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.
Moving the goal posts won't help your case. You are ignorant, you are not scientifically literate in Genetics, Evolution or Evolutionary Genetics. You could not even discern that the paper covered all points concerning those subjects.
You completely missed the entire point of the paper. ***Tardigrades comprise their own phylum, they are attractive models for studying the evolution of their molecular and developmental mechanisms.****
LOL in your case it's not absurd at all.
There are plenty of folks who can read science and understand it without a formal education, however there are other folks who think that just because they read a few things in a science journal that they are scientifically knowledgeable.
Of course but it also depends on what they are reading. I can honestly say I have not come across many people who have absolute zero scientific training and are able to carry on a moderate discussion about anything pertaining to science.
A person with zero genetics understanding would not be able to even answer some of the most basic questions about population genetics. I provided you with a long list of questions pertaining to Evolution and you could not answer a single one correctly.
Let's do a little experiment to demonstrate what I just said shall we?
For example can you read and understand these questions enough to offer up a competent answer? You have no math or science training or background so let's see how well you do here.
1.The S-s antigen system in humans is controlled by two codominant alleles, S and s. In a group of 3,146 individuals, the following genotypic frequencies were found: 188 SS, 717 Ss, and 2,241 ss.
a.) Calculate the frequencies of the S and s alleles.
b.) Determine whether the genotypic frequencies are in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium by using the chi-square test.
2. A selective neutral, recessive trait appears in 40% of the males and 16% of the females in a large, randomly interbreeding population.
a.) What is the frequency of the allele?
b.) What proportion of females are heterozygous for it?
3. Transgressive segregation is the phenomenon in which two pure-breeding strains, differing in a trait, are crossed and produce F2 individuals with phenotypes that are more extreme than either grandparent (i.e., that are larger than the largest or smaller than the smallest in the original generation). Even if two pure-breeding strains are the same for a quantitative trait, it is possible to see transgression segregation in and F2.
a.) Propose scenarios with specific assumptions for each of these examples of transgressive segregation.
Now come back and tell me how a person who is not formally educated or trained in science can read, understand and answer the above 3 very basic questions?
LOL you don't know much about doctors.
Your opinion means squat. However the statistics show that the more uneducated a person is, the more they will reject Evolution. Also the more fundamentally religious a person is, the more they will reject Evolution. Those are the basic facts.
You completely missed the point---for evolution to have occurred, there must be a change of species. If they remain the same, evolution, by definition, has not happened. That is basic TOE theology.
It would be nice if you would ever provide the evidence for anything you say.
Those 3 questions are not basic, and almost any one who has a college degree could understand them if they took the time to study them.
If you want to discuss basics tell us all how a life form, with no bones and no need for bones and no gene for bones ever had a kid with bones.
Lets get even more basic. Give me an example of natural selection being responsible for a change of species.
I am sure you read my last post. Why not tell me where I am wrong instead of trying to snowball me with irrelevant data?
Why do you try to bring religion into this discussion? We are not discussion religion and your statement is also wrong. All of the scientist at the ICR have PHD's in science. Most of them have taught in major universities and most have had years of work experience in their field and have done research. Some of them have articles published that have been peer reviewed. How many have you had published? They are all fundies in religion and in science.
You completely missed the point---for evolution to have occurred, there must be a change of species. If they remain the same, evolution, by definition, has not happened. That is basic TOE theology.
Congratulations you have just earned this cap!
Do you know how to Google?
If so then Google the term: Define Evolution and read it over and over until it sinks in.
Now tell us the difference between the terms Evolution and Speciation. What makes these terms different?
Next explain to us the different ways species are formed? I will even list the 4 processes. Can you show us your brilliance and explain how each of the following processes occur?
Allopatric speciation
Peripatric speciation
Parapatric speciation
Sympatric speciation
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Those 3 questions are not basic, and almost any one who has a college degree could understand them if they took the time to study them.
Yes those questions are very basic. Freshman level Genetics questions.
Thanks for validating my point and dismissing the rubbish you were trying to sell to us earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Lets get even more basic. Give me an example of natural selection being responsible for a change of species.
Do you know how to Google?
If so then Google the term: Define Natural Selection and read it over and over until it sinks in.
Why do you try to bring religion into this discussion?
To make a very important valid point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
We are not discussion religion and your statement is also wrong.
Folks who have little to no higher education tend to follow religion/creationism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
All of the scientist at the ICR have PHD's in science. Most of them have taught in major universities and most have had years of work experience in their field and have done research.
They are a minority of outliers. Not a single one has published a reputable paper involving Evolution in a reputable peer reviewed science journal. Hello that should be your big red flag!
