Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 8:19 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The code that is DNA
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 27, 2019 at 12:43 pm)Rahn127 Wrote: One of my favorite videos showing a picture a day of a little baby. Imagine if he had taken a picture every minute of this child's life. And each picture represents a generation of change. From one picture to the next you would never be able to detect any change at all. From 1 minute to 2 minutes. Still a baby. 30 minutes to 60 minutes. Still a baby.

1440 generations later (1 day)  - still looks like a baby.
Day 2
Day 3
Still don't see any change.
But there are changes going on. Very small changes.
Bones are growing, new skin cells, organs developing more and more.

Day 4,5,6,10,20,30
At 30 days you might notice some change. Still a baby though.

Each minute of this child's life you will not be able to see any major change just like one generation to the next, but those small changes are still happening.

As you watch this, on what day did this little girl stop being a baby ?
On what day did she start being a toddler ?
On what day does she become a young woman ?
On what day is she an adult ?

If each second is a generation, then how can a baby ever change into an old woman ?

Enjoy




I posted this 10 pages ago and I really thought that this might get through to the resident evolution deniers.

It's the perfect example showing that small changes over time can lead to big changes.

If you think of cells at conception changing over time to becoming an elderly woman.

Tell me you understand this ?
Insanity - Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 26, 2019 at 10:59 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: I'm on vacation; plus I enjoy teaching others.

You might enjoy it, but you're literally so shit at it that there should be a court order out barring you from doing it.

All you've used to argue your case this thread is "evolution is not true because I don't want it to be so", quote mining of papers you don't understand and outright lies.

(December 27, 2019 at 10:43 pm)no one Wrote: Satan.

It's more god punishing them for original sin. I know a lot of them say satan, but the bible makes no equivalence between him an the snake in the garden of eden.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli

Home
RE: The code that is DNA
That's because Satan has an inside man in the editing department.
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 28, 2019 at 4:02 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:
(December 28, 2019 at 3:58 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: So, you have no argument or evidence for creation then? I guess I’ll stick with the current best explanation until something more accurate comes along. If you’re here to save souls, you’re doing a terrible job.

Strawman.

How is it a strawman? Because you don't want to accept it's valodity?

LfC asked you to provide evidence for your assertion. When you failed to do that she rightly decided to not accept your assertion.

A strawman would have occurred if you had provided evidence, and LfC decided not to accept based on an irrelevant point you never brought up.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli

Home
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 29, 2019 at 5:20 am)Nomad Wrote:
(December 28, 2019 at 4:02 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Strawman.

LfC asked you to provide evidence for your assertion. When you failed to do that she rightly decided to not accept your assertion.

If you go through the thread and show me any assertion I've made that I failed to substantiate, I will gladly do so. But don't be disappointed, however, when you can't find the assertions LfC implied, those are still strawman.

Sound fair?
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 28, 2019 at 11:56 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:
(December 28, 2019 at 11:34 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: What issues, exactly.  Speciation has been directly observed.

...For example, another user posted a Dawkins excerpt in which he writes "If you walked up the line like an inspecting general - past Homo erectus, Homo habilis, perhaps Australopithecus afarensis - and down again the other side, you would nowhere find any sharp discontinuity." That's a issue, because without discontinuity of reproduction what you call Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and Australopithecus afarensis is completely arbitrary. There's no such thing as those species, because each generation would be able to mate with the one before, down to the present day.

You didn't understand it. Read it again.

Quote:Succubus
This is fascinating.

Meet my cousin, the chimpanzee!

Events are sometimes organized at which thousands of people hold hands and form a human chain, say from coast to coast in the US, in aid of some cause or charity. Let us imagine setting one up along the equator, across the width of our 'home continent' Africa. It is a special kind of chain, involving parents and children, and we have to play tricks with time in order to imagine it. You stand on the shore of the Indian Ocean in southern Somalia, facing north, and in your left hand you hold the right hand of your mother. In turn she holds the hand of her mother, your grandmother. Your grandmother holds her mother's hand, and so on. The chain wends its way up the beach, into the arid scrubland and westwards towards the Kenya border.
How far do we have to go until we reach our common ancestor with the chimpanzees? It is a surprisingly short way. Allowing one yard per person, we arrive at the ancestor we share with chimpanzees in under 300 miles. We have hardly started to cross the continent; we are still not half way to the Great Rift Valley. The ancestor is standing well to the east of Mount Kenya, and holding in her hand an entire chain of her lineal descendents, culminating in you standing on the Somali beach...
The daughter that she is holding by her right hand is the one from whom we are descended. Now the arch-ancestress turns eastward to face the coast, and with her left hand grasps her other daughter, the one from whom the chimpanzees are descended (or son, of course). The two sisters are facing one another, and each holding their mother by the hand. Now the second daughter, the chimpanzee ancestress, holds her daughter's hand, and a new chain is formed, proceeding backwards towards the coast. First cousin faces first cousin, second cousin faces second cousin, and so on. By the time the double-back chain has reached the coast again, it consists of modern chimpanzees. You are face to face with your chimpanzee cousin, and you are joined to her by an unbroken chain of mothers holding hands with daughters.

