Evolution

[simplexity]

You're right that probability does not disprove anything. But the main point is that we have no evidence to support infinite variation of a species (that eventually transcends the species barrier) and all the evidence proves that there are clear limits on variation so let's not get off track. Infinite variation is just man's imagination run wild because there are no facts to support it.

None of what you are saying makes any since, mostly because of the fact you keep spouting the same thing about infinite variation over and over again. Did you not read anything else that I or Phil wrote in the previous posts about natural selection? Mutation itself is variation and with time and enough mutation there will be infinite variation. It is simple probability. Evolution is proven with very simple probabilistic math and with a very simple algorithm called natural selection. There will be a certain point when genes passed on will not be compatible with the parent species. This is when a new species is formed. I said this previously.

By the way, early cells can evolve even more quickly and increase the information in their genome by taking in DNA and RNA from the outside environment. There are tons of ways the information in the genome can be increased and sexually is only one of them. Therefore by increasing the information in the genome a cell can evolve upwards asexually.

[Abishalom]

It's really comical how you bring up a topic that is the best prediction we have that the theory of evolution makes and you use it to try and disprove evolution. A fairly common number given for the rate of mutation in our DNA per generation is approximately 200.

Ok now take that 200 and divide it by the 20,000 genes (lower limit) in the human genome (you're gonna get a small number).

Given our split with chimpanzees was about 6 million years ago that means our DNA has changed about 1% in those years. Chimpanzees DNA accumulates mutations at the same rate of 200 per generation (as does all DNA based life - all life except Christian fundamentalists). That would mean our DNA should be approximately 2% different. The difference is measured at 1.4% but why the difference? Natural selection has weeded out the "bad" mutations and kept those that are either beneficial or neutral.

Don't let your imagination run too wild on you buddy. They say we are 96% related to apes BUT we do not even know the function of over 97% of the human genome. So their "proof" that we are relate is that we have 46 chromosomes and they have 48 chromosomes (46/48 is about 96%). Gee talk about intellectual dishonesty.

BTW, if you don't think 3800 million years is enough time to evolve a "50 trillion cell" creature, you are woefully misinformed. For example, from a naked retina to evolve a complex eye can be done in 400000 steps. Given just one small step made each generation, that would take 4 million years given a 10 year generation.

Do yourself a favor and learn evolutionary theory before making yourself look even more foolish.

But if you consider the amount of negative mutations vastly outweighing the positive ones you cannot even demonstrate how this process happen other than imagination. Even if that was enough time, there is no evidence to corroborate this narrative.

---

You're right that probability does not disprove anything. But the main point is that we have no evidence to support infinite variation of a species (that eventually transcends the species barrier) and all the evidence proves that there are clear limits on variation so let's not get off track. Infinite variation is just man's imagination run wild because there are no facts to support it.

None of what you are saying makes any since, mostly because of the fact you keep spouting the same thing about infinite variation over and over again. Did you not read anything else that I or Phil wrote in the previous posts about natural selection? Mutation itself is variation and with time and enough mutation there will be infinite variation. It is simple probability. Evolution is proven with very simple probabilistic math and with very simple algorithm called natural selection. There will be a certain point when genes passed on will not be compatible with the parent species. This is when a new species is formed. I said this previously.

Mathematics does not agree with you. There are no documented mutations that do any such thing (infinite variation). All we have been able to prove is that variation whether through natural selection (which extracts form existing mutation) or mutations is limited to producing variation of a certain kind of species resulting in different kinds of that species (never anything totally new even with the alleged time you claim).

[simplexity]

Edit. Edit.

[Phil]

It's really comical how you bring up a topic that is the best prediction we have that the theory of evolution makes and you use it to try and disprove evolution. A fairly common number given for the rate of mutation in our DNA per generation is approximately 200.

Ok now take that 200 and divide it by the 20,000 genes (lower limit) in the human genome (you're gonna get a small number).

Did I say genes moron? I am talking about SNPs. SNPs are single nucleotide polymorphisms which you apparently never heard of.

Given our split with chimpanzees was about 6 million years ago that means our DNA has changed about 1% in those years. Chimpanzees DNA accumulates mutations at the same rate of 200 per generation (as does all DNA based life - all life except Christian fundamentalists). That would mean our DNA should be approximately 2% different. The difference is measured at 1.4% but why the difference? Natural selection has weeded out the "bad" mutations and kept those that are either beneficial or neutral.

Don't let your imagination run too wild on you buddy. They say we are 96% related to apes BUT we do not even know the function of over 97% of the human genome. So their "proof" that we are relate is that we have 46 chromosomes and they have 48 chromosomes (46/48 is about 96%). Gee talk about intellectual dishonesty.

Chromosomes are not the totality of our genome. Are you sure you're more than 12 years old?

[simplexity]

Mathematics does not agree with you. There are no documented mutations that do any such thing (infinite variation). All we have been able to prove is that variation whether through natural selection (which extracts form existing mutation) or mutations is limited to producing variation of a certain kind of species resulting in different kinds of that species (never anything totally new even with the alleged time you claim).

