I will answer every question about evolution you have

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Raggedyman
That's a silly answer for children in early years of schooling

Actually, it directly answers your concern. Again, if you look for the other post I made earlier on, I go into more detail about the onset of Sexual Reproduction.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
How can evolution occur on populations, is evolution a virus now

Well, evolution isn't a very quick process.

Evolution changes the frequency of alleles in a population of organisms that share a common gene pool through different generations.

Every new generation produces a slight variation within their respective allele frequencies. DNA can be effected in many ways, and one of those ways is through the environment. So a population that shares a common gene pool that lives within a specific environment, are all being effected by that same features of that environment.

Lets say we have a moth. It has a blotchy, spotted black color on it's white wings. It's environment is a forest, and within that forest are trees that have white and black bark. The moths rest on the trees, and their coloration prevents predators from spotting them easily.

The black spots vary in number from moth to moth, and some are so covered with these black spots that they tend to visually stick out when they are resting on the white trees. So, the population of the moths with more spots begins to dwindle.

That is Natural selection. And this incident im writing about has actually happened. Soon later, a factory was build next to the forest, and the pollution that the factory gave off covered the white trees with black soot.

Suddenly, the predators were then eating all the whiter moths, and the moths with more black on them began to raise in population.

That is how Natural selection occurs at a population-based scale.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
What came first, male or female, how and why.
did they both evolve together one day?
Did they evolve on separate days, how did seamen gain a genetic code that works with another, totally different body.

Firstly, nothing evolves "in a day", it can take thousands, or even millions of generations for a larger mutation to really make its mark.

Again, I've already answered this question in an earlier post. Since you seem reluctant to look it up. The post is in the middle of Page 2. It's a response to Elementalist when he asked "1. Why did the random and non-intelligent "force" create male and females?"

The response also answers your question.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Not chickens and eggs, codes is the question, dna
That was a childish answer ghost

It's the exact same question, actually.

I don't care about moths and natural selection, about moths changing colors, my gosh, what are you on about

I asked about how sexual reproduction occurred, male and female changing, evolution of the sexes and the difference, moths, what?

Let me reiterate.

Why and how did the sexes evolve, not chickens and eggs or moths?

Just answer my question, cut and paste, I am not interested in searching through a hundred posts for a vague answer that probably doesn't address my question directly.

If you can't answer the question be honest, say as much and we can move on.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Ghost147
Though I can't say for certain, it's almost a guarantee that there are species we'll never know existed because their habitat or physiology were unsuited for creating those fossils to begin with. Even if a fossil does exist, we still have to find it first...

Yes, precisely. I would say it would be impossible to discover every species of life that had ever existed. Some things just do not fossilize at all, as you've said.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Ghost147
While this is a bit tangential to evolution, where did viruses come from? I've personally always found them an oddity. They aren't even technically a living organism...

Again, the answer is difficult to come up with definitively. Virus's are particularly difficult to find the origin of, not only because they do not leave fossils, but because they have a tendency of using the DNA of the host, masking themselves, stitching their own genes into the cells they infect, and so on.

We do know, however, that they share similar properties with other cells' genes. This suggests that it is possible that they were once large parts of cellular DNA, and then somehow branched off and became independent, or that they originated very early on in the history of life on earth, and some of their DNA stuck around in the genomes of cells.

Essentially, what it all means is that we simply do not have enough information to create a solid hypothesis just yet

originally posted by: MoshiachIusDei
Just one more question: The common ancestor for human HIV strains has been traced back to around 1918 and the Spanish flu pandemic. They've not been able to identify what form it took before that. It appears to have just 'popped up'. If evolution occurs over multiple generations why isn't it possible to trace the ancestry of human HIV before WW1? ((HIV, they say, has been around for millions of years.)

I touched up on why it's difficult to look at the evolutionary history of viruses in the post I made just before this one, but essentially the issue stems from the traits of virus'. Namely, being able to latch onto and work their way into the DNA of a host cell.

However, we actually do have a fairly detailed history of the HIV virus, here's a visual representation:



So it's not a total mystery

originally posted by: MoshiachIusDei
Just this: The chemical formulae for the four bases of DNA share common 'small numbers'. They can be arranged into a perfect circle of 12 which is symmetrical, following the ecliptic path zodiac elements air, wind, fire and water. Phosphorous is the sun in the centre common to all. The bases combined with the zodiac 'sun signs' mirror the four seasons.

