Can someone explain a part of evolution to me?

originally posted by: SolAquarius
After debating with flat earthers.

The evolution vs creation debate just seems so old hat.

My problem here is the genetic data, that's like a fingerprint at a crime scene.

This item has been updated to reflect that chimps and bonobos are two species of chimpanzees that are close enough to humans to share 99.6% of their DNA-sciencemag

Those who are in favor of creation have tried to side step the issue of vast genetic similarity by saying you would use similar genes for similar species, but the thing is it is not just the functional genes that are shared but nonfunctional and even harmful mutations that are shared. And even when it comes to functional genes, anyone who has seen the genetic code knows it is degenerate

degenerate code wiki - A code in which several code words have the same meaning. The genetic code is degenerate because there are many instances in which different codons specify the same amino acid. A genetic code in which some amino acids may each be encoded by more than one codon.

That means you can have the same proteins the same function with several other codons, or other combinations of dna letters in many cases. While there might be a few minute potential differences in some cases in things like speed, mutations do happen and can be perpetuated in many cases if the end protein is the same.

There's also the vast dependency created on things like vitamins, that we've grown dependent on because they were commonly present in our ancestors' diets.

Again only way you're bringing creationism back is if either a.) there's a vast worldwide conspiracy to falsfify alot of data( a universe over ten billion years old with countless 100s of billions of earth like planets, does not jive with a special place and special creation on a single lone world. Geology also shows the earth super ancient, and there's also the genetic, fossil, computational, etc evidence for evolution). b.) Last thursdayism the world was created to look like it is super ancient and life the product of evolution but it is not so, perhaps a simulation.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: andrewh7

If evolution didn't exist, the structured treatment regimen used by those afflicted with AIDS would not work. You don't need to wait thousands, tens of thousands or even millions of years to watch evolution in progress.

Shoot me a message when that AIDS turns into a bacteria or a fungus.

Shoot me a message when you understand the difference between a syndrome and a virus/bacteria/fungus.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
open to scientific evidence

believes in the 6000 year old earth

Pick one.

a reply to: Ghost147

How can assumptions be made?

My apologies if the answer is already just a short click away.

But how can you assume that because a raptor had feathers, it's the ancestor of a chicken? If you have a gap of a hundred million years.. There's a lot of assumptions being made.

Unless I'm missing something - like a raptor without feathers, then one with some thousands or millions of years later, then shape change and wing development etc that many years later and we can follow it that way?

One day all the T-Rexes where happily eating every other dinosaur when they noticed a big fireball in the sky - and they all decided to instantaneously turn into chickens so they could hide underground. Meanwhile a brontosaurus was walking around dropping eggs when out hatched a lion. God reached down and took out a rib and made a lady lion so they could frolic around together. Then it rained lots - but Noah had built a bloody big boat for them to live on (and the 100 million other "kinds") if they promised not to eat each other. They were thankful and praised god.

And that's science!

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Ghost147

How can assumptions be made?

My apologies if the answer is already just a short click away.

But how can you assume that because a raptor had feathers, it's the ancestor of a chicken? If you have a gap of a hundred million years.. There's a lot of assumptions being made.

Unless I'm missing something - like a raptor without feathers, then one with some thousands or millions of years later, then shape change and wing development etc that many years later and we can follow it that way?

you are missing a lot of things. much of the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis has to be dumbed down and simplified because detailed explanations in exact terms are just too dense for the average person to absorb in the course of an hour long conversation. those who have examined and confirmed the theory of evolution have spent decades studying it using equipment and techniques they spent even more decades learning how to use. what YOU are looking for here is a simple answer. the long and short of it is, you wont get a simple answer because that would be like taking a single piece of a puzzle and using it to prove the whole puzzle is a picture of a tiger. if you want the entire understanding, then you have to dedicate the necessary time and energy to acquiring it. abovetopsecret has a lot of material and resouces that are very helpful, but it is not a worthy substitute for an actual education in geology biology paleontology chemistry physics etc. and these are what you are missing. basically, go to college if you want an indepth comprehension of MES because this forum seems to be for people who just want to fight over it without learning anything. thats why college makes you pay for the privilege of trying to make experts look stupid.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Tell him to look up flying fish

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: andrewh7

If evolution didn't exist, the structured treatment regimen used by those afflicted with AIDS would not work. You don't need to wait thousands, tens of thousands or even millions of years to watch evolution in progress.

