DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[I_am_not_mafia]

She's obviously thinking of like a monkey evolving into a turtle or something but without knowing that this is not what the theory of evolution by natural selection says.

[GrandizerII]

If you accept that evolution on a small scale is true, then by extension (and in the absence of evidence to the contrary), evolution on a large scale can also be true.

Adaption on a small scale is true, and it is factual and the most important and well evidenced part of the theory of evol... but....that's a real streeeeeetch to what else they put in there and it is based on conjecture and speculation. Sorry, I like my science to be factual and I just don't accept it unless they can come up with better evidence for one species turning into an entirely different species. (I know their excuse is that we cannot observe it because it supposedly happened over billions of years... ok, fine, but then it's just a guess with some pretty pictures)

We do have evidence, heaps of them actually, of varying types. All of them pointing to the same conclusion. Whether we're talking fossils, sedimentary layers, vestigial organs, DNA patterns, patterns of species distributions, and so on ... they all are clearly and very effectively explained by evolution itself. It's not like scientists were one day high on drugs and then came up with this shit out of thin air. It really is the best explanation for the variety and diversity of life on this planet.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Are you waltzing while you're waiting?

Yes.

Alone.


With a half empty bottle of gin in my hand.


And a hostage in the other.

---

It's not like scientists were one day high on drugs and then came up with this shit out of thin air.

Shit. We're not supposed to do that?

[Everena]

Adaption on a small scale is true, and it is factual and the most important and well evidenced part of the theory of evol... but....that's a real streeeeeetch to what else they put in there and it is based on conjecture and speculation. Sorry, I like my science to be factual and I just don't accept it unless they can come up with better evidence for one species turning into an entirely different species. (I know their excuse is that we cannot observe it because it supposedly happened over billions of years... ok, fine, but then it's just a guess with some pretty pictures)

We do have evidence, heaps of them actually, of varying types. All of them pointing to the same conclusion. Whether we're talking fossils, sedimentary layers, vestigial organs, DNA patterns, patterns of species distributions, and so on ... they all are clearly and very effectively explained by evolution itself. It's not like scientists were one day high on drugs and then came up with this shit out of thin air. It really is the best explanation for the variety and diversity of life on this planet.

I know but it is all based on speculation and conjecture. I am not denying that it might be true. I am just not convinced.

[GrandizerII]

She's obviously thinking of like a monkey evolving into a turtle or something but without knowing that this is not what the theory of evolution by natural selection says.

And also perhaps confusing evolution with individual transformation (sort of like Pokemon).

[The Grand Nudger]

She's obviously thinking of like a monkey evolving into a turtle or something but without knowing that this is not what the theory of evolution by natural selection says.

Going from full bananamanite to a crocoduckophile would be hilarious.

We do have evidence, heaps of them actually, of varying types. All of them pointing to the same conclusion. Whether we're talking fossils, sedimentary layers, vestigial organs, DNA patterns, patterns of species distributions, and so on ... they all are clearly and very effectively explained by evolution itself. It's not like scientists were one day high on drugs and then came up with this shit out of thin air. It really is the best explanation for the variety and diversity of life on this planet.

I know but it is all based on speculation and conjecture. I am not denying that it might be true. I am just not convinced.

-and also on observed instances of speciation in combination with the vast stores biological history contained within our genetics.  

So..not speculation and conjecture at all..in fact.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I know but it is all based on speculation and conjecture. I am not denying that it might be true. I am just not convinced.

So you clearly do not look at any evidence given to you. You just demand evidence, get given it, ignore it, demand it.

Why?

And isn't that exactly what CDF47 does as well?

[Bucky Ball]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sci...ervations/
There ya go, sweetie.

More proof of adaption within a species *yawn* Still no proof of one species turning into an entirely different species.

Actually sweetie, it is.

The DEFINITION of "species" is that they cannot be cross-bred. Therefore they are entirely different, if that definition is met.
Thanks for demonstrating you are ignorant of even the basics of Biology.

"Evolution doesn’t claim that one species “turns into” another species. It says that the offspring of an individual organism may differ from the parents and that with enough variation a new species will emerge. But the parent organisms don’t “change species”, the old species still exists. Of course, species can also go extinct - by they do that by dieing, not by changing into something else.
You also have to accept that it takes many generations, so you’re not going to see it by taking a few dozen elephants and cross-breeding them - you’ll be long dead of old age.
But if you use some smaller than an elephant… Something which “lives faster”….
Best examples of this I can think of are the Lenski experiment E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia which produced a previously unknown species of bacterium and the Giant Plate Experiment at Harvard which showed accumulation of serial mutations though I don’t know if it technically produced a new species or merely an extreme variant of the original species."