Symmetry does not exist in nature, not perfect mathematical symmetry. It is a human concept requiring intelligence to identify it. How does evolution explain an attribute of DNA that is not naturally occurring?

Sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you're trying to ask here. Could you provide a source for that information?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I don't care about moths and natural selection, about moths changing colors, my gosh, what are you on about

I asked about how sexual reproduction occurred, male and female changing, evolution of the sexes and the difference, moths, what?

I'm giving you this basic information because your question is founded on a false premise to the subject at hand. In order to be able to understand any of my answers, you must first get over that false premise to begin with.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Why and how did the sexes evolve, not chickens and eggs or moths?

Again, I've already answered this question on page 2. It would only take you a second to find it, considering my last post I told you who asked it (press Cntrl+F and type in that persons name)

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Just answer my question, cut and paste, I am not interested in searching through a hundred posts for a vague answer that probably doesn't address my question directly.

For someone so hellbent on proving me wrong, you certainly make very little effort to attempt to acknowledge my rebuttal.

Here's the copy and pasted version for you.


This is a great question. The very origin of sexual reproduction is quite difficult to test through experimentation, however, we can determine what fitness advantages organisms get when that organism has multiple genders. Essentially, Sexual reproduction's benefits come from the fact that there are two parents which 'reorganize' their genotypes. This allows for greater diversity in genetic mutations, and an easy way to adapt to varying environments over time.

Asexual reproduction basically leaves the offspring as identical to the parent.

Environment and reproduction creates variation within the genes of all organisms. The mutations to these genes which are beneficial will have a higher chance of being able to reproduce and pass on those genes to it's offspring. organisms which do not have beneficial genes, or at the very least 'less beneficial' tend to get weeded out of the gene pool by predation, or environmental factors.

Keep in mind that this isn't on an individualistic level, it's on a population level. So when a population develops a mutation that is highly beneficial to it's suitability and adaptability the environment around it, that mutation then has a greater chance of being passed on to successive generations, and more varied environments, allowing for further development.

Sexual reproduction allows for this further development.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
If you can't answer the question be honest, say as much and we can move on.

I have already said I've answered the question multiple times, you just refused to look at the answer. Please be civil and not act as childish as to make ridiculous accusations like this again.

My question is why and how
Your answer only deals with the benefits and function.
How and why, so show me how and why sexes developed not what the benefits are

How do two organisms give and receive information that they each can decode and then use to grow life

I am sorry you don't seem to understand the question.
What evolved first, male or female and why. How did the other evolve second and why did it.
Did they evolve together and how could two equally opposite yet comparable organs evolve together and function as one

I understand the advantages and the same word benefits
I know sex equals reproduction
You are talking outcomes, talk evolution

This is ponderous, real ponderous 2nu

dp

a reply to: Ghost147

How did the first genders arise in the world?

What is the origin of a new protein fold, and what mechanisms create them?

How are Gene Regulatory Networks(GRN) changed to form new phenotypes?

If you don't know the origin of life then how do you know what is actually possible when it comes to the formation of new species? For example if i have an equation hidden on a card and I tell you the answer is five. How do you know whether or not 5 is actually a valid answer to the equation. Logically to me it would seem you don't but there are some of my questions.

a reply to: Ghost147

How does this answer his question? Thats not evidence that is a drawing of a way an eye could form. It doesn't show that drawing is actually what happened..and it assumes that a cell can become light sensitive? Also everything we thought was vestigial in our eye has shown to have purpose... i don't think that was an actual answer though you did a good job of making it appear as such.

a reply to: Murgatroid

First, I agree with what Randy said earlier, your responses are light years ahead of the average ATS poster...

Not only did you read what I posted, you responded to it professionally as well.

Usually I ignore the typical childish comments that tend to dominate conversations in these types of threads.

Mr. spygeek's references to rubbish, horseradish, and nonsensical garbage on page 2 are perfect examples...

You on the other hand attempted to address my very long post item by item and I was very impressed by that.

Out of respect for your effort I went through them one by one but it left me in quite a conundrum...

I believe it would be a waste of your time as well as mine to try and refute your list.

Not because I believe you are correct, but simply because I believe nothing I say would convince you and that is not the purpose for this post anyway.

