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.

[The Grand Nudger]

The limits on natural selection are variations within a species resulting in different kinds of that species. For instance, natural selection can yield different kinds of eagles, different kinds of finches, different kinds of fruit flies to better fit their environments. It just extracts the already existing genetic material to allow for adaptation resulting in variations of that species. It cannot cause algae to turn into a seed bearing plant, a fish to turn into an amphibian, or a dinosaur to change into a bird. The variation is limited to adapting and preserving a species (not turning it into infinite types). Every experiment documented has only been able to show that variations has its limits.

Yes, from one generation to the next-functionally speaking (it would be possible to see some absolutely massive variation from one generation to the next but we wouldn't expect this creature to survive it very well, and if it didn't it wouldn't show up in the evolutionary record we call "genetics"). Why you think this argues for your conclusion rather than the conclusion of science with regards to "infinite variation" is beyond me. I think this has been explained to you more than once. I suspect that you're being willfully obtuse here. Why do you think that algae turned into a seed bearing plant btw? Who told you this? You're missing a vast amount of time (and variation) in between these two things. Seed bearing plants come after plants themselves in the evolutionary order of things. The plants you see today haven't always been here. They range from 1,200 to just 10 million years old (flowering plants and grasses being some of the newest, and woody plants being older than seed bearing plants, for example).....

Fish to amphibians? So I'm guessing that shit like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish

just doesn't happen, right? Pro-tip, some fish are amphibious. They don't have to "turn into" anything.

You keep repeating this "turn into" garbage. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution and taxonomy. Let's use you as an example, you haven't "turned into" anything. You are still a bony fish, you are a great many other things as well, but you haven't "stopped being" what your ancestors were. You have simply added more characteristics. This is one of those examples of "infinite variation". Amazing to consider, isn't it, that something like a fish and something like yourself share a common ancestor. It would seem that those "limits" you described aren't very limiting at all, hmn?

If you're going to keep appealing to evidence and experiment I don't see why you have a problem with E by NS. I think your beef lies elsewhere. Were you going to give me an answer to the question I posed to you or will this be a one-way exchange of information?

No you do not realize that the variation offspring possess less genetic code than its progenitor. Through natural selection the variant offspring inherited the trait that best suited its environment leaving it with less genetic material than its parents.

That's apologetic trash amigo, you've been misled. Novel genetic material crops up all the time. You keep arguing about NS but you don't seem to understand that NS is not the mechanism by which variation occurs. I (and others) have already explained this to you. Again I suspect that you are being willfully obtuse.

I am only discussing the facts. As for straw man, there has been no such violation (but maybe you could look up the ad hominem wiki page).

An ad hom would be attacking the arguer and not the argument. If I were to call you a moron, for example. It's been explained to you exactly how your arguments are straw men. And yet you repeat them, that's called "ad naus". Again, I suspect that you are being willfully obtuse (see, that's an ad hom, funny thing about ad homs though, just because they're ad homs doesn't mean that they aren't true)

Class dismissed?

[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.

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

You have an inability to grasp the context. Firstly that wiki page is speaking specifically about SNPs that are defined as having an occurrence of at least 1% in the entire human population. That is a high frequency SNP and they are useful for medical research and yes, SNPS do not keep changing but that is not saying no new SNPs occur. You are either incredibly stupid to think so or you are outright lying like your apologetic guru. If you were not so fucking brain dead you could go on to learn that an SNP is nothing more than a single nucleotide polymorphism which is usually cytosine replacing thymine (about a frequency of 67%). Many SNPs have no effect on cell function (these are the ones you and other creotards are ignoring), but scientists believe others could predispose people to disease or influence their response to certain drugs (these are the ones your tunnel vision is allowing you to see).

Neutral in that it does not affect the function. But what if those neutral mutations receive a mutations? (hint they will become harmful).

Who is letting there imagination run wild asshole?

BTW, when it comes to evolution or mostly any topic on science

[WallaceT]

Hi guys. I've been studying evolutionary biology for a few years. Scientists believe the start was replicating molecules vying for resources. That's a quote I heard years ago and have never forgotten. It either started here on Earth or was brought here by a meteor from somewhere else. Under the right conditions namely not too hot or cold with carbon and water this process could start anywhere in the universe theoretically. The aliens are most probably out there somewhere!
The progress of this process appears to be to form organisms of increasing complexity over millions of years until we get us the human with the most complex material in the known universe our brain. As for how all this happens atom for atom behaving according to the laws of physics over millions of years is astounding to say the least.
Survival of the fittest through natural selection by random genetic mutation. The inevitable result of such a process is possibly intelligent lifeforms such as ourselves. The UFOs and aliens are around I'm sure!!!

