolution is better than others because it is the only one that accounts for complexity, the fact that Darwin provides an explanation for complexity of life made Darwin important scientists.
a01011399 3 years ago
"Supposedly Darwinian evolution is better than others because it is the only one that accounts for complexity, the fact that Darwin provides an explanation for complexity of life made Darwin important scientists."
Utter nonsense.
Minttzz 3 years ago
Thus,from the war of nature,from famine and death,the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving,namely,the production of the higher animals,directly follows.There is grandeur inthis view of life,with its several powers,having been originally breathed by the Creator into afew forms or into one;and that,whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity,from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been,and are being,evolved.
Minttzz 3 years ago
BTW the phrase "By the Creator" in the final sentence did not appear in the first edition of Origin of Species. It was added to the second edition to conciliate angry clerics. Darwin later wrote, "I have long since regretted that I truckled to public opinion and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process." (Gardner, 1984)
Minttzz 3 years ago
I don´t see you point, my point is:
Evolution (supposed fact) complex forms came from simpler forms, DNA came from a simpler molecule, the eye came from a simpler organ, the digestive system came from a simpler system etc.
Evolutionary theory: complex forms came from simpler forms do to a process called natural selection (proposed by Darwin)
¿do we agree?
a01011399 3 years ago
"Evolutionary theory: complex forms came from simpler forms do to a process called natural selection (proposed by Darwin)
¿do we agree?"
As a definition of what evolution is no. As one of the consequences natural selection yes.
Minttzz 3 years ago
BUT IT IS THE most important consequence, it is the only concecuence that explains something that was yet unkonwn in science (supposedly)
a01011399 3 years ago
That is only part part of evolution, it falls far short of the definition. Evolution by natural selection also explains why we still have bacterial forms; why some species remain stuck in an evolutionary niche; why certain lifeforms have parasitic and symbiotic relationships; why obligate parasites lose the ability to exist outside of the host; and the common stupid creationist question. IF we evolved from apes, why are there still chimpanzees.
Minttzz 3 years ago
yes i do agree, that is what evolution explains
a01011399 3 years ago
So you accept that evolution by natural selection can also predict genome reduction through selection. That is genomes staying relatively small with less junk DNA (non-functional sequences), e.g. bacteria becoming more efficient through natural selection, with genes that are no longer required becoming switched off and eventually lost. An example being obligate parasites losing the ability to exist outside of the host?
That's a decrease in complexity. Specialization can lead in both directions.
Minttzz 3 years ago
yes that is true, but that part of evolution is accepted by creationists, lamarkists, and many other ´´enemies´´ of darwin those are not important contributions
a01011399 3 years ago
"that part of evolution is accepted by creationists"
No it isn't, they accept degrading or devolution but only within the mythical "kind". Creationists don't believe that a seal came from a four legged mammal, or that organs can change function (legs can become flippers, penguin?), or structures can be lost and become vestigial.
Minttzz 3 years ago
creationists accept changes and adaptation within the available information, as simple as that,
a01011399 3 years ago
"creationists accept changes and adaptation within the available information, as simple as that"
But they can't or won't define what they mean by information.
If we use the very basic unit of information "a bit", a single nucleotide in a sequence can be made from one of 4 different bases, thus it represents 2 bits. 2 nucleotides = 16 bits.
Minttzz 3 years ago
if you believe that we came from simpler organisms just provide a process that would make that possible, weather if you want to call it new information or not is irrelevant
a01011399 3 years ago
"provide a process"
???
Natural selection.
What else?
Minttzz 3 years ago
you have to prove that NS can do such thing
a01011399 3 years ago
ERVs
Minttzz 3 years ago
- no ervs do not prove that, besides the claim is untestable, you can not claim that erv prove evolution if you don´t provide a potencial falsification
a01011399 3 years ago
"you can not claim that erv prove evolution if you don´t provide a potencial falsification"
Watch the video watch?v=dbbh1P6DW5I
Please watch the whole thing but please pay particular attention to the part from 6:18 on. If common descent were not true the distribution of common ERVs across species would not precisely match the pattern described. This would immediately falsify evolution.