Mainly I just wanted to let you know that it's pretty awesome to read an intelligent and respectful post on ATS simply because they are so freakin' rare here and it reminds me of something that another poster wrote:

Well agreed and it took me sometime to come to terms with it.
My " The best defense is a great offense " ATS attitude, was on high
at first. This is truly one of fairest sites I've seen for senseless anti
theism ad hominem. And it still gets pretty thick at times.
I think OP sees in a bit of a different lite now also.

ATS knows what it's doing by keeping the rhetoric off
it's boards because, the insults do the job on me sometimes
and I'll just allow the distraction out of spite. Takes so much away
from the conversation and replaces it with hmmm you know.

I don't come here to sling mud or read answers that use terms like
" Flying speghetti monster "! How old are we? I do allow my self to
be just as guilty not because of the insult at all. But because
nothing pisses me off more than someone who's try'n to piss me off.

i'm work'n on it.

And the mods don't have to threaten me as often
as they used to so, I must be make'n progress.

i'll get there.

Pray for me OP?


SnF

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Elementalist
I think it's more reasonable and honest if we say, we just don't understand how things were created, hence we only have a theory to push to this species.

Actually, we have a lot of evidence that surrounds both the Big Bang Theory (which I would like to discontinue talking about, as it is off topic to this thread) and most definitely Biological Evolution.

You're confusing the word 'Theory' with 'Scientific Theory'. The two terms are not interchangeable. For something to become a Scientific Theory it is an absolute requirement that there be a substantial amount of evidence that is thoroughly tested and confirmed by multiple sources.

The Theory of Evolution is actually one of the most verified scientific study ever.

Who really cares if it becomes another kind of theory, the facts state easily that you will never know *why* but only a very small part of the *how*.

The way science has been constructed to look for evidence is highly flawed and problematic, you may be entirely wrong on almost everything, saying that these things could ONLY have formed in ways that you think they would go.

Saying DNA is found in this and that really has no meaning, it does not show perhaps a *factory* just combined ingredients in a way you may not understand.

Maybe the best question of all of this should be : Why do you believe the Science is in any way using the best pathway to finding the answers, too an extremely intelligent and discerning onlooker all one can see is a limited and incredibly slow, naïve, and likely sabotaged field of effort, that is so incredibly boring that it cannot be computed.

It is so darned boring, because the higher fields of my consciousness can plainly see that far more is going on inside my own mind than will ever be discussed in *science*.

It is nice to think you are on the right track with all of this, but where is the benefit of searching for something and omitting 99.9% of the possibilities ?

I would say take a swig of some Ayahuasca Tea or some other variant, and like all the other scientists I have gotten to try this, you likely will never look at Evolution as anything worth giving time too, ever again.

Can you explain the bombardier beetle? Bombardier Beetle: Paradox for Evolution

It has a couple of chemicals in two reaction chambers that coordinate to spew out an explosion that protects the beetle from predators. Any of these chemicals alone would be useless, and having only one of the enzymes (of which there are multiple required for this reaction to happen) would be useless as well. How would these traits evolved in a stepwise fashion if, by themselves, these individual mutations would generate no survival advantage?

originally posted by: cooperton
Can you explain the bombardier beetle? Bombardier Beetle: Paradox for Evolution

this link offers no new or original informatikon and instewad reprints(without acknowledgement) Duane Gish's incorrect and fallacious transl;ation of a 1961 article by Schildknecht and Holoubek, [Kofahl, 1981]

Gish claimed that hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones would explode spontaneously if mixed without a chemical inhibitor, and that the beetle starts with a mix of all three and adds an anti-inhibitor when he wants the explosion. [Weber, 1981] In fact, the two do not explode when mixed, as others have demonstrated. [Dawkins, 1987, p. 86-87] (Schildknecht did propose a physical inhibitor which kept the mixture from degrading in undisected beetles; in fact, the degradation he saw was probably simply a result of exposure to the air.) Gish still used the mistaken scenario after being corrected by Kofahl in 1978. [Weber, 1981] The same mistake is also repeated in books by Hitching in 1981, Huse in 1983 and 1993, and twice in a creationist magazine in 1990 [Anon, 1990a, b].

It doesn't bode well foor the argument in favor of design if the design can not actually be described!

