Intelligent Design, Proof IV

[Esquilax]

In your terms it means that evolution happen horizontally (within the same species) not vertically to generate new ones.

Microevolution, huh? Well, thanks: we didn't need any more proof that you don't understand evolution at all, but it's good that you keep mounting it up anyway. Of course evolution happens within the species; a dog will always give birth to a dog, but those changes within species accumulate over time, and given that we're talking about millions of years, eventually those changes accumulate to the point that we'd need to start calling the eventual organism a new species.

Let me put it this way: if you take one step, and then another step, and then keep taking steps, eventually you'll walk a mile, right? Your image of this is that you keep taking step after step but you'll never walk a mile at all. It's dumb.

A Virus is not a single molecule

It is a series of molecules though... that replicate. Why do you need to keep dishonestly shifting the goalposts, rather than just admitting you're wrong?

A DNA is not able to live by itself

It was never alive to begin with. And that wasn't what you asked for anyway. You fucking liar.

I think you need to educate yourself before posting non-sense.

No, you do.

[Muslim Scholar]

Microevolution, huh? Well, thanks: we didn't need any more proof that you don't understand evolution at all, but it's good that you keep mounting it up anyway. Of course evolution happens within the species; a dog will always give birth to a dog, but those changes within species accumulate over time, and given that we're talking about millions of years, eventually those changes accumulate to the point that we'd need to start calling the eventual organism a new species.

Let me put it this way: if you take one step, and then another step, and then keep taking steps, eventually you'll walk a mile, right? Your image of this is that you keep taking step after step but you'll never walk a mile at all. It's dumb.

As it impossible for us to repeat the process (of changing a species to another), then it is not a fact it is just a theory

A Virus is not a single molecule

It is a series of molecules though... that replicate. Why do you need to keep dishonestly shifting the goalposts, rather than just admitting you're wrong?

Your claims is that a single life, self replicating molecules can be the start, which is impoosible and doesn't exist.

A DNA is not able to live by itself

It was never alive to begin with. And that wasn't what you asked for anyway.

Which conforms to my point of the impossibility for life to begin with a random event.
DNA doesn't replicate by itself, even from the link that you gave (Liar)

[CleanShavenJesus]

I'm sure this has been brought up already and, uh, "debunked" by MS, but this is a good experiment to test a theory which is a pretty sound theory, though there are developments on the case of the origin of life every day (by people who know intelligent design is bullshit.)

[Mister Agenda]

Have you considered that a cell is not the minimum system required? A self-replicating molecule would be the logical minimum for something that could lead to a cell through natural selection; making the formation of the first cell the result of molecules evolving (in a pre-biological sense) to replicate more successfully rather than something so complex as a cell happening to come together spontaneously with no process guided by natural selection leading up to it.

What you say is impossible
as there is no such thing a self replicating molecule

Why so sure?

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shorts...rna-e.html

Anyway whatever you call it, must have minimum functions to be able to live (then ultimately evolve)

The minimum function for a self-replicating RNA molecule is to be able to replicate itself when in a solution containing the chemicals it needs to do so.

How evolution can work on parallel basis to design the male female compatibility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_...production

[Angrboda]

---

In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations, each of which can interbreed with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between each "linked" species. Such non-breeding, though genetically connected, "end" populations may co-exist in the same region thus closing a "ring".

Ring species provide important evidence of evolution in that they illustrate what happens over time as populations genetically diverge, and are special because they represent in living populations what normally happens over time between long deceased ancestor populations and living populations, in which the intermediates have become extinct. Richard Dawkins observes that ring species "are only showing us in the spatial dimension something that must always happen in the time dimension."

Ring species also present an interesting case of the species problem, for those who seek to divide the living world into discrete species. After all, all that distinguishes a ring species from two separate species is the existence of the connecting populations - if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection, the ring species' distal populations will be recognized as two distinct species.

Ring species are living examples of transitional forms. They are speciation in action.