Shoot me a message when that AIDS turns into a bacteria or a fungus.

AIDS isn't alive... It's a condition caused by the HIV virus.

I was being a smartass. You got the point though, didn't you? Has a bacteria ever turned into a fungus or vice versa?

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: andrewh7

If evolution didn't exist, the structured treatment regimen used by those afflicted with AIDS would not work. You don't need to wait thousands, tens of thousands or even millions of years to watch evolution in progress.

Shoot me a message when that AIDS turns into a bacteria or a fungus.

AIDS isn't alive... It's a condition caused by the HIV virus.

I was being a smartass. You got the point though, didn't you? Has a bacteria ever turned into a fungus or vice versa?

one could easily surmise from your question that your studies in evolution are minimal at best. there goes the 'smart' in your 'smartass'.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: andrewh7

If evolution didn't exist, the structured treatment regimen used by those afflicted with AIDS would not work. You don't need to wait thousands, tens of thousands or even millions of years to watch evolution in progress.

Shoot me a message when that AIDS turns into a bacteria or a fungus.

AIDS isn't alive... It's a condition caused by the HIV virus.

Has a bacteria ever turned into a fungus or vice versa?

Fungi are Eukaryotic (organism with a nucleus and other organelles encased in membranes) and the Bacteria is Prokaryotic (Unicellular, and without a membrane-bound nucleus). It has not happened considering they are of different Domains

You can learn more about them here if you'd like

originally posted by: TzarChasm

one could easily surmise from your question that your studies in evolution are minimal at best. there goes the 'smart' in your 'smartass'.

Well that sounds perty smartenal, but how do you expect me to believe that humans used to be little rodents running around trying to not get eaten by dinosaurs, when you can't even turn a bacteria into something other than another bacteria?

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: TzarChasm

one could easily surmise from your question that your studies in evolution are minimal at best. there goes the 'smart' in your 'smartass'.

how do you expect me to believe that humans used to be little rodents running around trying to not get eaten by dinosaurs, when you can't even turn a bacteria into something other than another bacteria?

Bacteria is a domain.... not a species.

Essentially you're asking "Why can't you turn a Eukarya into something other than a Eukarya. therefore Evolution must be false!"

Except it would disprove evolution if something like that occurred, and it doesn't make sense in the first place.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: TzarChasm

one could easily surmise from your question that your studies in evolution are minimal at best. there goes the 'smart' in your 'smartass'.

Well that sounds perty smartenal, but how do you expect me to believe that humans used to be little rodents running around trying to not get eaten by dinosaurs, when you can't even turn a bacteria into something other than another bacteria?

glad you asked! its very easy actually. we dont. we dont expect you to believe anything because what you believe is irrelevant. your opinion has zero impact on the results of the scientific method when it is properly applied. although i would offer a small correction here while i have your attention...modern humans which are called homo sapiens sapiens comes from a long line that can be traced back to the genus of homo which could be called archaic humans around 2 1/2 million years ago. before that, our ancestors were part of the pan family. family as in kingdom phylum order class family etc. the name of that family is hominidae where very certain species of monkey were our distant cousins. some people poke fun at evolution by calling us primates and saying monkeys are our relatives. in that frame, half of the human species is one big dysfunctional family. but primates is the name of the order from which all of humankind and many monkey species are descended. many other species of monkey are descended from other families that we dont go in, but still fall under the primate classification. the superorder from which all primates evolved does include rodents among other mammals, somewhere around 100 million years ago. lots of turn offs, exits, round abouts, rest stops and speed traps in between here and there, so its understandable that there are many many many branches that diverge from the main tree. we are one of those branches, which is a pretty detailed and complicated branch to go through as different tribes of hominidae exhibit different characteristics that require some finer terminology. the link below should help you.

en.wikipedia.org...

here are some visuals in case you are the type who prefers picture books.





if you want a step by step diagram of how each species progressed, i have faith in your ability to use google for your own independent research.