"Biological evolution is a story of living organisms and how they adopt to the given environment over time, of millions and millions of years, where some forms, in order survive in a given environment change their morphology by increments and turning into different forms - what we call them as species.
To be able to witness an evolutionary process, we will have to depend on the skeletal finds which tells the story of the past. Such skeletal finds have been discovered which is indeed is the evidence that such forms have existed some millions of years ago, as we can estimate their time period.
Apart from that some zoologist and botansists come out with some varieties that happen to be subspecies. Possibly one can get more details from internet search or from scientist in that particular field.
Possibly the best example can be the a variety of skeletal finds of a variety of forms the so called “missing link” between apes and Man. These have been discovered in Africa and Asia after Darwin’s books On the origin of species by natural selection and Descent of Man, where he had indicated Africa as the place of Man’s origins and talked about “missing link”.
The several forms extinct apes, Austrolopithicus, Homo series of skeletal finds e.g., Homo Erectus, Hom Hidelbergenis (Spell ?), Neardarthals, Archaic Homo sapiens ec. More details one can get from a variety of sources, internet, books, research papers, text books in paleontology, anthropology, etc."

"You can read up on the finches of the Galápagos Islands.
Or you could look at the killer whales of the PNW. There are resident pods and transient pods. They look the same but genetic testing shows they haven't interbred for 100,000 years.
They have different diets, speak different languages, have different customs. They are well on their way to becoming distinct species. Eventually they will start looking different and after that interbreeding will become impossible."

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/02/...s-revealed

"The fossil record has long suggested that even though mammals existed long before dinosaurs died off, most likely at the hands of an asteroid impact, the furry critters didn't really diversify or reach a large size until their reptilian competitors were out of the picture and ecosystems had recovered, says Maureen O'Leary, a paleontologist at Stony Brook University in New York. And even though the earliest placental mammals don't appear in the fossil record until after the dino die-offs, previous genetic analyses of living species have hinted that placental mammals may have evolved as much as 100 million years ago, tens of millions of years before that mass extinction.
To help settle the debate, O'Leary and her colleagues reconstructed the family tree of placental mammals using evidence from a large number of living and extinct species. The team's database included more than 4500 characteristics for each of 86 species. They chose creatures that represent all major groups of placental mammals, which vary in traits such as size, fur color, and various other aspects of anatomy and physiology, including the number and arrangement of bones and teeth. They also compared 27 different genes common to all placental mammals. (For the 40 extinct species included in the analysis, the team could include only information related to dental and skeletal traits.)
"This is an extraordinary set of data," Yoder says. Such databases, although large, are becoming more and more useful, heralding a new era when paleontological reconstructions of family trees can easily tap into the wealth of data available about a creature's anatomy and physiology, she notes.
Results suggest that the ancestor of all placental mammals evolved less than 400,000 years after the mass extinctions that wiped out the dinosaurs, the researchers report online today in Science. The hypothetical creature, not found in the fossil record but inferred from it, probably was a tree-climbing, insect-eating mammal that weighed between 6 and 245 grams—somewhere between a small shrew and a mid-sized rat. It was furry, had a long tail, gave birth to a single young, and had a complex brain with a large lobe for interpreting smells and a corpus callosum, the bundle of nerve fibers that connects the left and right hemispheres of the brain."

Read and learn, sweetie.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1...n-of-life/

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-13278255

https://genetics.thetech.org/online-exhi...nes-common

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...eationist/

[The Grand Nudger]

Theres nothing in there about bio-quantumagical afterlives and her soul mate the meat fairy.  

If she were interested in boring old things like biology and facts she wouldn't be here in the first place. If we really wanted nutballs to have the most basic education regarding modern synth, we'd hide it between the covers of "Jesus Lives!" magazine and interspersed within product testimonials for vaginal eggs and boner pills.

[Everena]

More proof of adaption within a species *yawn* Still no proof of one species turning into an entirely different species.

Actually sweetie, it is.

The DEFINITION of "species" is that they cannot be cross-bred. Therefore they are entirely different, if that definition is met.
Thanks for demonstrating you are ignorant of even the basics of Biology.

