Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whales are the only living beings with the capacity for underwater echolocation. Care to explain why evolution only gave them that ability? Hmmm?
Oh, it's because it increases their survival chances in their ecological niche? Gee, if only the same could be said for speech. But that's silly. How could speech be an advantage to hunter/gatherer hominids?
Apparently how primate ancestors (if I believed your fantasy world) survived just fine without speech. Why the change?
You can't imagine how speech would improve survival chances for hunter/gatherers?
Be that as it may, the above assertion is a 'just so' story not a scientific assertion at all. There are a whole host of advantageous traits that could evolve, but never did. And there are plenty of traits that evolved, that one can't really see how are advantageous. It's just selective just so stories.
Be that as it may, the above assertion is a 'just so' story not a scientific assertion at all. There are a whole host of advantageous traits that could evolve, but never did. And there are plenty of traits that evolved, that one can't really see how are advantageous. It's just selective just so stories.
Of course. What part of "an historical science" escapes you?
Of course. What part of "an historical science" escapes you?
Natural history is not science. Within the name "evolution" are some scientific theories but a whole lot of natural history glued together by hypothesis. People blanket all of this as a 'scientific theory' when it isn't.
"A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references."
Perhaps you just cannot grasp even the most simplistic of concepts, such as how I reject this nonsense as more of the same baseless claims which thoroughly lack evidentiary support? No doubt due to the Darwinian blinders that you have on, you apparently cannot see that what you are doing is no more or less what a "creationist" would be doing when presenting the Bible as evidence for the support of creationism.
Of course, there is no greater evidence of deliberately making false claims than what you are attempting to pass as factual. And this IS the heart of the matter .... the idea that random genetic mutation can provide congruent, additional information to the genome, when every single measurable modern example of that is subtractive by definition.
Even Richard Dawkins ... one of your most prominent authorities on evolution was caught speechless when presented that very question in an interview. This is particularly revealing, since this specific question is really the singular most important and fundamental questions of evolution theory, in order to facilitate an organism's ability to move from less complexity to greater complexity via via genetic mutation. You cannot achieve greater complexity in the absence of additional, congruent genetic information. Consequently, the answer should roll off the tongue effortlessly, given it's importance to the theory. There should be no question about it .. no doubts ... no struggle for examples, yet, the question simply asked for ONE example, which Mr. Dawkins could not provide, and paused for 11 seconds before asking that the camera be turned off.
Of course, this went viral, and the obligatory host of apologists came forward claiming the this was a hoax fabricated by "creationists", who edited the clip to produce what only appeared to be Dawkins being stumped by the question. The insinuation was that the video portion and audio of the question presented were fraudulently placed together, and was not a real unedited clip of the interview. And this is certainly a plausible response because magical things can be done in editing audio and video together .. though these claims offered not one iota of actual evidence to support it. So, the allegation alone became the truth in the eyes of evolutionists .... but what about Dawkins himself? Does he claim that the clip was an edited fraud? NO HE DOESN'T .... Dawkins himself validated the piece as accurately reflecting an unedited segment. He goes on to explain that it was not the question that caused this pregnant pause, but of the deception on the part of the film makers in not revealing their "creationist leanings" ... translated ... Mr. Dawkins was expecting softball questions, but got a hardball, high and inside, knocking him to the ground, and making him look foolish, for which he was none too happy about.
Here is a subsequent video describing these facts ... which cite Richard Dawkins' own website and his own words, admitting that the original clip was not fabricated as the "debunkers" tried to claim. He also reveals interesting information that shows there is controversy even amongst evolutionists about genetic mutation adding information to the gnome. Dawkins "thinks" it does, as he states that he believes the answer to be a "limited form of yes" .... (gotta love that type of double talk) ... in this case, a "limited form of yes" apparently means "yes, but I can't prove it, because I can't actually show you evidence".
Now, you need to stop making baseless claims, and insisting that they are proven facts, when the claim is totally false. Even evolutionists do not agree, and none of them, including Dawkins can provide legitimate evidence, as Dawkins readily admits by failing to provide it.
History is fact. Anything not factual is a hypothesis, formulated based on what we know about biology (a science).
What we observe is a fact. How we choose to interpret what we see is not a fact. Much of 'evolution' is geared to explaining the variation of different species and hypothesizing that we all evolved out of common origins. However none of that science, or more stricter put: scientific theory.
Be that as it may, the above assertion is a 'just so' story not a scientific assertion at all. There are a whole host of advantageous traits that could evolve, but never did.
Of course. Once an environment is somewhat in equilibrium, chances are low that a new trait will evolve. Or the trait evolves and the population carrying it is wiped out by accident. It's a statistical process, not a directed one.
Quote:
And there are plenty of traits that evolved, that one can't really see how are advantageous.
Not sure I follow you here. Are these traits that are selected against in the organism's environment? Some traits are just the after-effect of evolution doing what it can with the material at hand - the human appendix, say. Not an advantage, but we're not getting rid of it anytime soon.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
