Denial of evolution IV

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Hercules Rockefeller, Oct 27, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @matthew --

    Actually it's more like a recipe, with most important processes taking place during embryological development(sort of like cooking).
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    So you're saying that a comparative study of modern species can prove evolution to be true?

    Couldn't this same study prove ID to be true as well?

    And therefore, isn't it true that it didn't really prove either one true?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    And on top of this frosting is are the embryonic stages reflecting evolution; so, triple confirmation.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    Still persisting with your nonsense?
    Please link to a reliable source that states evolution is a "gaining of DNA code".

    What do you think evolution is?

    Because...?
     
  8. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    A reliable source (acceptable to you) would be a source which accepts evolution as fact. Evolutionists do not think DNA is important, since evolutionists do not think it is necessary to understand the language of DNA in order to prove evolution true. Evolutionists definition of evolution therefore can not mention too much about DNA. So obviously, you've sent me on an impossible mission.

    The most evolutionists can say about DNA is that many species share the same sequences of DNA, which "suggests" evolution. But that's not true. It merely doesn't exclude evolution... nor does it exclude ID.
     
  9. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @matthew --

    So you admit to using your own, personal definitions, because that's not what micro-evolution is defined as in biology.

    Wrong, that is proof of evolution. The fact that such traits are then selected either for or against by natural selection is enough.

    Which is, in and of itself, proof of evolution. You only need three things for evolution to occur. One is a replicator with a high but not perfect fidelity rate, the second is heredity(the ability to pass traits on to the next generation of replicators), and the third is natural selection. We have proof of all three therefore we have proof of evolution. Are there wrinkles to iron out? Sure, but whether or not evolution takes place is not one of these, it is a fact.

    Wrong again. All of the examples I gave(except for the obviously sarcastic "gluing a horn on", obviously) are more than adequate. They all represent changes to the genetic template which cause a change in the phenotype and therefore can easily be selected for or against by natural selection leading to the new genes either dying out or spreading throughout the gene pool. Hence evolution.

    Care to try again?
     
  10. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    In other words you're making up your own definitions. And also claiming. falsely, that you do understand what is meant by evolution.

    So you're also clueless as to what ID claims too?
    How did you get to be so ignorant?
     
  11. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @matthew --

    Only if ID can explain why my spine works better when walking on all fours than it does when I walk upright(as I was supposedly designed to), or why my eyes are built upside down and backwards, or why I still have an appendix or tonsils(though, to be fair, I had to have those removed as they were trying to kill me).

    If we looked at biological systems and saw simplicity instead of complexity then you might have an argument in favor of ID(when we design things we usually try to avoid making them too complex, any first year engineering will tell you that). Instead we see vast amounts of unnecessary complexity, even complexity to the point that the organisms don't function as well as they could(or should, depending on your point of view).

    Evolution, as a blind(and by that I mean that it has no foresight, not that it's completely random, that would be a straw man in the making right there) and gradual process, explains all of these things with a breathtaking elegance. In fact some have said that the theory of evolution is our most powerful scientific explanations.

    I have a suggestion for you, why don't you pick up some books on evolution, written by biologists, and read them. See what the people who are actually studying the subject in depth have to say about it before going and saying that it's not proven on the internet. The Selfish Gene by Dawkins would be a good choice(actually, just about anything by Dawkins except for The God Delusion would be a good choice), and while I don't personally like his works or some of his positions Stephen Gould is another good choice.
     
  12. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Sort of. These things are as good as proven when they are shown to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, when new information corresponds to the evolutionary model, and when the theory can make predictions about the future.

    No. The relationships between hierarchies of species show none of the characteristics of designed things, and many of the characteristics of things that had to develop from more primitive forms. We can see even in the realm of computer programming that the evolutionary process is extremely powerful. The thing we cannot rule out completely is that a God set the process in motion by setting up either the local situation of a watery warm rocky planet, or maybe this being just made a cell or virus (something that is almost within our power now), or it created the universe as a whole. We understand enough of evolution to say that even if we cannot completely rule out the invisible hand of God somewhere along the way, there is nothing for him to do. There are quite plausible naturalistic explanations for the origin of life. Look at a virus, is that living? Maybe we evolved from that.

    No. See above.
     
  13. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Evolution would be in some way selecting for certain traits and these traits are carried in the DNA of that species. So the total DNA may not change but the coding will change over time.

    I think you can't have evolution without DNA change.