[Abishalom]

Yes, from one generation to the next-functionally speaking (it would be possible to see some absolutely massive variation from one generation to the next but we wouldn't expect this creature to survive it very well, and if it didn't it wouldn't show up in the evolutionary record we call "genetics"). Why you think this argues for your conclusion rather than the conclusion of science with regards to "infinite variation" is beyond me. I think this has been explained to you more than once. I suspect that you're being willfully obtuse here. Why do you think that algae turned into a seed bearing plant btw? Who told you this? You're missing a vast amount of time (and variation) in between these two things. Seed bearing plants come after plants themselves in the evolutionary order of things. The plants you see today haven't always been here. They range from 1,200 to just 10 million years old (flowering plants and grasses being some of the newest, and woody plants being older than seed bearing plants, for example).....

What you are saying here has no relevance to what I am talking about. Yes there can be 'massive variation". But the limits I am speaking about are the boundaries on the possible variation which limit variation within a species. Let's not veer off course...

Fish to amphibians? So I'm guessing that shit like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish

just doesn't happen, right? Pro-tip, some fish are amphibious. They don't have to "turn into" anything.

Right lungfish turned into amphibians...even though there living today (I'm sure their offspring consists of...well lungfish).

You keep repeating this "turn into" garbage. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution and taxonomy. Let's use you as an example, you haven't "turned into" anything. You are still a bony fish, you are a great many other things as well, but you haven't "stopped being" what your ancestors were. You have simply added more characteristics. This is one of those examples of "infinite variation". Amazing to consider, isn't it, that something like a fish and something like yourself share a common ancestor. It would seem that those "limits" you described aren't very limiting at all, hmn?

I may be no taxonomy expert...but you just tried to sell the idea that lungfish turned into the almost 6,000 species of amphibians we have today (even though lungfish are still alive and producing...lungfish).

If you're going to keep appealing to evidence and experiment I don't see why you have a problem with E by NS. I think your beef lies elsewhere. Were you going to give me an answer to the question I posed to you or will this be a one-way exchange of information?

Well for starters there is no evidence to support the presuppositions of evolution.

That's apologetic trash amigo, you've been misled. Novel genetic material crops up all the time. You keep arguing about NS but you don't seem to understand that NS is not the mechanism by which variation occurs. I (and others) have already explained this to you. Again I suspect that you are being willfully obtuse.

But NS is the mechanism by which variation occurs, so you are mistaken. Apparently you're not aware that variation can only occur in the offspring. To have offspring the parents must...well reproduce. Thus whether there be mutation or not, natural selection must act to preserve available traits in the offspring. If they have no offspring there can be no variation. Did your parents ever talk to you about the birds and the bees?

---

You have an inability to grasp the context. Firstly that wiki page is speaking specifically about SNPs that are defined as having an occurrence of at least 1% in the entire human population. That is a high frequency SNP and they are useful for medical research and yes, SNPS do not keep changing but that is not saying no new SNPs occur. You are either incredibly stupid to think so or you are outright lying like your apologetic guru. If you were not so fucking brain dead you could go on to learn that an SNP is nothing more than a single nucleotide polymorphism which is usually cytosine replacing thymine (about a frequency of 67%). Many SNPs have no effect on cell function (these are the ones you and other creotards are ignoring), but scientists believe others could predispose people to disease or influence their response to certain drugs (these are the ones your tunnel vision is allowing you to see).

Neutral in that it does not affect the function. But what if those neutral mutations receive a mutations? (hint they will become harmful).

Go back and read my post I said SNP's are concerned with diseases (which clearly do not explain how one species could "evolve" into another) and that they do not change OFTEN which I clearly highlighted in my post. Let's not be "willfully obtuse" as our friend Rhythm likes to put it.

BTW Wiki said nothing about 1% of the human population being affected by SNP (edit). If you read my quote 99% of the human DNA remains unchanged throughout generations. If you read wiki you will learn that most of the SNP's are located in the noncoding regions (where 97+% of the function is unknown). From this we can deduct that 1% of the human DNA gets SNP's BUT this 1% is mainly in the noncoding region and concerned with disease (as I've already clearly mentioned). It does not explain how 1 species can "evolve" into another. Oh and those SNP's are only useful to medicine because they do not change OFTEN (which you are confusing into meaning "always" But "often" does not imply exclusivity). I never implied that SNP never change...you made that assumption (well you know what they say about that).