Minttzz 3 years ago
yes we do find ERV in chimps and gorillas but not in humans, the predictions where tested and failed to be consistent to what evolution predicts. So ether reject evolution or admit that evolution is untestable.
a01011399 3 years ago
watch?v=Wp-3ITCMskg
k87jury 3 years ago
Yes desertphile decided to go for alternative #2 ´´evolution is not testable´´ I repeat if you want to se the argument on ERVs you have to provide potential falsifications, you can not simply predict all the possible results, and then claim that your theory has correct predictions
a01011399 3 years ago
I gave the predictions that we should find with ERVs, you have not cited any source yet.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
"yes we do find ERV in chimps and gorillas but not in humans, the predictions where tested and failed to be consistent to what evolution predicts. "
Retroviruses infect individuals not entire populations. The common ancestor of mankind would not have had this infection.
This does not falsify appearance of ERVs at specific insertion points in the genome.
Minttzz 3 years ago
which leads us to my main point evolution is not falsifiable with ervs therefore you can not use it as prove for evolution
a01011399 3 years ago
The falsifiability is that ERVs in their multitude found in the same place across species should not exist at all unless a common ancestor of those two species was infected, which means that a common ancestor must exist.
Minttzz 3 years ago
and why not? ervs are functional and we need them to survive, why wouln´t god created Adam with retrovial DNA?
besides every single possible ERV will always fit in to your theory
a01011399 3 years ago
So you believe in a deceptive God who has made it look just like a real virus infection then?
Minttzz 3 years ago
i believe that viruses come from ERVs, god created ervs, ervs created viruses
a01011399 3 years ago
1)
"viruses come from ERVs"
Viruses don't come from ERVS. You don't understand what an ERV is.
The E means endogenous which mean it has placed itself in the genome. The R means Retro because it translates from RNA to DNA which is the opposite way it normally happens.
Viruses of a specific type called retro-viruses infect the host and become embedded in the host genome and that's when they are called endogenous. An ERV is alike a fossil record of a virus infection.
Minttzz 3 years ago
No you are assuming all that, you are assuming that erv are in fact retroviral incretions, but you don´t know that, erv are functional proteins and we need them to survive, proteins can only be functional in specific locations, for example some ervs are part of the reproductive system, since all mammals have a similar reproductive system we would expect them to have ervs in the same place in mammals
a01011399 3 years ago
You have a confused understanding of what an ERV is.
"erv are functional proteins"
This makes no sense.
Q1: How do we know which parts of our genome are ERV? Do you know this?
Q2: What about all of the ERV in junk DNA?
What about the ERVS which are junk DNS which are in fact
Minttzz 3 years ago
1) ervs had an unic secuance, they can clearly be indentified
2) ervs are suppose to be ´´junk dna´´ but we know know that they are not ´´junk´´
3) junk DNA is possible in an ID model, just a mutation that ´´deactivated´´ the function explain that
a01011399 3 years ago
You are the one who is claiming nonsense, ¿do you believe that the ERV randomly inserted in the exact same location where it can be functional? ¿how did the erv knows, what location of insertion would be good?
a01011399 3 years ago
"¿how did the erv knows, what location of insertion would be good?"
You completely ignore ERVs in junk DNA.
That's like saying how did the raindrop know to fall on my roof and fill my water butt.
Minttzz 3 years ago
Fact 1 ervs are functional (atleast some)
Fact 2 proteins can only be functional in specific parts of the genome
Knowing these facts, why did the ERV inserted in the exact location where it can be functional, out of millions of possible locations it decided to insert in to the only location in which it can be functional.
a01011399 3 years ago
About your first fact, what function is that? to create virus? HAHA!
Again, please source your claim.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
ERVs where thought to be ´´junk´´ research has been made and we now know that they are functional., the function of all ervs has not been discovered yet, but it is possible that all of them are functional.
a01011399 3 years ago
a01011399: Okay, ERV inserts itself randomly, it becomes junk, no functionality, because if it is working, it would produce viruses. Agreed?
But junk DNA can acquire functionality, like DNA duplication, it is new material in DNA that can then mutate further, and any beneficial effect is more likely to be continued.
So in effect ERV becomes a part of a working DNA, but not its original function.
Evolution at its finest!
Saukko31 3 years ago
That is circular reasoning, first you claim that ervs prove evolution, and then you assume evolution in order for ERVs to fit in to your theory. You are basically saying that ervs where originally function-less because that is what evolution predicts.
a01011399 3 years ago
No, ERVs really are ancient virus remnants, ERVs would have been major problem for evolution if they had not been organized the only way that support theory of evolution.
Virus has been reconstructed from the remnants in human DNA, wouldn't that show that they are, indeed, functionless?
Again, if they had function, they would produce viruses.
Removing junk DNA should not have any effect on organism, and this has been done on mice, relust was a normal mouse.