But hey you have no science education thus you are easily duped by smoke and mirrors.
Let's see what Michael Behe's employer has to say on their Website's Position Statement.
Quote:
Department position on evolution and "intelligent design"
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
I guess my comment did sound like I thought there was no such think as evolution genetics, but what I meant is that there is no such thing. Genetics do not reinforce evolution. If they reinforce anything, it is "after its kind." That is what we can repeat and observe and it can't be falsified.
So let me offer some comments on the article.
First when they use terms like "attempts to account," and "theoretical works." they are not going to offer any evidence for the subject. So he jumps over to 4 standard theories that evolutionist think are mechanisms for evolution---mutations, random genetic drift, natural selection and gene flow.
Mutations
Mutations do not add information, they only alter the information the gene would normally provide. The albino was going to get skin because a skin gene was in the gene pool of it parents. The mutation only altered the skin it got, the the offspring was born after is kind and will only produce after it kind. You can't provide even one example of a mutation causing a change of species.
Random Genetic Drift.
This says the genes of a surviving generation will be the genes of the next generation. That is a no-brainer. That is how genetics works even if a species is not about to become extinct. That truth is what guarantees the next generation will be "after its kind."
Natural Selection
This is another theory that cannot be proved. At one time this was also called, "survival of the fittest. The theory basically says that he longer a species survives, the more likely it will evolve eventually. The fly in this ointment is that time will not alter the laws of genetics. The rabbit with the stronger legs may survive but it will still only produce after its kind. This is another theory for which you can not offer an example of it resulting in a change of species.
Gene Flow
Gene flow is about genetic variation. Part of the theory is that over long periods of time, micro-=evolutionary forces will result in macro-evolution. Again, time will not change the laws of genetics. The characteristics of every offspring will be different in some ways, even in identical twins. That is the normal way the gene pool of parents works. Again, there are no examples of gene flow resulting in a change of species. It is also an idea that can't be proven.
So tell me where I am wrong.
Omega, these are common objections to evolution. However, the fact is that evolution has been observed, not only in bacteria, but in animals.
For instance, evolutionary changes have taken place in a species of lizard called Podarcis sicula which mainly eats insects. In 1971 five male and five female lizards of that species were, as an experiment, taken from one island off the Croatian coast and moved to another island. Over a thirty seven year period the lizards that were removed from their population on the island of Pod Kopiste and placed on the smaller island of Pod Mrcaru, and therefore isolated from the population from which they had been taken, experienced changes over successive generations. One of the most dramatic changes was that they developed a new structure in the gut called a cecal valve which allowed them to eat a more vegetarian diet which they had been forced to adopt because of a scarcity of insects on their new home. The lizards on Pod Kopiste lack this cecal valve. The valve is an evolutionary development among the lizards on Pod Mracru. Other changes occurred as well. The details are explained in the following video.
''The title gets the principal objection of any creationist out of the way: yes, this population of Podarcis sicula is still made up of lizards, but they’re a different kind of lizard now. Evolution works.''
''The cecal valves are an evolutionary novelty, a brand new feature not present in the ancestral population and newly evolved in these lizards. That’s important. This is more than a simple quantitative change, but is actually an observed qualitative change in a population, the appearance of a new morphological structure.''
If so then Google the term: Define Evolution and read it over and over until it sinks in.
Now tell us the difference between the terms Evolution and Speciation. What makes these terms different?
Next explain to us the different ways species are formed? I will even list the 4 processes. Can you show us your brilliance and explain how each of the following processes occur?
Allopatric speciation
Peripatric speciation
Parapatric speciation
Sympatric speciation
Yes those questions are very basic. Freshman level Genetics questions.
Thanks for validating my point and dismissing the rubbish you were trying to sell to us earlier.
Do you know how to Google?
If so then Google the term: Define Natural Selection and read it over and over until it sinks in.
Been there, done that . They had no example of natural selection being the mechanism for a change of species.. I guess that is why you can't give me one. With all of your science background it should be a piece of cake to give me just one example. l That is all I ask for.
As usual you just post silliness and are not willing to discuss the subject with me. IMO opinion that is evidence you would if you could but you can't. You would fall over backwards to prove me wrong, and since you can't. that is evidence that you can't.
Then apparently you need to go do it again. And if you don't understand your mistakes and failings in understanding the difference between Evolution, Speciation and Natural Selection, then you must have cognitive disorders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
They had no example of natural selection being the mechanism for a change of species.
Both Nozz and Mike gave you an entire post and example of Natural Selection in a species of lizard called Podarcis sicula.
If you think Natural Selection only involves one species changing into a completely new species then you simply don't understand what Natural Selection means.