PS. thats how you put the 'smart' in 'smartass'. bazinga.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: andrewh7

If evolution didn't exist, the structured treatment regimen used by those afflicted with AIDS would not work. You don't need to wait thousands, tens of thousands or even millions of years to watch evolution in progress.

Shoot me a message when that AIDS turns into a bacteria or a fungus.

AIDS isn't alive... It's a condition caused by the HIV virus.

I was being a smartass. You got the point though, didn't you? Has a bacteria ever turned into a fungus or vice versa?

I got the point that you were trying to be a smart ass and failed spectacularly, yes. Then I view that as a reflection of your general scientific knowledge overall. Which says that you don't know what you are talking about to question evolution. You actually worsened your position in my eyes.

[redacted]

a reply to: deadlyhope

I would suggest you and your friend go to a local library, or maybe your own family picture album, and look for pictures of people which were taken as far back as possible. You may notice a lot of changes in the appearance of this people as time progresses. I am not speaking of the same people but of how different people look say from twenty years apart.

When photography was young, the people were often the children of "arraigned" marriages. They still carried the physical traits of those who had also been the offspring of this practice. When this was no longer the case and people, mostly women, choose their mates based largely on appearance things began to change. Many of the rough facial features have "smoothed out" over a short period of time and people all over the world have a very different general appearance today.

I am not saying this is to be taken as "proof' of evolution in mankind. I am simply offering this as a means of confirming the changes in this aspect which have taken place over the last two hundred years or so.

The basic meaning of the word "evolution" is the changes which take place within subjects over time. By looking at the pictorial evidence it would be hard to disagree with some changes having taken place.

originally posted by: Ghost147

Bacteria is a domain.... not a species.

Essentially you're asking "Why can't you turn a Eukarya into something other than a Eukarya. therefore Evolution must be false!"

Except it would disprove evolution if something like that occurred, and it doesn't make sense in the first place.

How can you seriously make that argument after professing that birds evolved from dinosaurs?

a reply to: Bone75

If that made no Sense to you then perhaps you should get yourself a basic Bio 101 book and familiarize yourself with some of the basics concerning cell biology. In the earlier example, Ghost tried to explain to you that bacteria are Prokaryotic and why a prokaryot doesn't become something else, specifically a eukaryotic organism, which includes all plants and animals living today. The Prokaryotes already underwent that mutation at a time in earths geological history that was conducive to such a mutation. Conditions are drastically different now.

But it's a completely different thing though to add a cellular membrane, a nucleus and a jump to multicellular organisms in the jump from prokaryotes to Eukaryotes. It's a much easier jump to double the number of cells from 2 to 4 than it is to add a nucleus and membrane. Likewise, it was over 70 MA between the first mammals and the appearance of primates. You sound like you want to see Cyanobacteria grow legs and walk itself out of the agar within a few generations. That's just not how it works.


This is dumbed down enough that it should make sense
www.diffen.com...

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Ghost147

Bacteria is a domain.... not a species.

Essentially you're asking "Why can't you turn a Eukarya into something other than a Eukarya. therefore Evolution must be false!"

Except it would disprove evolution if something like that occurred, and it doesn't make sense in the first place.

How can you seriously make that argument after professing that birds evolved from dinosaurs?

You're still viewing this from a visual perspective only. You'll need to understand the 'internal' factors, such as DNA, RNA, changes in Allele frequency, and so forth to really grasp how Dinosaurs to birds is far more simple than Prokaryote to Eukaryote.

It's actually quite easy to see how we get divergence at the spectrum that we saw Birds diverge from Dinosaurs, if you understand the process of Evolution.