Evolution

[Abishalom]

I am not going to back and forth with you guys. Obviously you're convinced (in your own mind) that the diversity we see is a result of chance mutations on a single celled organism over billions of year. All this while ignoring the mathematical improbability that a single celled organism could even "evolve" into a 50 trillion celled organism (humans) through random mutations despite the alleged 4.5 billion years they claim all this took place.

On the contrary, we are quite aware of the mathematical improbability involved and we are well aware of the fact that there is much more than simple random mutations involved. You are the one convinced in his mind that that is what evolution means and that it could not have happened inspite of all the evidence that shows that it did happen.

---

On the contrary NONE of the evidence suggests infinite variation. That is a product of one man's fanciful imagination. It is reminiscent to ancient Greek science. Just make up ideas that cannot/will not be tested and passing them as true through circular reasoning (assuming the conclusion true in the premise).

The point is that the amount and kinds of mutations that are required to prove that a single cell organism turned into a 50 trillion celled organism is mathematically improbable even with the alleged 4.5 billion years that this supposedly took place. Essentially, you are proposing that naturally mutations can alter an organism so severely that the entire genetic makeup will change (over long period of time of course) and cause it to be an entire different kind of species (ie an ant into a wasp or a swan into an eagle or something of extreme nature as proposed by this fanciful theory) and be fully function despite such drastic change in genetic makeup. Something as complex as the diversity we see could not happen by accident.

Please, continue to revile us with your abysmal ignorance of the facts.

No, species do not change completely - characteristics that were present before are also present afterwards.

Yes, we're aware of the improbability. That is why we know that most of the species that ever lived are extinct.

No, evolution never produces any drastic changes like you fantasies suggest. And no, none claims that the directed complex process is an accident.

Actually I am ONLY discussing the FACTS. So you're probably reflecting on personal misconduct.

I agree species DO NOT completely change. They just inherit existing traits (that were around since the progenitor species).

Right, but most of the species in the fossil record has a species that looks eerily similar to the ones living today (just a lot are smaller).

Well we agree...if you are saying that variation is within a species and cannot trascend that barrier.

---

First of all you never mentioned SNP (which I did not know what that was)

Didn't have to. Anyone that knows evolutionary theory and genetics is well aware of what I was referring to. Just because your god prefers you to remain ignorant isn't my problem.

But I did a little research... SNP apparently do not change often from 1 generation to the next

Yeah, you did a little investagoogling apparently on AIG or some idiot creotard website. If you think there are no differences in SNPs from parent to offspring, you are beyond rationality and deserve nothing besides derision.

No I got my info from wiki and a .gov page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-nucl...lymorphism

"Although more than 99% of human DNA sequences are the same, variations in DNA sequence can have a major impact on how humans respond to disease; environmental factors such as bacteria, viruses, toxins, and chemicals; and drugs and other therapies. This makes SNPs valuable for biomedical research and for developing pharmaceutical products or medical diagnostics. SNPs are also evolutionarily stable—not changing much from generation to generation—making them easier to follow in population studies."
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Hu...snps.shtml

I noticed you did not respond to the rest of my post. I'll take it you concede those points. But seriously you're the guy who called me a moron because I didn't know what SNP was (even though YOU never mentioned it and I never talked about it either) and YOU didn't know that the human genome was comprised of only 46 chromosomes. tsk...tsk...It looks like you need to do a little "investagoogling" sir.

And most mutations are minor changes such as resistance to disease. You are proposing drastic changes that have NEVER been documented.

You really should stop typing before you look even stupider and people start questioning your sanity. Most mutations are neutral, the bad ones that have effects that happen before reproductive age are generally weeded out by natural selection. Those that have effects after reproduction, evolution could care less about them.

Neutral in that it does not affect the function. But what if those neutral mutations receive a mutations? (hint they will become harmful). Anyway the main point was that bad mutation vastly outweigh good ones. And even the good ones are nothing more than changes to resistance of a disease etc (nothing drastic here still the same species).

BTW we are taking about inherited genes here pal. So the mutations (whether harmful or good) are being passed on to the offspring.