Darwin's grand idea of evolution by natural selection is relatively simple but often misunderstood.
If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
I guess that is why you can't give me one. With all of your science background it should be a piece of cake to give me just one example. l That is all I ask for.
Yes you keep asking because you don't know what you are talking. You don't even understand the most basic mechanisms of Evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
As usual you just post silliness and are not willing to discuss the subject with me. IMO opinion that is evidence you would if you could but you can't. You would fall over backwards to prove me wrong, and since you can't. that is evidence that you can't.
As usual you are dodging, moving goalposts, and demonstrating that you don't posses the ability to learn or understand the mounds of evidence that have been provided to you. You are disingenuous and intellectually lazy.
Anyone who willfully suppresses the truth has some very serious issues.
To make a very important valid point.
Folks who have little to no higher education tend to follow religion/creationism.
They are a minority of outliers. Not a single one has published a reputable paper involving Evolution in a reputable peer reviewed science journal. Hello that should be your big red flag!
But hey you have no science education thus you are easily duped by smoke and mirrors.
Let's see what Michael Behe's employer has to say on their Website's Position Statement.
Why don't you discuss the doctrines of evolution instead of beating around the bush, instead insulting those who disagree with you. Michael Behe is far more qualified to discuss science than you are.
I have enough science education to KNOW you can't provide any evidence that natural selection and mutations, are mechanism for a change of species. Now everyone else in this thread know what I knew from the start---you would if you could, but you can't.
Why don't you discuss the doctrines of evolution instead of beating around the bush, instead insulting those who disagree with you. Michael Behe is far more qualified to discuss science than you are.
I have enough science education to KNOW you can't provide any evidence that natural selection and mutations, are mechanism for a change of species. Now everyone else in this thread know what I knew from the start---you would if you could, but you can't.
Get lost as you are too ignorant and appear to have serious cognitive disorders that prevent you from learning.
Your repeated redundant demonstration of your lack of science literacy is old.
You have been provided evidence over and over and over. Your intellectual laziness, disingenuous behaviors, willful truth suppression and cognitive disorders are at play and you are not worth anymore of my time.
You are hopeless and unable to learn anything and enjoy willful truth suppression games. Going to college would be a lost cause for you as you clearly have demonstrated that there is something seriously wrong with your cognitive functions.
You are also Trolling, in this thread by posting to annoy or offend, rather than to inform. In other words, posting just to generate a negative reaction from, or create dissension.
Omega, these are common objections to evolution. However, the fact is that evolution has been observed, not only in bacteria, but in animals.
No it hasn't. You and the others want to make bacteria remaining bacteria, as evidence of evolution. That is no different than 2 dogs breeding. Their offspring will have changes from its parents but it will still be a dog, and when it has kids they will be dogs. When those bacteria breed, their kids will have differences, but thy will still be bacteria. Do you really not understand that evolution, by definition requires a change of species, not a change of charcteristics.
Quote:
For instance, evolutionary changes have taken place in a species of lizard called Podarcis sicula which mainly eats insects. In 1971 five male and five female lizards of that species were, as an experiment, taken from one island off the Croatian coast and moved to another island. Over a thirty seven year period the lizards that were removed from their population on the island of Pod Kopiste and placed on the smaller island of Pod Mrcaru, and therefore isolated from the population from which they had been taken, experienced changes over successive generations. One of the most dramatic changes was that they developed a new structure in the gut called a cecal valve which allowed them to eat a more vegetarian diet which they had been forced to adopt because of a scarcity of insects on their new home. The lizards on Pod Kopiste lack this cecal valve. The valve is an evolutionary development among the lizards on Pod Mracru. Other changes occurred as well. The details are explained in the following video.
This is a perfect example of owhat I just said---lizards remaining lizards is not evidence of evolution.
The following article also refers to these lizards.
''The title gets the principal objection of any creationist out of the way: yes, this population of Podarcis sicula is still made up of lizards, but they’re a different kind of lizard now. Evolution works.''
''The cecal valves are an evolutionary novelty, a brand new feature not present in the ancestral population and newly evolved in these lizards. That’s important. This is more than a simple quantitative change, but is actually an observed qualitative change in a population, the appearance of a new morphological structure.''
That is no different than 2 dogs having a dog what different characteristics. They are a little different but hey are still dogs and they will only produce after their kind.
Besides you, like the others are avoiding the question---Can you provide me me one example of a mutation and or natural selection being the mechanism for a change of species? Those are 2 of the most basic evolution doctrines, which should make it easy for you.
It is time to provide and example or admit you can't instead of changing the subject.
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.