[Phil]

Go back and read my post I said SNP's are concerned with diseases (which clearly do not explain how one species could "evolve" into another) and that they do not change OFTEN which I clearly highlighted in my post. Let's not be "willfully obtuse" as our friend Rhythm likes to put it.

BTW Wiki said nothing about 1% of the human population being affected by wiki. If you read my quote 99% of the human DNA remains unchanged throughout generations. If you read wiki you will learn that most of the SNP's are located in the noncoding regions (where 97+% of the function is unknown). From this we can deduct that 1% of the human DNA gets SNP's BUT this 1% is mainly in the noncoding region and concerned with disease (as I've already clearly mentioned). It does not explain how 1 species can "evolve" into another. Oh and those SNP's are only useful to medicine because they do not change OFTEN.

You're an asshole. I am putting you on ignore.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're still not grasping the variation theme (or you're dedicated to ignoring it even in light of your newfound knowledge of the subject) I think that this is a dead horse at this point. You're simply wrong. It's been explained to you precisely why and how you are wrong multiple times. From here on out, every time you assert nonsense I'm simply going to tell you that you are wrong. All reasonable obligation of explanation has been fulfilled at this point.

No, lungfish did not "turn into" amphibians, in fact, a considerable portion of my post was dedicated to dis-abusing you of this very misconception. They -are- amphibians, as well as a great many other things. Their offspring "may" be amphibians (this could change you see), but were their ancestors (and did they cease to be the things their ancestors were when they -became- lungfish)? Good luck.

I sold no such idea, do you have anything other than straw men to offer us?

There is nothing -but- evidence for what you argue against. Again, all obligations of explanation have been fulfilled. You are wrong.

No, it is not, you are wrong.

Anything else?

[insert ad hom here, you've earned it]

[Abishalom]

You're still not grasping the variation theme (or you're dedicated to ignoring it even in light of your newfound knowledge of the subject) I think that this is a dead horse at this point. You're simply wrong. It's been explained to you precisely why and how you are wrong multiple times. From here on out, every time you assert nonsense I'm simply going to tell you that you are wrong. All reasonable obligation of explanation has been fulfilled at this point.

No, lungfish did not "turn into" amphibians, in fact, a considerable portion of my post was dedicated to dis-abusing you of this very misconception. They -are- amphibians, as well as a great many other things. Their offspring "may" be amphibians (this could change you see), but were their ancestors (and did they cease to be the things their ancestors were when they -became- lungfish)? Good luck.

I sold no such idea, do you have anything other than straw men to offer us?

There is nothing -but- evidence for what you argue against. Again, all obligations of explanation have been fulfilled. You are wrong.

No, it is not, you are wrong.

Anything else?

[insert ad hom here, you've earned it]

The variation them it that variation occurs within a species yielding different kinds of the original species. There is a clear limit to the amount of variation (this is well documented).

Well they are not amphibians-- at all. They are lungfish. There's a difference. Their ancestors were lungfish. You're letting that imagination cloud your reality for a bit there (borderline delusion).

I may have been mistaken by that remark, but now you are seemingly implying that lungfish are not fish but they are perhaps amphibians (and maybe their their ancestors might not be amphibians but possibly fish). You see this is pure speculative in nature and a product of wishful thinking.

No there is plenty of evidence, BUT all of the evidence clearly suggests that variation can only occur to a certain point. The only evidence you have for infinite evolution is presumption without evidence.

No you are wrong. NS is the ONLY way we can get variation. Yes variation occurs through mutation BUT these mutations cannot result in variation without offspring (which are subject to NS to get inherited traits). This is biology 101.

No nothing else. My point is made.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, your point has not been made. This is because you are wrong.

Again, you are a bony fish.

(Scientific brinksmanship is so very childish. You would have us accept science insofar as it agrees with your faith, but then draw the line whenever it suits you? Well, too bad, that's not how it works. If you don't like the conclusions science has reached then so be it, but attempting to argue against those conclusions by way of the very evidence that supports them is likely to be a pointless endeavor. It also isn't a very honest one.)

[Abishalom]

No, your point has not been made. This is because you are wrong.

Yes it is so because YOU said so...