It has a couple of chemicals in two reaction chambers that coordinate to spew out an explosion that protects the beetle from predators.

just a minor correction, there is no explosion when the beetle emits these chemicals.

Any of these chemicals alone would be useless, and having only one of the enzymes (of which there are multiple required for this reaction to happen) would be useless as well. How would these traits evolved in a stepwise fashion if, by themselves, these individual mutations would generate no survival advantage?

the argument for irreducible complexity is bogus and can only pe promoted by someonbe who hasn't actuallydone the research. how would thgesetraits evolve step by step? glad you asked-

Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]

Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful. (Quinones are used as defensive secretions in a variety of modern arthropods, from beetles to millipedes. [Eisner, 1970])

Small invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they're needed.

The invaginations deepen. Muscles are moved around slightly, allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. (Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen. [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237])

A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.

In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. (See Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.

Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservior.

The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ.
This stage -- secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs -- exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in their suborder. [Forsyth, 1970]

Muscles adapt which close off the reservior, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.

Hydrogen peroxide, which is a common by-product of cellular metabolism, becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. The two react slowly, so a mixture of quinones and hydroquinones get used for defense.

Cells secreting a small amount of catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, outside the valve which closes it off from the outside. These ensure that more quinones appear in the defensive secretions. Catalases exist in almost all cells, and peroxidases are also common in plants, animals, and bacteria, so those chemicals needn't be developed from scratch but merely concentrated in one location.

More catalases and peroxidases are produced, so the discharge is warmer and is expelled faster by the oxygen generated by the reaction. The beetle Metrius contractus provides an example of a bombardier beetle which produces a foamy discharge, not jets, from its reaction chambers. The bubbling of the foam produces a fine mist. [Eisner et al., 2000]

The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction.

Still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, and the walls toughen and shape into a reaction chamber. Gradually they become the mechanism of today's bombardier beetles.

The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions.
Note that all of the steps above are small or can easily be broken down into smaller steps. The bombardier beetles' mechanism can come about solely by accumulated microevolution. Furthermore, all of the steps are probably advantageous, so they would be selected. No improbable events are needed. As noted, several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in living populations.

The scenario above is hypothetical; the actual evolution of bombardier beetles probably did not happen exactly like that. The steps are presented sequentially for clarity, but they needn't have occurred in exactly the order given. For example, the muscles closing off the reservior (step 9) could have occurred simultaneously with any of steps 6-10. Determining the actual sequence of development would require a great deal more research into the genetics, comparative anatomy, and paleontology of beetles. The scenario does show, however, that the evolution of a complex structure is far from impossible. The existence of alternative scenarios only strengthens that conclusion.A few other points regarding this scenario should be stressed:
Parts of an integral system need not be created specifically for that system, and features used for one purpose can be used for another purpose. The quinones which originally served to darken the cuticle later became used for defense. The muscles which control the valve and squeeze the reservior could easily be adapted from muscles which already existed in the beetle's abdomen.

Complexity can diminish as well as increase. In the proposed scenario, most of the invaginations in which quinones appeared later disappeared. In other cases, a structure could develop with a complex supporting structure which later decreases or disappears.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: MoshiachIusDei
Just one more question: The common ancestor for human HIV strains has been traced back to around 1918 and the Spanish flu pandemic. They've not been able to identify what form it took before that. It appears to have just 'popped up'. If evolution occurs over multiple generations why isn't it possible to trace the ancestry of human HIV before WW1? ((HIV, they say, has been around for millions of years.)

I touched up on why it's difficult to look at the evolutionary history of viruses in the post I made just before this one, but essentially the issue stems from the traits of virus'. Namely, being able to latch onto and work their way into the DNA of a host cell.

However, we actually do have a fairly detailed history of the HIV virus, here's a visual representation:

So it's not a total mystery

originally posted by: MoshiachIusDei
Just this: The chemical formulae for the four bases of DNA share common 'small numbers'. They can be arranged into a perfect circle of 12 which is symmetrical, following the ecliptic path zodiac elements air, wind, fire and water. Phosphorous is the sun in the centre common to all. The bases combined with the zodiac 'sun signs' mirror the four seasons.

Symmetry does not exist in nature, not perfect mathematical symmetry. It is a human concept requiring intelligence to identify it. How does evolution explain an attribute of DNA that is not naturally occurring?

Sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you're trying to ask here. Could you provide a source for that information?

HIV: Your diagram suggests that human HIV developed in multiple locations simultaneously during the same generation. Is that early 20th century? So it's multiple common ancestors appearing at the same time in the last 100 years after several million years doing nothing human related?

DNA: Source for what? That perfect symmetry doesn't occur in nature and is a mathematical concept? Learned that at school in applied maths. Our teacher always put topics in context of how useful they might be in later life.
DNA as 12 'constellations': Do you need a source? I cite Genesis 1:27.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
My question is why and how
Your answer only deals with the benefits and function.
How and why, so show me how and why sexes developed not what the benefits are

The response I just showed you does show why it arose. It arose because it's beneficial and functional.

How it formed is due to any other mutation and genetic drift in evolution. The process to create Sexual Reproduction and the process to create blue eyes are the exact same process. Nothing more or less miraculous occurs.

The first two responses show the process of evolution, they are relevant to your question because the process is the same in those cases, as it is in developing Sexual Reproduction.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
How do two organisms give and receive information that they each can decode and then use to grow life

I've already explained to you that evolution doesn't occur on an individualistic scale. So this question is based on a false premise.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I am sorry you don't seem to understand the question.

I understand the question perfectly well. You simply cannot fathom that the same process that occurs when developing Sexual Reproduction occurs to every form of mutation. It's the answers you are not understanding.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
What evolved first, male or female and why.

I've already explained this. Neither evolved first. Sexual reproduction is the mutation, and it occurred throughout populations over success generations.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
How did the other evolve second and why did it.

Read above.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Did they evolve together and how could two equally opposite yet comparable organs evolve together and function as one

I've already answered this.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I understand the advantages and the same word benefits
I know sex equals reproduction
You are talking outcomes, talk evolution

Ah, I see where you're misunderstanding my explanations. You believe that Male and female are two separate mutations. This is not the case. Reproduction occurs in several ways. One way is Asexual, where the offspring arise from a single organism. Sexual Reproduction is the opposite of Asexual, where two organisms are required to reproduce.

Sexual Reproduction is what the mutation is, not male and female.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
How did the first genders arise in the world?

Several other members have asked this question as well. There's blue writing on this page that is a copy of the original post I made addressing the concern

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
What is the origin of a new protein fold, and what mechanisms create them?

Well, Protein Biosynthesis is what causes new proteins to form. Essentially, it's when a cell generates new proteins by copying necessary sections of DNA (which is a process of it's own, called 'transcription'), it's 'goal' is to produce mRNA, and it does this by basically using that necessary section of DNA as a template. The mRNA is referred to as a 'messenger' because it's function is merely to bring itself out into the cytoplasm from within the nucleus. Once outside it needs to find ribosom. The Ribosomal RNA already have protein in them, which read the mRNA code and add the correct amino acids to produce tRNA. tRNA transfers the amino acid to the robosomal RNA (once the mRNA is within it). Both mRNA and tRNA have codon's, except for the tRNA is an anti-codon, so can match up with the mRNA. Once another tRNA transfers another amino acid to the robosom the two tRNA's form an amino bond and basically link together. The process continues until a 'stop codon' is reached, and signals the end of that protein. The protein is now formed and ready for folding.

So now we have a denatured protein, that very quickly folds into its native confirmation. The native confirmation is determined by the sequence of the amino acids within that protein. Some amino acids are hydrophobic, and so the folding tends to create an end result where those hydrophobic amino acids are shielded as much as possible by the amino acids that are not hydrophobic.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
How are Gene Regulatory Networks(GRN) changed to form new phenotypes?

Well, the Gene Regulatory Network isn't static, it can be both random and partiality random (as in it follows a relative pattern, but that pattern appears in a stochastic process). So the regulators of genes are DNA, RNA, protein and their complex, but the expression of those genes through those regulators can be randomized.

Furthermore, new phenotypes are caused by the organism as a whole, not by the GRN of a single cell.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
If you don't know the origin of life then how do you know what is actually possible when it comes to the formation of new species? For example if i have an equation hidden on a card and I tell you the answer is five. How do you know whether or not 5 is actually a valid answer to the equation. Logically to me it would seem you don't but there are some of my questions.

