Can you really say Evolution has no Meaning ?

a reply to: cooperton

lol evolution has never been observed. Your faith is commendable, but don't call it science.

You're so far behind the 8 ball you can't see the light. Another "break" is highly recommended.
And just in case you forgot:
Definition of speciation:

the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

Biologists Watch Speciation in a Laboratory Flask

Biologists have discovered that the evolution of a new species can occur rapidly enough for them to observe the process in a simple laboratory flask.

In a month-long experiment using a virus harmless to humans, biologists working at the University of California San Diego and at Michigan State University documented the evolution of a virus into two incipient species—a process known as speciation that Charles Darwin proposed to explain the branching in the tree of life, where one species splits into two distinct species during evolution.

“Many theories have been proposed to explain speciation, and they have been tested through analyzing the characteristics of fossils, genomes, and natural populations of plants and animals,” said Justin Meyer, an assistant professor of biology at UC San Diego and the first author of a study that will be published in the December 9 issue of Science. “However, speciation has been notoriously difficult to thoroughly investigate because it happens too slowly to directly observe. Without direct evidence for speciation, some people have doubted the importance of evolution and Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

Meyer’s study, which also appeared last week in an early online edition of Science, began while he was a doctoral student at Michigan State University, working in the laboratory of Richard Lenski, a professor of microbial ecology there who pioneered the use of microorganisms to study the dynamics of long-term evolution.

“Even though we set out to study speciation in the lab, I was surprised it happened so fast,” said Lenski, a co-author of the study. “Yet the deeper Justin dug into things—from how the viruses infected different hosts to their DNA sequences—the stronger the evidence became that we really were seeing the early stages of speciation.”

“With these experiments, no one can doubt whether speciation occurs,” Meyer added. “More importantly, we now have an experimental system to test many previously untestable ideas about the process.”

ucsdnews.ucsd.edu...#:~:text=Biologists%20have%20discovered%20that%20the,in%20a%20 simple%20laboratory%20flask.&text=%E2%80%9CEven%20though%20we%20set%20out,co%2Dauthor%20of%20the%20study.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

The problem is it will be some amount of acid no matter what, and any animal with too much or too little will not reproduce since they will die quickly. The only animals that will push offspring will be ones with the right amount of acid for them to live. That right amount is passed on to their offspring, and if not then the offspring without the right amount dies.

That's not how biology works. It's not as though there is a gene that says "make more acid". Take for example pepsin, which is another necessary enzyme produced to aid in digestion. These enzymes are coded for by protein-coding genes in our genome. There are factors which determine when this gene gets expressed (i.e. pepsin gets made) or not. These regulatory mechanisms are intimately connected to indicators that show when more pepsin is needed. So again, I didn't even include pepsin in my prior necessities regarding digestion, but it is another factor of digestion. What is also required is gene modulators and post-transcriptional checkpoints that ensure that it gets expressed properly.



Notice all that is involved here in just creating one aspect of stomach digestion. The precursor to pepsin, pepsinogen, gets cut by stomach acid into its active form. Notice AGAIN we have an interdependent aspect. Pepsinogen needs stomach acid, and digestion needs pepsin to function properly. How could sequential modifications have made such a feature if both are required for proper functioning? Remember, without the mucosal cells creating the buffering lining, pepsin would digest receptor proteins along the stomach lining. This is exactly the type of biology that Darwin said would prove his theory wrong.

a reply to: Phantom423

wow the virus evolved into... a virus. If you want to prove that evolution is responsible for the origin of species you have to prove that organisms can change into something distinctly new. But they never do. Viruses remain viruses. Microbes remain microbes. Rats remain rats. Fruit flies remain fruit flies. We've been trying for over 100 years to try to artificially induce evolution to the degree that it generates a new organism and it is apparently not possible.

What is a "new organism?" Where are the "new organisms" in our timeline?

How is it that no matter what evolution is observed, another primate is still a primate - just like another virus is still a virus?

Are you arguing against the evolution of the first primates? Which ones are those?

Harte

a reply to: cooperton

wow the virus evolved into... a virus. If you want to prove that evolution is responsible for the origin of species you have to prove that organisms can change into something distinctly new. But they never do. Viruses remain viruses. Microbes remain microbes. Rats remain rats. Fruit flies remain fruit flies. We've been trying for over 100 years to try to artificially induce evolution to the degree that it generates a new organism and it is apparently not possible.

