Evolution, It's only a theory

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by JPhishPS: people tend to excel at things they enjoy.

[edit on 4/28/2009 by JPhish]

Well, if you enjoy failing, do carry on.

ad hominem!!!

For anyone who wants a thorough debunking of the creationists claims, I suggest talk.orgins archive, TalkOrigins Archive.

red herring again!!!

You make this too easy.

reply to post by JPhish


Do you even know what "red herring" means?

1) red herring. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
...1. A smoked herring having a reddish color. 2. Something that draws attention away from the central issue. From its use to distract hunting dogs from the trail....

TalkOrigins is an important resource for combatting the creationist nonsense.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by JPhish

 

Do you even know what "red herring" means?

1) red herring. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
...1. A smoked herring having a reddish color. 2. Something that draws attention away from the central issue. From its use to distract hunting dogs from the trail....

TalkOrigins is an important resource for combatting the creationist nonsense.

yeah, i have not claimed to be a creationist and what i've been saying has yet to be demonstrated as nonsense. That qualifies what you're saying as a RED HERRING.

*

[edit on 4/28/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhishyeah, i'm not a creationist and what i've been saying has yet to be demonstrated as nonsense. That qualifies what you're saying as a RED HERRING.

I'm glad you continue to do what you enjoy so much. However, stating that talkorgins is a resource is not a red herring, plain and simple.

You get the last word, I'll let you go now.

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros
And now you shall define micro-evolution and macro-evolution and explain what prevents a lot of micro from being macro.

In a nutshell
Microevolution: organisms exhibiting genetic variations over time.
Macroevolution: organisms becoming dissimilar organisms.

That's not good enough. Doesn't genetic variation accumulate over time? Throw some isolation in there and what do you have? Dissimilar organisms perhaps? Also you failed to address what force prevents a lot of micro from being macro. You can try again.

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros
You shall also explain what telomere sequences are doing in the centerish part of human chromosome number 2 and why all the genes found in this single chromosome can also be found in chimpanzees, only in 2 separate chromosomes.

easiest way for me to explain that is . . . RED-HERRING.

I see. You're just a troll. Clearly you're not interested in constructive debate. You may try again thou.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros
And now you shall define micro-evolution and macro-evolution and explain what prevents a lot of micro from being macro.

In a nutshell
Microevolution: organisms exhibiting genetic variations over time.
Macroevolution: organisms becoming dissimilar organisms.

That's not good enough. Doesn't genetic variation accumulate over time?

I already freaking said that . . . Microevolution: organisms exhibiting genetic variations over time..

Throw some isolation in there and what do you have?

You asked me what micro and macro evolution were, not how they operate theoretically. You tell me.

Dissimilar organisms perhaps?

Theoretically

Also you failed to address what force prevents a lot of micro from being macro. You can try again.

I’m not going to answer that question for the same reason I didn’t “try” it the first time. It’s a LOADED QUESTION. Within itself, the question implies that macro-evolution happens; when there is no conclusive proof it does.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
I see. You're just a troll.

It’s a red herring. We were not talking about telomere sequences, so unless you present a proper logical transition to this topic and show that is related to what we were discussing in some way, there’s no reason for me to address it.

Clearly you're not interested in constructive debate.

poisoning the well again . . .

You may try again thou.

Perhaps when you discontinue the logical fallacies and finally say something logical, I’ll attempt to respond accordingly.

[edit on 4/29/2009 by JPhish]

I'm not going to teach you genetics. If you don't understand the significance of what I said about telomere sequences at centerish parts of human chromosome 2 then so be it. It's pointless to discuss this topic with you since you don't understand the evidence. If you're truly interested in your origins then you find out yourself.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by rhinoceros
I'm not going to teach you genetics. If you don't understand the significance of what I said about telomere sequences at centerish parts of human chromosome 2 then so be it. It's pointless to discuss this topic with you since you don't understand the evidence.

The point where humans diverged from the other apes wouldn't matter much if you thought the Earth was only 6,000 years old, rhino. Anti-science is easier than all that hard work.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
I'm not going to teach you genetics.

but you expect me to teach you genetics? Funny stuff. Demanding i tell you about telomeres is not only a red herring, but an obvious attempt to goal post shift. We were talking about micro and macro evolution. It doesn’t appear to be related, but if it is, the burden of proof lies with you to show it is.

Nice poisoning of the well again by the way.

If you don't understand the significance of what I said about telomere sequences at centerish parts of human chromosome 2 then so be it. It's pointless to discuss this topic with you since you don't understand the evidence.

Let’s try this again.

P = It’s pointless to discuss the topic with me because I don’t understand the evidence.
Q = you won’t debate with me

If P, then Q
Q is desirable for you (because you’re losing the debate?)
Therefore P

Argumentum ad consequentiam again

Logic, it works.