Well, we've witnessed speciation first hand, and we can use the information within the Theory of Evolution to make predictions. Also, the Theory of Evolution wasn't formed on the origin of life, it was formed on the observation that variation and adaptation occurs through successive generations. So we don't really need the origin of life in order to explain how evolution functions.

We definitely would need a more clear depiction of the origin of life if we were to more accurately describe how the first cells formed, however.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147

How does this answer his question? Thats not evidence that is a drawing of a way an eye could form. It doesn't show that drawing is actually what happened..and it assumes that a cell can become light sensitive?

Those drawings aren't suppositions, as you can see underneath the drawings there are photo's of those very drawings themselves in known, observable, modern species. We also have various other species that show us the direct transition from the very primitive photoreceptor cells, to the fully functional modern eye.

It's not necessary to watch light sensitive cells form into a fully functional, modern eye, because we already know how mutations work, and we can predict them, and we can test them, and we can test and observe genetic drift.

I believe I followed up with that post on a more detailed one that explains the whole process with greater clarity. If you'd like I can find that post for you?

originally posted by: ParasuvO
Who really cares if it becomes another kind of theory, the facts state easily that you will never know *why* but only a very small part of the *how*.

It doesn't 'become another theory', it's just a misrepresented way of using the word 'theory'. Science doesn't deal with answers to the questions that ask 'why'. It only deals with the 'how'.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
The way science has been constructed to look for evidence is highly flawed and problematic, you may be entirely wrong on almost everything, saying that these things could ONLY have formed in ways that you think they would go.

Nothing in science claims absolute 100% certainty. Science is merely a tool that allows us to describe natural phenomena with the current information we have, and to the best of our abilities. You are right, there is no way to definitively prove anything. But, again, science doesn't claim to definitively prove anything. It acknowledges that absolute proof isn't possible, and instead claims "we can be sure beyond any reasonable doubt that this is likely the way this phenomena functions"

originally posted by: ParasuvO
Saying DNA is found in this and that really has no meaning, it does not show perhaps a *factory* just combined ingredients in a way you may not understand.

Actually, that claim does have a meaning, because we can tell an organisms history, biological functionality, through its DNA, and how we may be able to use those functions for a greater purpose (such as medicine).

originally posted by: ParasuvO
Maybe the best question of all of this should be : Why do you believe the Science is in any way using the best pathway to finding the answers, too an extremely intelligent and discerning onlooker all one can see is a limited and incredibly slow, naïve, and likely sabotaged field of effort, that is so incredibly boring that it cannot be computed.

This makes no sense. Please rewrite it with more clarity and I will respond.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
It is so darned boring, because the higher fields of my consciousness can plainly see that far more is going on inside my own mind than will ever be discussed in *science*.

It doesn't matter if you personally find it boring, others do not, and it's fortunate that they don't find it boring, because Science is the reason you're talking to me right now. Science is the reason you have perfect vision using glasses, despite your biological flaws. Science is the reason you're going to live past the old age of 25.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
It is nice to think you are on the right track with all of this, but where is the benefit of searching for something and omitting 99.9% of the possibilities ?

It's not that scientists are making unsubstantiated guesses, we can actually test and use the information we've gathered from our observations to better humanity and the world around us. The reason we don't consider any and all other possibilities is because they are unfalsifiable and empty suggestions that hold no substance to the questions at hand if they don't have evidence to back them up.

We use science because we can reasonably determine how things functions and we have put those explanations to use productively. It would be a waste of our time to start looking in to every obscure and imaginary possibility unless they had something to back up their claims.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
I would say take a swig of some Ayahuasca Tea or some other variant, and like all the other scientists I have gotten to try this, you likely will never look at Evolution as anything worth giving time too, ever again.

Sure. Enjoy the medicine we've created thanks to Evolution, and the food we've grown from crops that are plentiful also due to evolution in the meantime.

originally posted by: cooperton
Can you explain the bombardier beetle? Bombardier Beetle: Paradox for Evolution

It has a couple of chemicals in two reaction chambers that coordinate to spew out an explosion that protects the beetle from predators. Any of these chemicals alone would be useless, and having only one of the enzymes (of which there are multiple required for this reaction to happen) would be useless as well. How would these traits evolved in a stepwise fashion if, by themselves, these individual mutations would generate no survival advantage?