Obviously there have been billions of new mutations which have popped up over the last few millions of years, otherwise we would not be here.

The only thing which is used to label a new species is when A(animals) are no longer able to reproduce within their previous ancestral species. This is completely possible because at some point there will be enough variation that some genes will no longer be compatible with the previous strain of genes and can no longer go through meiosis. In meiosis new material can be added to the genome and/or deleted, therefore your argument that the general genome will always stay the same is completely incorrect. What you call macro evolution has occurred. Really its all one thing evolution but this is beyond the point.

Therefore a new species has arrived. There has not been infinite variation, just enough to get to the next step.

With asexual species the difference between species is much more blurred, but like I said before they have different methods of increasing their genome and therefore changing from a one celled organism to a multi-celled organism and onward from there.

P.S. If anyone wants to add on with more ways a the size of genome can be increased or decreased be my guest. This is most of what causes what these people are calling macro evolution.

[genkaus]

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.

---

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.

[Abishalom]

It's really comical how you bring up a topic that is the best prediction we have that the theory of evolution makes and you use it to try and disprove evolution. A fairly common number given for the rate of mutation in our DNA per generation is approximately 200.

Ok now take that 200 and divide it by the 20,000 genes (lower limit) in the human genome (you're gonna get a small number).

Did I say genes moron? I am talking about SNPs. SNPs are single nucleotide polymorphisms which you apparently never heard of.

First of all you never mentioned SNP (which I did not know what that was). But I did a little research and you're not talking about what I'm talking about if you're thinking about SNP. From what I've read SNP's are associated with disease and SNP apparently do not change often from 1 generation to the next (so good luck trying to explain how diseases lead to an entirely new kind of species). I'm just talking about mutations per generation. There are 100-200 mutations per generation occurring in 3 billion base pairs. Which equates to 1 mutation ever 30 million base pairs. So take 200/3,000,000,000 (you'll get an even smaller number). That is how prevalent mutations are to unblemished DNA per generation. Oh an keep in mind that the bad mutations outweigh the good.

Given our split with chimpanzees was about 6 million years ago that means our DNA has changed about 1% in those years. Chimpanzees DNA accumulates mutations at the same rate of 200 per generation (as does all DNA based life - all life except Christian fundamentalists). That would mean our DNA should be approximately 2% different. The difference is measured at 1.4% but why the difference? Natural selection has weeded out the "bad" mutations and kept those that are either beneficial or neutral.

Don't let your imagination run too wild on you buddy. They say we are 96% related to apes BUT we do not even know the function of over 97% of the human genome. So their "proof" that we are relate is that we have 46 chromosomes and they have 48 chromosomes (46/48 is about 96%). Gee talk about intellectual dishonesty.

Chromosomes are not the totality of our genome. Are you sure you're more than 12 years old?

Actually 46 chromosomes make up our ENTIRE genome. Yes, all 20,000+ protein coding genes are embedded within those 23 chromosomal pairs (which is comprised of even more complex non coding material). And even though we DO NOT know the function of over 97% of our genome they still say we are related based on the # of chromosomes.

[Phil]

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.

[Abishalom]

Mathematics does not agree with you. There are no documented mutations that do any such thing (infinite variation). All we have been able to prove is that variation whether through natural selection (which extracts form existing mutation) or mutations is limited to producing variation of a certain kind of species resulting in different kinds of that species (never anything totally new even with the alleged time you claim).

Obviously there have been billions of new mutations which have popped up over the last few millions of years, otherwise we would not be here.

Obviously it's true because YOU said it. But where are these billions of mutations? We have no documentation of them.

The only thing which is used to label a new species is when A(animals) are no longer able to reproduce within their previous ancestral species. This is completely possible because at some point there will be enough variation that some genes will no longer be compatible with the previous strain of genes and can no longer go through meiosis. In meiosis new material can be added to the genome and/or deleted, therefore your argument that the general genome will always stay the same is completely incorrect. What you call macro evolution has occurred. Really its all one thing evolution but this is beyond the point.

Therefore a new species has arrived. There has not been infinite variation, just enough to get to the next step.

With asexual species the difference between species is much more blurred, but like I said before they have different methods of increasing their genome and therefore changing from a one celled organism to a multi-celled organism and onward from there.

P.S. If anyone wants to add on with more ways a the size of genome can be increased or decreased be my guest. This is most of what causes what these people are calling macro evolution.

Well there probably a reason a whale cannot mate with a cow (and it has NOTHING to do with evolution). You're allowing your imagination to run wild my friend. We can observe material added or deleted, yes, but most of it has not affect on the cell's function. Mutations are rare compared to the amount of the genome that is remains unchanged through inheritance. When you factor in the amount of negative mutations compared to positive ones the bad outweighs the good considerably. And most mutations are minor changes such as resistance to disease. You are proposing drastic changes that have NEVER been documented.

[Phil]

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.