Saukko31 3 years ago
we need ervs to survive
a01011399 3 years ago
"we need ervs to survive"
No.
Saukko31 3 years ago
Says who?
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
ERVs are functionless because that is what the evidence shows us. Unless you are willing to provide a source that says otherwise.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
The ERV did randomly insert itself, but they are functionless. Nevertheless, please cite a source that states the function of ERVs.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
If they are not junk than they would have selective pressure on them and they would not freely accumulate mutations.
Since there is no model of ID mutations cannot be apart of it.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
There is not assumption there; the genetic evidence shows that they are retroviral incretions. ERVs also appear to be functionless, that is why there is not selective pressure on them and they can freely accumulate mutations.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
2)
So you believe that God placed these ERV like sequences in the genome of all these species, or infected each species individually in exactly the same place in the genome for dozen of species and made it look just common ancestors had been infected?
That's what you're saying. Thus you're implying a deceitful God.
Minttzz 3 years ago
Chimps and humans share ERVs for the same reason they both have fingers in their hands WE SIMPLY NEED THEM.
Today some viruses are originated by ERVs this has been observed
a01011399 3 years ago
"Chimps and humans share ERVs for the same reason they both have fingers in their hands WE SIMPLY NEED THEM."
Some of them yes, but the vast majority of them, no. Despite the continuous whining of creationists, we have very good tests for determining coding genes (~1%) and operational genes (~4%). We know for a fact that ~95% of our genome never codes, and never interacts with translational RNA--including ERVs and dozens of other DNA chains. But we still share them other animals.
Hooya2 3 years ago
You are right chimps and humans share ERVs for the same reason we both have fingers on our hands. It is because we inherited that trait from our ancestors.
Who has observed that? SOURCE please.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
HAHA! Another great joke. Therefore, you believe that god created us to have DNA that creates virus that attacks our own body. What a cruel god you worship. Well you can believe whatever you want, but it does not make it true. ERVs are leftover DNA from a virus that once infected a host. They do not create more viruses.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
HAHA! ERVs have functions. Good joke. Nevertheless, ERV are leftover virus DNA left in a body. The virus infected a sex cell that later became a child. The DNA of the virus, not being detrimental was never selected against.
Not true. If an ERV was found in a human, the same one was found in a cow, and there was not one found in any other primate it would falsify evolution.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Yes it is.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Please site your source on that claim. I would love to read up on it.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
ERV allow science to make predictions that would only be correct if natural selection was true. It is very testable. If we were to find an ERV in humans that was the same with cows that was not shared by any other primate it would falsify evolution. Also, would should be able to find old ERVs that are shared among only primates, including humans, not no other animals.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
You are kidding right? You just said you accept that natural selection works.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Mutations and natural selection.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
If you accept changes an adaptations than you accept evolution. It is as simple as that.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
You are missing a key part of how evolution works. Natural selection is the driving force of evolution but in order to get new information for natural selection to work with you needs mutations. Mutations provide the new information for natural selection.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
I just posted the last sentence in the Origin of Species. Darwin speaks of a few or one original form. I believe he spoke of up to around 10 original forms. He, of course, knew nothing about DNA (or even atomic structures) and so could not speculate about how life was connected to each other at the molecular level. The point though is that he posited common ancestry, varying through natural selection. Why are you finding this so hard to understand?
Minttzz 3 years ago
reed your quote: from so SIMPLE a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been,and are being,evolved.
a01011399 3 years ago
What is your problem with that?
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
"Supposedly Darwinian evolution is better than others because it is the only one that accounts for complexity..."
No, Darwin's idea was better than others because it accounted for ADAPTATION. Why do animals adapt? Why do some animals have different beak sizes, feather colors, and so on? Because of random variations and natural selection.
Hooya2 3 years ago
How is losing your eye losing complexity, in order for a creature to lose their eye that means their other senses would have to become better, or more complex. They would also have to grow bone over were the eye socket so more complexity.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
"an organ is mre complex than an other when the first has more molecules involved in it´s function specially if they are codependent with other molecules."
when you say molecules im assuming you mean cells.
1. Cells are codependent because of their nucleui, all cells have these and i don't see how the quantity of them changes anything.
2. Cells replicate constantly, which by your logic means an organs complexity is always shifting.
silentbob36 3 years ago
"for example we are suppose to believe that the eye evolved from something that was simpler"
And that is impossible how? A few changes to the DNA is all that takes.
