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.
Re: #2: Micro-adaptation, over even short time, IS Evolution, chaps.
No one argues this. But does a micro-adaptation prove evolutionary processes are responsible for the variety of life that we have on this planet? No it doesn't. That was the subject of this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
Ah yes: There we have it. You expect them to change into a vastly visually different organism, like a rat or cat or damselfly, all in one convenient generation. That's your uneducated definition of "evolution". Well, sorry, you're wrong, and whoever told you that lie is, well, a liar. A purposeful or grossly ignorant liar who is frantically afraid of the truth.
Didn't say that. My only point has been that a micro-change, which can easily reverse, does not "prove" that frogs evolve eventually into something with a different DNA genome.
It certainly would justify us in asking the question. I don't think we should quit studying or asking or having opinions, but the frogs do not answer it. My goodness, why don't you guys call CNN if you think you've found the answer? lol To prove your side of the debate, you have to show how a DNA strand of a frog, mutated, changed, and then reproduced over time into something else. The debate is over that, not the build up of resistance.
As your own colleagues have said here, the frogs are not demonstrating evolution either upwards or down. So the frogs haven't won the debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
So... How do you think one species of frog turns into another species of frog? I'll tell you: by minute, allele by allele changes as the organism is challenged by it's environment and some of them, by pure chance [which we've measured and is irrefutable now, given that danged DNA mapping capability] mutate and produce a positive change. This can even be temporary, though such a change as we see here in terms of resistance to the biochemistry of a fungus would be supported by it's ability to preserve the species into the future.
I can do the same thing by breeding a small dog, into a larger version of dog by selective breeding, especially if I get a few helpful changes by chance, which as you know, are pretty rare. (Of course, that would imply intelligent design.) But it's much harder to actually change the DNA of a dog, or anything else, and continue to have it reproduce. And then to say this incredible feat, which occurs so slowly, over such a great period of time, is what caused all the variety of life we have in such a small evolutionary window...
I'm a skeptic.
EDIT: I misspelled a werd....
Last edited by apokalupsis; 12-15-2010 at 09:03 AM..
Yes, but there is no doubt concerning the reality of your wife's existence.
True. Unless you're one of those philosopher types.
But having said that, you may actually have reason to doubt my wife's existence. You've never seen her. You've probably not noticed any evidence of her. It's easier for me because I'm around her more.
There's nothing racist about observing facts. You're the one adding the "more or less evolved" value judgement. People who understand the science here know that the only real distinction is "different or similar". Nice attempt to turn the tables, though. I'm sure god will give you extra brownie points for the rhetoric.
I'm just observing myself. The Germans were very clear in believing they were a "more" evolved race of people, and certain minorities were "less" evolved. Darwin even said a few things along the lines of favoring some people over others, but I'll give him some slack.
I was just asking if you guys would apply the same logic from the frogs to people.
But I see your point, and so I'll concede mine. You're right that evolution does not apply value judgments. Absolutely correct.
Of course, that hasn't stopped folks on this thread from mentioning that the stupidity of Christians is proof of evolution. lol Te nosce
No one argues this. But does a micro-adaptation prove evolutionary processes are responsible for the variety of life that we have on this planet? No it doesn't. That was the subject of this thread.
No, that definitely wasn't the subject of this thread. The subject of the thread is the continuing and obvious evidence that evolution is fact, despite the claims from the people who want their bible or their koran or their torah to be the be-all and end-all of "truth".
Here's where I give props to the posters here who despite their religion actually recognize that evolution is fact. This thread is not aimed at you, but at your 'brethren' who can't seem to come to grips with that.
I'm just observing myself. The Germans were very clear in believing they were a "more" evolved race of people, and certain minorities were "less" evolved. Darwin even said a few things along the lines of favoring some people over others, but I'll give him some slack
The Nazis were Christian creationists, not "darwinists". Darwin's book were included in the piles during their book burnings..
That's actually a tough question, and very subjective in some respects. Take the cetaceans for instance. No manipulative appendages, so they can't make weapons or art like humans can, but still they have been proven to be self-aware, have language, and many other things that would suggest they're highly evolved.
Frankly, many living creatures on the planet could be considered quite evolved when compared to their (and our) distant ancestors.
Mainstream science tells you that we've never been visited. You believe this garbage. I don't. I'm right. You're wrong.
^^^BTW, this is a 900 year old skull. Your mainstream science Gods have been concealing evidence like this from YOU for years. You know I'm right, that's why you keep following my posts. Give it up Sans, I can back my claims up (unlike the theists you are used to debating with). Why would mainstream science conceal this truth? Because mainstream science gambled BIG TIME when it cosigned Darwin's theory of evolution. Now, there could be 900 year old physical proof that ETs did infact interbreed with humans. Such a discovery would change everything. Mainstream science is not yet ready to be THAT wrong about our own origins. This is why I say that mainstream science is a religion in itself.
Yes I read your posts, but I certainly don't follow them...I find people who have beliefs such as you have entertaining...Regarding you star child skull evidence...Have you ever heard of Hydrocephalus? http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/hydrocephalus/detail_hydrocephalus.htm (broken link)
No one argues this. But does a micro-adaptation prove evolutionary processes are responsible for the variety of life that we have on this planet? No it doesn't. That was the subject of this thread.