    Do you accept some plants double the number of genes, I haven't had time to look it up but words like haploid diploid come up from the lost information file...
    So this maybe the answer you need to explore.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @Rob --

    Sure you can. If the activation of certain genes is pushed earlier or later by any number of influences this can have a drastic effect on evolution, to the point where genes may just stop coding all together which would have a profound effect on the phenotype of the species in question. This isn't a DNA change, it's a change in the chemicals which are responsible for the activation of the genes in question.

    Just take a look at the axolotl whose neoteny is almost certainly a result of this. The fact that many species in the same family are either entirely neotenic or have neotenic populations is strong evidence of this.

    The problem with "gaining of DNA code" as a definition for evolution is that it can be caused by losing or changing of genes as well. This isn't "gaining of DNA code" but it does provide material for natural selection, which is the primary driver of evolution, to work with.
     
  15. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    And you don't think these chemical influences are controlled by genes?
    Well if they were environmental or food related chemicals, that hardly would be evolution so it would have to be intracellular derived chemicals would it not, and I would bet a dollar or two they were on another gene somewhere!
     
  16. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    As an aside to the general questions being discussed has anyone heard of double sided DNA strands.
    Now you are laughing!
    But what I mean is that both sides of the DNA double helix has code. One side of the strand obviously is the main code of the gene, but could the opposing strand also be a code? Or even multicoded depending on the stop starting point of the DNA sequence?
    i.e. same code produces more than one enzyme depending on how it is read? It would be bizarre but not impossible, wouldn't it?
    So the DNA might not increase but the efficiency of the system is increase by multicoding, e.g. CD compared to DVD -multi layers on a similar sized piece.
     
  17. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @Rob --

    Most are, some aren't. The chemical reactions that trigger gene activation during embryological development, arguably the most important developmental period that any creature enters, are demonstrably not controlled by genes, the chemicals are already there(in the ovum) and differentiation is gained through mitosis. As the cells divide the chemicals are also separated into gradients, forming both the front and aft of the creature in question as well as the left and right sides(so much as are present anyways, we are still talking about multicellular life here right?).

    Any change in the chemical makeup of the ovum will have monumental effects on the phenotype, and if one of those changes reproduced the uterine factors which were responsible for the abnormal ovum in the first place then you would have. Mind you, this still wouldn't have to be an actual change in the genome, it could just be a change in when certain traits activate, creating a sort of positive feedback loop that could spread throughout the population if it's a beneficial change.

    Is it true that most phenotypical changes are the result of changes in the genome? Yes, however that needn't always be the case.

    However, I have to ask, are you just arguing to argue, or do you actually accept Matthew's definition(which has already been shredded)?
     
  18. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    @Arioch - no I wouldn't do that. I might have not read the whole thread but came in late and missed it.
    I see you really seem to have a handle on this genetic embryo stuff. You won't get much argument from me.
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,656
    Evolutionary biologists spend their entire careers studying DNA. Indeed, the molecular clocks that are one of the strongest arguments for evolution came from such research.

    Google "evolution DNA." 86 million hits. Sounds like it's a pretty straightforward mission!

    We also know that:

    The species that diverged from each other most recently have the most common DNA

    DNA has a great many structures (like the homeobox genes) that enable rapid evolution of structures

    Sexual reproduction allows evolution much more freedom in creating phenotypes, due to the diploid nature of most chromosomes
     
  20. RichW9090 Evolutionist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    151
    It is worth pointing out that there are no molecular clocks without the fossil record. The only means of calibrating the molecular clock is by reference to the chronologic placement of fossils in the stratigraphic record.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2011
  21. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Are you saying this is a circular argument?
     
  22. RichW9090 Evolutionist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    151
    Not at all. The chronologial placement of the fossils is primarily based on three different methods: radiometric dating, ash dating, and the global paleomagnetic time scale. Completely separate from that, phylogenetic analysis of the fossil record establishes the sequence of branching events which led to the split from a common ancestor. We know, for example, that the split between the modern wolf, Canis lupus, and the coyote, Canis latrans, came much later than the split between the two species in the genus Miacis, one of which led to modern canids, and one of which gave rise to the modern felids. That is, we know the relative sequence.

    Then we can look at the earliest occurrence of a wolf in the fossil record, and the earliest occurrence of a coyote, and we know that the common ancestor must have lived at least that long ago, and likely somewhat earlier, given the incompleteness of the geological record. We can say with some assurance that the common ancestor between wolves and coyotes lived at least as early as the late Pliocene era, and can thus calibrate it to around 1.67 mya. Since we know the amount of genetic change between dogs and coyotes, we can figure out the rate from that.

    So no, nothing circular about it.

    Rich
     
  23. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Thanks Rich. Very detailed proof and I can't argue against that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page