Your standard answer. You have no understanding of evolution much less how it's observed in the lab. You made up a scenario that's false to fill your requirements. Evolution never said that a cat becomes a dog, a virus becomes a rat or a monkey became a human.
Same crap from you.
You're a liar and a fraud.

originally posted by: Harte

How is it that no matter what evolution is observed

It's not evolution because it is already within the utility of the given genome. Take for example when humans adapted to whiter skin tones towards more northern habitations. They did so due to less annual sun. It wasn't as though these humans were evolving, that would be silly, they were adapting to the environment to the extent that the human genome allows. The alleles necessary for a lighter skin tone were already present as possibilities within the confines of the human genetic code. There was no "evolution"

another primate is still a primate

I'd accept a chimpanzee becoming anything besides a chimpanzee. Like some sort of distinct enduring difference that made you look at it and not call it a chimpanzee. The problem with the theory, is that most differences are simply within the bounds of the genetic code. Like for example antibiotic resistance, once thought to be the crowning example of evolution, is actually just an epigenetic increase in the expression of a detox pump which allows higher antibiotic exposure. Surely enough, within a few generations after removing the antibiotic, the antibiotic resistance culture will resort back to being vulnerable to the antibiotic (source). This is because they are not evolving, they are using pre-set mechanisms (epigenetics) to adapt to various environmental stressors.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Your standard answer. You have no understanding of evolution much less how it's observed in the lab. You made up a scenario that's false to fill your requirements. Evolution never said that a cat becomes a dog, a virus becomes a rat or a monkey became a human.
Same crap from you.
You're a liar and a fraud.

Evolution does claim that over a billion years a microbe over many generations can gradually become a human. So yeah that's even more absurd than a cat becoming a dog.

Do you know your own theory?

a reply to: cooperton

Evolution does claim that over a billion years a microbe over many generations can gradually become a human. So yeah that's even more absurd than a cat becoming a dog.

Please cite a textbook that excludes speciation. You don't understand evolution - never have. Your idea is that common ancestry means that a fly became a human and a fish became an elephant. You have no concept of how molecular biology works.
Please explain why 50-90% of all life on this planet have genetic code in common. You can't do it because if you did, you would have to admit that common ancestry is the key to how life evolved on this planet.
You're a fraud and a liar. And a poor salesman.

originally posted by: FinallyAwake

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: AlienView

I have experienced the presence of God three times in three far-flung locations on the planet.

Shplain dat ... and you'll have your answer, I'm sure.

Your interpretation of what you experienced is inaccurate? (not being a douche)

A lot of religious folk swear they can feel God in their heart, and that he is communicating with them. Whereas isn't it possible that they could be experiencing a 'nice feeling' about something they 'believe' is divine?

The answer to that question is a big no. You have to experience those things for yourself first and then you would know. In order to experience those things you have to take a lot of steps and changes to the way you think and feel about yourself, others, and everything.
It's a road that is usually thinly travelled.

You don't need religion for being good or nice or charitable. That's stupid. Being spiritual does not give you exclusive rights to anything at all. Depending on the particular flavour of your religion or spiritulism, it excludes your mind to being completely open, in fact. You are constrained to your particular line of programmed thought dictated by your subscribed church.

There is evidence for evolution and adaptation from hundreds of studies. There is evidence for speciation in the genome of every living organism. There is no evidence for any deity or divine creation of any type. These facts are absolute and recognised throughout the scientific world, except creationists.

originally posted by: Phantom423


You don't understand evolution - never have. Your idea is that common ancestry means that a fly became a human and a fish became an elephant.

Nope, evolutionary theory insists that over many generations a microbe gradually mutated into a human. Such a possibility is unfounded in the research, it is merely faith.

You have no concept of how molecular biology works.

I spent the last couple pages describing in detail the microbiological Impossibilities of evolution. You're welcome to debate what I said with observable data, but we all know you can't handle scientific discourse.. as always you just resort to insult in lieu of your ability to debate.

Please explain why 50-90% of all life on this planet have genetic code in common. You can't do it

Lol yes I can. It was a common Designer. That's why it's called code, because it was programmed by an Intelligent Designer. The microbiological homology of enzymes and other genes makes sense from this perspective because these enzymes are useful in a multitude of different organisms. You just assume it means common ancestor because that's what your beliefs tell you. Ironic. In actuality these protein codes needed to be designed because they're very meticulous and interdependent on other aspects of the body, meaning they couldn't have been generated step-by-step as proposed by evolutionary theory.

a reply to: cooperton

Its an adaptation that could have been paired already, or one used in a different way. Trillions of iterations.

a reply to: cooperton

Nope, evolutionary theory insists that over many generations a microbe gradually mutated into a human. Such a possibility is unfounded in the research, it is merely faith

Please cite a biology textbook that says that.

Lol yes I can. It was a common Designer. That's why it's called code, because it was programmed by an Intelligent Designer. The microbiological homology of enzymes and other genes makes sense from this perspective because these enzymes are useful in a multitude of different organisms. You just assume it means common ancestor because that's what your beliefs tell you. Ironic. In actuality these protein codes needed to be designed because they're very meticulous and interdependent on other aspects of the body, meaning they couldn't have been generated step-by-step as proposed by evolutionary theory.

Makes sense to me when you graduate from Crackpot University:

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: cooperton

Its an adaptation that could have been paired already, or one used in a different way. Trillions of iterations.