Yes and no. There is no such thing as a micro-adaptation unless you just want to use a sort of colloquialism to define a change happening at or below the species level. I understand what you mean when you use the word but an adaptation is an adaptation. To say we have "micro-adaptations" and "macro-adaptations" is a misnomer because it inaccurately portrays the way biology works.
What the fungus adaptation implies is a sense of 'survival of the fittest.' Fungus - bad. Frogs - good; if you will. Many frogs die from fungus, only those with certain genetic dispositions survive. Those that survive get to breed and pass those genes on. Old species of frog eradicated; new species doing rather well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by apokalupsis
Didn't say that. My only point has been that a micro-change, which can easily reverse, does not "prove" that frogs evolve eventually into something with a different DNA genome.
And no one ever suggested that frogs turned into something different. This is a surreptitious interruption in your understanding of how evolution works. No one has ever suggested that a frog turned into something else, e.g, squirrel, bat, elephant, etc...
What you are suggesting is a change far above the species level on which evolution operates. This is nonsense and no single "evolutionist" (I use the term as an endearing one) has ever suggested this happens. I'll do this once again to give you a better example of what you are suggesting.
FROG:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Amphibia
Subclass: Lissamphibia Order: Anura
The cladistic description under which you might use the word "Frog" is under the Order of Anura. Since there are so many different sub-orders, families, and species of frogs, I will only go this far as there are probably several hundred different sub-branches to go from here.
Now, let's look at a "Squirrel" (again, if you had any impression of knowledge about taxonomy, you'd know that there are several different species of "squirrels" belonging to a higher "order" of distinctive phylogenies). But, again, for the intents and purposes of this argument, let's look at the breakdown of a common squirrel that we might find in North America.
And, once again, from there we have numerous sub-families and speciatic elements to our taxonomic branch. Regardless, if you compare a "frog" and a "squirrel" you'd find that their commonality is pretty damn distant. In fact, as you put it, a change from a frog to a squirrel wouldn't be happening at the family level, suborder level, order level, or even the class level. It'd have to happen at the Phylum level.
You will never find a single paper suggesting that a frog (as we know it) grew some sort of "macro-adaptations" and sprouted into a squirrel. You won't find anything similar for any sort of evolutionary explanation. I can assure you of that. The only people who suggest this sort of thing are, believe it or not, religious groups who try to discredit evolution. And, I would admit, if evolution asserted such nonsense, I would be skeptical of it too. But, it doesn't!
What evolution asserts and has a plethora of evidence to back it up is that if you go far enough back you will find a common ancestor of both the frog and the squirrel. This does not mean you will find a half-frog, half-squirrel look alike. In fact, it would probably look nothing similar to either of the two. Based on the taxonomic tree of both the "frog" and the "squirrel" we have already pointed out that they share both the kingdom and phylum taxonomic branches. This allows us to make a somewhat bold but often accurate prediction:
Our common ancestor will have the characteristics of an animal chordate. What is the description of an animal chordate? Well... This:
With few exceptions, chordates are active animals with bilaterally symmetric bodies that are longitudinally differentiated into head, trunk and tail. The most distinctive morphological features of chordates are the notochord, nerve cord, and visceral clefts and arches.
In other words, our common ancestor would be a rather simple creature and since most primitive chordates originate or date back to around 525 million years ago, I'd say that it would look absolutely nothing like a squirrel or a frog as we know it. In fact, it'd probably look something like this:
From there, that ugly creature would have broken off into different species and further different species and so on and so forth. However, it would keep with it (throughout all this time), certain very specific homologous structures such as a head, trunk and tail as well as a notochord, nerve cord, and visceral clefts and arches. I'm not an expert on frogs or squirrels but I would be willing to bet my paycheck that both frogs and squirrels have those items (or the remnants thereof) in their inventory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by apokalupsis
It certainly would justify us in asking the question. I don't think we should quit studying or asking or having opinions, but the frogs do not answer it. My goodness, why don't you guys call CNN if you think you've found the answer? lol To prove your side of the debate, you have to show how a DNA strand of a frog, mutated, changed, and then reproduced over time into something else. The debate is over that, not the build up of resistance.
For one, there would be no news as the repetitious and substantive evidence for evolution has been piling up for 150 years. CNN wouldn't be interested because all this HAS BEEN found and the questions ARE ALREADY ANSWERED! And, for the record, might I point out that you are certainly approaching this from the incorrect viewpoint by asking to see how a frog "mutated, changed and then reproduced over time into something else." In fact, I would like you to dig up a scientific paper suggesting that any "evolutionist" has ever asserted that and:
A) Wasn't affiliated with a religious group trying to misinform a bunch of sheep without the ability to think for themselves
and/or
B) Wasn't laughed out of his doctoral degree for such an absurd hypothesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by apokalupsis
I can do the same thing by breeding a small dog, into a larger version of dog by selective breeding, especially if I get a few helpful changes by chance, which as you know, are pretty rare. (Of course, that would imply intelligent design.) But it's much harder to actually change the DNA of a dog, or anything else, and continue to have it reproduce. And then to say this incredible feat, which occurs so slowly, over such a great period of time, is what caused all the variety of life we have in such a small evolutionary window...
You're doing it again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by apokalupsis
I'm a skeptic.
I would be too if evolution actually asserted the things you claim evolution does.
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.