If the DNA of one cell mutates it will continue replocating, just think of the possibilities for a zygote
silentbob36 3 years ago
no with molecules i mean molecules
a01011399 3 years ago
then im sorry but i really dont see where your going with this, how do molecules disprove evolution?
I would further assume you are talking about biomolecules, but if you are using molecules to disprove evolution you may as well use molecules to disprove covalent crystal formation, it'd make just as much sense
silentbob36 3 years ago
If you are not talking about life, than you are not talking about evolution.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
There are hundreds of videos about how the eye evolved on youtube. I suggest you look them up. You act as if all the animals in the world have the same sort of eye. There are tons of different eyes out there and I would not say ours is the best either.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
This is what evolution claims:
Fact: the eye evolved from something simpler, like photosensitive skin:
Theory: it happened do to a process called natural selection
Lamarkist and many other agreed with the fist one (the fact) Darwin became famous for proposing the theory, that contradicted what lamak said.
Creationist claim that the eye has always been complex (or maybe it was more complex in the past)
a01011399 3 years ago
Lamarck never had more than a basic hypothesis. He couldn't think of a method of adaptation. He thought the giraffe willed itself to have a longer neck and the trait was then passed on. No-one took this idea seriously. The prevailing view before Darwin was immutability with variation.
Once he began to think about natural selection he then proposed a single common ancestor for all life including plants. That was the crux of contribution. No-one before had proposed common ancestry for all life.
Minttzz 3 years ago
yes lamark was taken seriosly even after darwin. Common ancestry is a hypothesis (even according to evolutionists) Darwin said that we all evolved from a common ancestor or from a few ancestors. In other words if the primordial soup produced 10 ancient cells, evolutionary theory wont be shaken a lot, and Darwinism would not be rejected
a01011399 3 years ago
"10 ancient cells"
Life emerged from self-replicating molecules that evolved into DNA. There weren't initial cells.
8% of human DNA is composed of fossil DNA from retro-viruses. You could say that we are descended from viruses. Mitochondria appear to be organisms that entered into a symbiotic relationship with primitive cells. Yes there are potentially multiple ancestral roots, but all life is based on self-replicating DNA and it is posited that this gives everything a common ancestry.
Minttzz 3 years ago
"yes lamark was taken seriosly even after darwin"
No. No-one took Lamarckism seriously before Darwin, because species were thought to be immutable with variation, that was by far the dominant belief. After Darwin, the thoughts on immutability were shattered. Before Mendel's work was rediscovered Lamarckism was indeed thought to play some role in the process, even by Darwin. Trofim Lysenko, the Soviet agriculturalist held back Russian bio-technology because of his dogmatic belief in Lamrckism.
Minttzz 3 years ago
Lamark theory was take seriously because it seemed to go along with the evidence at hand. When new evidence was, shown Lamarks theory went by the waist side. This would also be true of Darwins theory if new evidence were to come up to show it wrong.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Ok, someone used natural selection and mutation producing more 'information', someone used ERVs, that is irrelevant. Nylonase and E. Coli C+ citrate metabolization are both examples of new and novel functionality. EVERYONE IGNORE a0!!! HE HAS BEEN DISCREDITED NEARLY ALL OF HIS ATTEMPTS, HE WILL NOT SUBMIT TO LOGIC OR REASON, HE WILL NOT LEARN, DEAL WITH IT.
scienceminded 3 years ago
"Creationist claim that the eye has always been complex (or maybe it was more complex in the past)"
and why can complexity go down but not up?
silentbob36 3 years ago
Evolution does not state anything of the sort. Where did you get this straw man?
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
You are the one that is in need of research. Nothing sadder than an ignorant person that does not realize they are ignorant.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Your analogy does not work because if you look at the definition of evolution it is the change of alleles in a population over time, so if an adoption leads to a change in alleles in a population than it is evolution. Eggs are defined as a female gamete: an ovum and cake is defined as a sweet, baked, breadlike food, made with or with shortening, and usually containing flour, sugar, baking powder or soda, eggs, and liquid flavoring. Do you see how their definitions do not equal the same thing?
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Evolution by definition is change in a populations alleles over time.
You have created a straw man.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Mitochondrial DNA is a double helix, I think what you meant is that is not chromosomal. Chromosomes are contained in the nucleus of the cell. Mitochondria (one per cell) are also in the nucleus and inside the mitochondria is the mitochondrial DNA. mitochondrial in a ring structure and does not have 3' and 5' ends like chromosomes.
Minttzz 3 years ago
Ya. I guess I should have been more specific and said not in the main double helix.
k87jury 3 years ago