But even the primordial pairing raises the same question. Most facets of biological creatures are dependent on other factors of the body, so to just assume that some point in the distant past it must have been able to come to be sequentially is wishful thinking. For random mutations to be able to code for pepsinogen and all its necessary modulators and epigenetic controls would be like a monkey being able to code ATS's website. These modulators are in synchrony with various detectors that know when to release pepsinogen at the proper timing. There are so many factors that go into just pepsinogen, and pepsinogen is just one of many factors involved in digestion which also have their own specific modulation.

These sorts of systems cannot come to be sequentially.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


" evolutionary theory insists that over many generations a microbe gradually mutated into a human."

Please cite a biology textbook that says that.

you don't even know your own theory. LUCA, or 'last universal common ancestor' is the theoretical ancestor of all biological life, which includes humans. So yes, evolutionary theory claims that if you go far back in the human lineage eventually you reach a great-grandfather microbe.

a reply to: cooperton

you don't even know your own theory. LUCA, or 'last universal common ancestor' is the theoretical ancestor of all biological life, which includes humans. So yes, evolutionary theory claims that if you go far back in the human lineage eventually you reach a great-grandfather microbe.

Please cite a textbook that says that humans came from microbes.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Please cite a textbook that says that humans came from microbes.

lol I can't believe you're doubling down on this one. You really don't even know your own theory which you hold in such high regard.

Last Universal Common Ancestor

The last universal common ancestor is theoretically the unicellular organism from which all biological life comes from. Including humans. So yes, humans are theorized to have evolved from microbes over enough generations. This is like the most basic facet of evolution I don't understand why you don't know or are playing dumb?

a reply to: cooperton

It is not wishful thinking...it is taking what information is actually available and creating possible answers.

What you propose is inserting an invisible hand of creation where none has ever been observed. THAT is what is wishful thinking.

To me, it sounds like you a). lack the imagination to figure out how these things could work out, and b). are supposing a magic hand to account for this lack of imagination

a reply to: cooperton

That's not a textbook. That's a research paper. Regardless, LUCA commonality is the point (just in case you forgot to read the paper). Nowhere does it say that microbes became humans. LUCA is about genetic commonality. All life on this planet has genetic commonality. Speciation is how evolution works.
You're not capable of understanding this distinction.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: cooperton

It is not wishful thinking...it is taking what information is actually available and creating possible answers.

What you propose is inserting an invisible hand of creation where none has ever been observed. THAT is what is wishful thinking.

To me, it sounds like you a). lack the imagination to figure out how these things could work out, and b). are supposing a magic hand to account for this lack of imagination

Perhaps you lack the imagination for what an extra-dimensional atemporal Being would be capable of doing. Every night in our dreams we create vast worlds effortlessly... Imagine a Being that had control of such mental potential. I suppose we exist within the Mind of this Creator Being. Quantum physics is the biggest hint towards this reality.. because it shows that the faculty of consciousness is fundamental and interrelated to the workings of physics (see copenhagen interpretation). In short, particles behave differently when they are being measured.



All the big hitters that developed quantum theory have some things to say that we often forget when focusing too myopically on materialist science:



and my favorite:



Materialist science is obsolete, it served its purpose but it can no longer envelope the entirety of observable phenomenon. It is evident that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, and for this reason I suppose we share a consciousness with that very Mind that made us.

a reply to: cooperton

Published: 13 May 2010
A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry
Douglas L. Theobald
www.nature.com...

Abstract
Universal common ancestry (UCA) is a central pillar of modern evolutionary theory. As first suggested by Darwin, the theory of UCA posits that all extant terrestrial organisms share a common genetic heritage, each being the genealogical descendant of a single species from the distant past. The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to ‘local’ common ancestry—for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life—and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory. Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing and this has led to critical commentary emphasizing the intrinsic technical difficulties in empirically evaluating a theory of such broad scope. Furthermore, several researchers have proposed that early life was characterized by rampant horizontal gene transfer, leading some to question the monophyly of life. Here I provide the first, to my knowledge, formal, fundamental test of UCA, without assuming that sequence similarity implies genetic kinship. I test UCA by applying model selection theory to molecular phylogenies, focusing on a set of ubiquitously conserved proteins that are proposed to be orthologous. Among a wide range of biological models involving the independent ancestry of major taxonomic groups, the model selection tests are found to overwhelmingly support UCA irrespective of the presence of horizontal gene transfer and symbiotic fusion events. These results provide powerful statistical evidence corroborating the monophyly of all known life.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Nowhere does it say that microbes became humans

Nor did I say that. the last common universal ancestor means it is the ancestor of all biological creatures, including humans. I said If you trace the ancestry of the human back long enough, theoretically, you would eventually reach this primordial unicellular organism. Get it?

Now leave the adults alone and go play.

a reply to: cooperton

Nor did I say that. the last common universal ancestor means it is the ancestor of all biological creatures, including humans. I said If you trace the ancestry of the human back long enough, theoretically, you would eventually reach this primordial unicellular organism. Get it?

Now leave the adults alone and go play.

Of course you said that - over and over ad infinitum. You don't understand modern science, evolution or speciaton. You make it up as you go along hoping that no one notices. You're a liar and a fraud.