"Evolution doesn’t claim that one species “turns into” another species. It says that the offspring of an individual organism may differ from the parents and that with enough variation a new species will emerge. But the parent organisms don’t “change species”, the old species still exists. Of course, species can also go extinct - by they do that by dieing, not by changing into something else.
You also have to accept that it takes many generations, so you’re not going to see it by taking a few dozen elephants and cross-breeding them - you’ll be long dead of old age.
But if you use some smaller than an elephant… Something which “lives faster”….
Best examples of this I can think of are the Lenski experiment E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia which produced a previously unknown species of bacterium and the Giant Plate Experiment at Harvard which showed accumulation of serial mutations though I don’t know if it technically produced a new species or merely an extreme variant of the original species."


"Biological evolution is a story of living organisms and how they adopt to the given environment over time, of millions and millions of years, where some forms, in order survive in a given environment change their morphology by increments and turning into different forms - what we call them as species.
To be able to witness an evolutionary process, we will have to depend on the skeletal finds which tells the story of the past. Such skeletal finds have been discovered which is indeed is the evidence that such forms have existed some millions of years ago, as we can estimate their time period.
Apart from that some zoologist and botansists come out with some varieties that happen to be subspecies. Possibly one can get more details from internet search or from scientist in that particular field.
Possibly the best example can be the a variety of skeletal finds of a variety of forms the so called “missing link” between apes and Man. These have been discovered in Africa and Asia after Darwin’s books On the origin of species by natural selection and Descent of Man, where he had indicated Africa as the place of Man’s origins and talked about “missing link”.
The several forms extinct apes, Austrolopithicus, Homo series of skeletal finds e.g., Homo Erectus, Hom Hidelbergenis (Spell ?), Neardarthals, Archaic Homo sapiens ec. More details one can get from a variety of sources, internet, books, research papers, text books in paleontology, anthropology, etc."

"You can read up on the finches of the Galápagos Islands.
Or you could look at the killer whales of the PNW. There are resident pods and transient pods. They look the same but genetic testing shows they haven't interbred for 100,000 years.
They have different diets, speak different languages, have different customs. They are well on their way to becoming distinct species. Eventually they will start looking different and after that interbreeding will become impossible."

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/02/...s-revealed

"The fossil record has long suggested that even though mammals existed long before dinosaurs died off, most likely at the hands of an asteroid impact, the furry critters didn't really diversify or reach a large size until their reptilian competitors were out of the picture and ecosystems had recovered, says Maureen O'Leary, a paleontologist at Stony Brook University in New York. And even though the earliest placental mammals don't appear in the fossil record until after the dino die-offs, previous genetic analyses of living species have hinted that placental mammals may have evolved as much as 100 million years ago, tens of millions of years before that mass extinction.
To help settle the debate, O'Leary and her colleagues reconstructed the family tree of placental mammals using evidence from a large number of living and extinct species. The team's database included more than 4500 characteristics for each of 86 species. They chose creatures that represent all major groups of placental mammals, which vary in traits such as size, fur color, and various other aspects of anatomy and physiology, including the number and arrangement of bones and teeth. They also compared 27 different genes common to all placental mammals. (For the 40 extinct species included in the analysis, the team could include only information related to dental and skeletal traits.)
"This is an extraordinary set of data," Yoder says. Such databases, although large, are becoming more and more useful, heralding a new era when paleontological reconstructions of family trees can easily tap into the wealth of data available about a creature's anatomy and physiology, she notes.
Results suggest that the ancestor of all placental mammals evolved less than 400,000 years after the mass extinctions that wiped out the dinosaurs, the researchers report online today in Science. The hypothetical creature, not found in the fossil record but inferred from it, probably was a tree-climbing, insect-eating mammal that weighed between 6 and 245 grams—somewhere between a small shrew and a mid-sized rat. It was furry, had a long tail, gave birth to a single young, and had a complex brain with a large lobe for interpreting smells and a corpus callosum, the bundle of nerve fibers that connects the left and right hemispheres of the brain."

Read and learn, sweetie.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1...n-of-life/

Better, but still not concrete fact. It is just speculation and conjecture and some pretty pictures and a big maybe. They mixed it in with some proven facts about adaption, to make it very confusing to your average layman, and there really, really is a ton of evidence for adaption.  I guess they were hoping no one would notice all the gaps and guesses in the other part of their theory because they decided they must be right and Darwin must have been right and no one else had any better theories so..... why not really sell it to the public who don't even really understand science and get rich and famous off of it and keep using proof of adaption and stoop so low to even calling it speciation and hope no one notices. But some of us did notice. And the country of Turkey noticed and has stopped teaching evolution in their schools. And we are not convinced or impressed by this scam. Just disappointed with the utter lack of integrity from evol bio. Counting on the stupidity of the masses again. It won Trump a presidency and ppl will continue to do it as long as they can get away with it.