Greenish warblers

Another ring species that has provided valuable insights into speciation consists of the greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides). These small, insect-eating songbirds breed in the forests of central and northern Asia and eastern Europe. In the center of Asia is a large region of desert, including the Tibetan Plateau and the Taklamakan and Gobi Deserts, where the warblers cannot live. Instead, they inhabit a ring of mountains surrounding this region, as well as the forests of Siberia to the north. The warblers have remarkable geographic variation:

• In Siberia, two distinct forms of greenish warblers coexist, one in the west and one in the east, their distributions narrowly overlapping in central Siberia, where they do not interbreed. These forms differ in color patterns, the songs that males sing to attract mates, and genetic characteristics. Also, males of each form usually do not recognize the song of the other form, but respond strongly to their own.
  
• The traits that differ between the two Siberian forms change gradually through the chain of populations encircling the Tibetan Plateau to the south.
  
• Thus two distinct species are connected by gradual variation in morphological, behavioral, and genetic traits.
  

Claude Ticehurst, who during the 1930s studied variation in museum specimens of greenish warblers, hypothesized that the present pattern of variation arose when an ancestral species in the south, perhaps in the Himalayas, expanded northward along two pathways, one on the west side of Tibet and the other on the east. The two expanding fronts gradually became different, resulting in two distinct Siberian forms. More recently, studies of genetic variation and song variation have strongly supported this view.

The pattern of song variation is particularly interesting:

• Songs are short and simple in the south, but to the north songs become gradually longer and more complex along both pathways into Siberia.
  
• However, songs have also become different in structure, resulting in distinct differences in songs between the Siberian forms.
  

The birds distinguish between these differences; males respond aggressively to tape recordings of their own songs, thinking that another male has invaded their territory, but they do not respond to songs of the other form. In most species of songbirds, songs play an important role in mate choice; usually, only males sing, and females listen to songs when deciding which male to choose as a mate. Speciation is essentially the evolution of reproductive isolation between two populations, and song differences can cause reproductive isolation. Hence, the geographical variation in songs of greenish warblers provides a rare illustration of how gradual change in a trait can cause speciation.

— Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation, Darren E. Irwin,

[Baalzebutt]

As it impossible for us to repeat the process (of changing a species to another), then it is not a fact it is just a theory

Read this for instances of OBSERVED speciation

Go to section 5.0

Now, you were saying?

[Mister Agenda]

As it impossible for us to repeat the process (of changing a species to another), then it is not a fact it is just a theory.

Hm. I suppose if you isolated a population of a species for 10,000 generations, it would likely speciate from genetic drift alone. Might not take quite as long under heavy selection pressures. Already been done with microorganisms, but creationists tend to be unimpressed by speciation of microbes. There are certain varieties of aphids whose generations are less than a week. It would take less than 200 years to achieve 10,000 generations. So the experiment can be done, too bad it wasn't started in Darwin's time, if it had it could have been finished in my lifetime. Of course the natural experiment can and has been done: find a species that has been reproductively isolated for 10,000 generations and see if it can still breed with it's nearest related species...but for some reason that doesn't count either.

DNA doesn't replicate by itself, even from the link that you gave (Liar)

RNA can.

[Esquilax]

As it impossible for us to repeat the process (of changing a species to another), then it is not a fact it is just a theory

Since other people have posted evidence of species transition- that you will undoubtedly ignore because you're all round ignorant- I'll not go too much further there, beyond check out these awesome foxes!

I will say, however, that your insistence on this "theory not a fact" tact, after having the actual meaning of a scientific theory pointed out to you earlier, just showcases the breathtaking magnitude of either your inability to retain information like a person with a functioning brain can, your disinterest in actually having a discussion, or your dishonesty.

So which is it, "Scholar?" Idiot, asshole, or liar? My bet is all three.

Your claims is that a single life, self replicating molecules can be the start, which is impoosible and doesn't exist.

Fun fact: abiogenesis is not evolution!