Peter Vlar answered this comment quite well. Thanks for your interest. If you have any more questions (or his answer did not suffice) I can attempt to answer those as well.

originally posted by: MoshiachIusDei
HIV: Your diagram suggests that human HIV developed in multiple locations simultaneously during the same generation. Is that early 20th century? So it's multiple common ancestors appearing at the same time in the last 100 years after several million years doing nothing human related?

Biological trees usually aren't so detailed as to point out the exact formation date (or likely date). This particular one mainly just shows the lineage and which particular strain branched off from when. When two appear on the same line it simply means that they diverged from the same source, not necessarily diverged precisely at the same time.

for instance, if we were to depict your own family tree. we would have Grandparents on top, then their children, then their children children, but we usually don't describe precisely when the children were born, but more so simply whom they came from.

Also, there is more than one type of Human HIV, which is why you see the onset of those originating from different locations. I could attempt to find the precise discovery of those strains if you'd like?

originally posted by: MoshiachIusDei
DNA: Source for what? That perfect symmetry doesn't occur in nature and is a mathematical concept? Learned that at school in applied maths. Our teacher always put topics in context of how useful they might be in later life.
DNA as 12 'constellations': Do you need a source? I cite Genesis 1:27.

Genesis doesn't directly describe DNA. But there was a source from which the image you posted came. That may be enough for me to understand exactly what it is you're trying to claim, as I am not familiar with linking DNA to constellations or the zodiac symbols.

Perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean by DNA having perfect symmetry?

a reply to: Ghost147

how is the genetic information that's added over time organized to eventually create a new species? I never grasped how nature is able to reorganize the info into something useful.

originally posted by: MoshiachIusDei




HIV: Your diagram suggests that human HIV developed in multiple locations simultaneously during the same generation. Is that early 20th century? So it's multiple common ancestors appearing at the same time in the last 100 years after several million years doing nothing human related?

The diagram doesn't actually make thst particular insinuation though. It demonstrates how various strains of HIV arose, over a period of time. It doesn't get into any specifics such as the time frame or geographic locale in which these strain arose. All strains of HIV are derived from mutations in SIV. HIV-1 (both M and O variants) for example can be traced back to what is now known as the Democratic Republic of Congo, specifically the village of Kinshasa and is derived from a strain of SIV carried by a sub species of Chimpanzees (pan troglodytes trogolodytes). HIV-2 ( A and B variants)seems to have originated in West Africa near the Ivory Coast. This strain is less lethal in humans and originated in an old world monkey, the Sooty Mangabey.

The initial brewing of what is today a worldwide pandemic began at the dawn of colonialism in Central Africa and the influx of trade, westerners and especially prostitution and drug abuse. At the time, Belgium had just expanded its overseas territories to include Belgian Congo( modern DRC ). SIV is a rather weak virus that a human gets over in a fairly short period of time. Because it takes a high concentration of SIV and prolonged exposure for it to have a chance to mutate, it requires both high risk behaviors and an already compromised immune system in the host. As ghonorea and Syphilis make transmission of SIV/HIV much easier, especially syphilis as it causes genital ulcers making transmission via vsginal intercourse more risky than anal or IV drug use, this perfect storm of events came together around 1910 in Kinshasa DRC.

It wasn't a new virus or mutation that caused the pandemic, it was the result of new, unsafe practices introduced by Europeans during colonialism. It's essentially the reverse of what happened in the Americas with smallpox.

SIV is known to have existed in primates for at least 32,000 years( not quite the millions of years you cite ). This can be determined by counting the rate of mutation as well as analysis of SIV strains found in 4 species of monkeys living on the Bioko Island which was separated by rising seas at the end of the LGM. We can also measure and track the protein TRIM5a which gives clues to cross species transmission.

In short, these varying strains of SIV have been around for tens of thousands of years and likely longer. The conditions for transmission is the big change, not the viruses themselves.

DNA: Source for what? That perfect symmetry doesn't occur in nature and is a mathematical concept? Learned that at school in applied maths. Our teacher always put topics in context of how useful they might be in later life.
DNA as 12 'constellations': Do you need a source? I cite Genesis 1:27.

You do realize that while ranting about this "perfect symmetry" not existing in nature, except for DNA , that in the fog of incredulousness you are creating an artificial and man made "perfect symmetry". It doesn't exist until you create your little zodiac wheel. And Genesis doesn't describe anything resembling what you claim it does.