If you walked up the line like an inspecting general - past Homo erectus, Homo habilis, perhaps Australopithecus afarensis - and down again the other side, you would nowhere find any sharp discontinuity. Daughters would resemble their mothers just as much (or as little) as they always do. Mothers would love daughters, and feel affinity with them, just as they always do. And this hand-in-hand continuum, joining us seamlessly to chimpanzees, is so short that it barely makes it past the hinterland of Africa, the mother continent.

Richard Dawkins. A Devils Chaplain.

Red bolding for our science denying friends.
It's amazing 'science' always seems to 'find' whatever it is funded for, and never the oppsite. Drich.
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 29, 2019 at 2:26 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: I don’t see what is so hard to understand about the idea that enough small changes from generation to generation will eventually render the “first” and the “last” generation in the series reproductively incompatible. That the changes are small and slow doesn’t render them insignificant, because they’re cumulative.

I understand the idea; it's just not a good one. It's better to disassociate many of these variables from one another. For example, if polyploidy occurs in a plant, doubling the set of chromosomes, then within a single generation you might have reproductive isolation. Then there are extant species like the horseshoe crab, which have accumulated much genetic variation over vast periods of time, but are otherwise morphologically and reproductively the same.

So we see that slow and small cumulative changes alone doesn't make the first and last generation of horseshoe crab sexually incompatible (not that it's possible to test). But a sudden and large non-accumulated change, like polyploidy in plants, can. Those two narratives contradict what you just said.
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 28, 2019 at 9:23 pm)Yukon_Jack Wrote: Peculiar, you evos are giving the fruit flies a good leaving alone. Telling.

Speciation driven by natural selection in Drosophila
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 29, 2019 at 7:10 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: But a sudden and large non-accumulated change, like polyploidy in plants, can. Those two narratives contradict what you just said.

While polyploidy is one of the mechanism for speciation it is mostly restricted to a few species of plants and barely any animal species, so the role of geographic isolation is mostly a major and necessary component to most speciation in the natural world.
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 29, 2019 at 12:16 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:
(December 29, 2019 at 12:12 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Yes, each successive representative in a line could likely mate with the previous one.  This has already been addressed...repeatedly...and is not an objection to speciation, or the definition of species.

Do you have an objection to speciation, an event that we have observed in the lab and the field...or not?

See this is what I mean lol. You asked what the issue is, I told you, and then it doesn't matter unless the issue is specifically what you want it to be.

---

To expand on my previous post, the idea of species seems strangely unnecessary. It almost seems a byproduct of creationism, which does have the idea of kinds to which individuals belong embedded in it. Either that or we're dealing with a psychological predisposition to group things together, projecting categories into nature, where nature has not placed them.

The idea of species seems incompatible with evolution, which is ironic since evolution is almost the front-runner of the idea. The whole "notion of phylogeny," as you say, starts off with species. But common descent and gradual change ought to blur all boundaries between organisms, such that speaking of this or that species no longer makes sense.

Specially since you're also fond of genetic similarity representing relatedness. If I share 5% of my genome with mushrooms, the idea that I'm a different species from mushrooms ought to be reduced by 5%.

Aside from allowing us to distinguish between you and a mushroom, the species concept is a rather handy one for evolution. It marks the point of no return, where two populations are no longer capable or reproduction and no further genetic transfer is possible between them. Species can evolve separately.

Your difficulty with species and time is resolved simply by the fact that nobody will be travelling to the past to mate with their ancestors from millennia ago. Other than some squabbling between splitters and groupers when species are in the process of splitting this is rarely an issue.

Consider once more the inspection tour of our species, but this time let's include the chimp brigade for comparison. As you march down the lines of our most distant ancestors they're indistinguishable. They are, in fact, the same. As you keep marching you'll start to notice some subtle differences between the ranks of Homo and the ranks of Pan. You may never be able to put your finger on the exact instant, though the emergence of our chromosome 21 may mark this particular distinction, but at some point in your inspection it's going to become inescapable that you're dealing with two populations that are reproductively incompatible. Now isolated by an inability to interbreed, these two populations diverge geneticallly. Time and continued evolution produces more differences and divergence, leaving you with what are undeniably two entirely different species in the present.

Without species and speciation there would be significantly less of a barrier to genetic transfer between organisms and evolution would be much messier. You'd be a much larger proportion mushroom, much of it through more recent inheritance.



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Signature in the Cell: DNA as Evidence for Design, beside Nature's Laws/Fine-Tuning. Nishant Xavier 54 2716 July 8, 2023 at 8:23 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  Are humans half aliens? Human DNA question Signa92 14 1887 December 30, 2018 at 12:34 am
Last Post: Rahn127
Brick Atheist moral code Void 45 15534 March 24, 2015 at 8:14 pm
Last Post: I Am Not A Human Being



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)