[edit on 4/29/2009 by JPhish]

i thought you said you were done Gawd? If you buy the ticket be prepared to take the ride.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The point where humans diverged from the other apes

bare assertion fallacy

wouldn't matter much if you thought the Earth was only 6,000 years old,

hasty generalization which appeals to ridicule and poisons the well.


[edit on 4/29/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by JPhish


Sorry, Phish, but I wasn't commenting on your posts, I speaking about Gene 2. You simply babble as you've talked yourself into a corner and now you're stuck there. This will be fun.

As for Gene 2, it's the most significant landmark of divergence we have. Prothero covers it very well in his latest book for those brave enough to study up on the topic.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by JPhish

 

Sorry, Phish, but I wasn't commenting on your posts, I speaking about Gene 2. You simply babble as you've talked yourself into a corner and now you're stuck there. This will be fun.

As for Gene 2, it's the most significant landmark of divergence we have. Prothero covers it very well in his latest book for those brave enough to study up on the topic.

It's chromosome 2, not gene 2

p.s. JPish you fail

[edit on 29-4-2009 by rhinoceros]

reply to post by rhinoceros


Sorry, pre-coffee post. My bad. One Phishy point.

Originally posted by JPhish
I already freaking said that . . . Microevolution: organisms exhibiting genetic variations over time..

So what's the difference between having different genomes and being dissimilar organisms? Since they exhibit different genomes aren't they by default dissimilar organisms?

I'm not going to answer that question for the same reason I didn’t “try” it the first time. It’s a LOADED QUESTION. Within itself, the question implies that macro-evolution happens; when there is no conclusive proof it does.

You're not answering it, because you can't answer it. There is undeniable evidence for macro-evolution all around. Human chromosome 2 is a good example of it.

It’s a red herring. We were not talking about telomere sequences, so unless you present a proper logical transition to this topic and show that is related to what we were discussing in some way, there’s no reason for me to address it.

I've already done that here.

[edit on 29-4-2009 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by rhinoceros


Evolution is a phenomenon. Theory of evolution tries to explain it.

Evolution does not explain DNA. Genome scientists in fact, now considered that DNA was indeed needed first, yet it must also need to evolve. Paradox anyone!
It cannot account for Photosynthesis.
It does not explain the cambrian, which is an explosion of life and not a process of evolution over time with persistent competition between species resulting in an outcome of survival of the fittest, the corner stone of the theory itself.
In fact it is now theorised that the earliest of life needed to co-operate in a symbiotic fashion in order for more evolution to occur.

Gravity is a phenomenon. There is not a single theory that explains it. We've got 2 theories that explain gravitation on different scales. There's a problem thou. These 2 theories are not compatible with each other. One might say that gravity is a theory in crisis

[edit on 28-4-2009 by rhinoceros]

Evolution also has a problems similar to that of gravity, in that theories to explain it are conflicting or challenges key aspects of Evolution itself rendering it incomplete. I guess it will make sense when we can explain Abiogenesis and DNA, hoxgenes, photosynthesis. It will make sense when we can agree on what caused the cambrian, when we can know and not suggest that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes, furthermore this would make even more sense when we can believe that these earliest evolutionary processes that are heavily reliant on Wallin'/Margulis' SET theory on symbiosis(theory within theory) which is in direct arguement with Darwin's actual theory, which states a "survival of the fittest", or a persistent competition amongst individuals and groups of species.

You can punch more holes in evolution just by using science itself, science that relies on the trust of the method, which evolution does not do.

reply to post by atlasastro


"It does not explain the cambrian, which is an explosion of life and not a process of evolution over time with persistent competition between species resulting in an outcome of survival of the fittest, the corner stone of the theory itself."

The Cambrian Explosion actually happened over about 100,000,000 years. So it's not a punctuated event, but a process of development.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

The Cambrian Explosion actually happened over about 100,000,000 years. So it's not a punctuated event,

In fact it is a punctuated event. It is an unheralded event where life went from being scarce and simple to massive and complex, in fact it is where most of what is now modern Phyla first appeared. Life here diversified rapidly, Complex life from simple. Diversified. Rapidly. From a period of stasis development. Hence the term given of explosion. I'd call that a signifcant evolutionary punctuation. 100.000,000 Does that mean we ignore the fact it is unexplained, are you for real. Since when does timeframe relegate punctuation useless. It endd approximatel 1.7 million years ago.

but a process of development.

And my point is that is does not fit the theory as it is a period of unexplained rapid development that evolution theory cannot explain. This is why Gould and Eldredge came up with PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM as the fossil record did not match Darwins theory. At all. As a PROCESS OF GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT or as it is known in the field, PHYLECTIC GRADUALISM.
Punctuated VS gradual, punctuated equilibrium vs phylectic gradualism etc etc. More theory within theory to explain why the original theory can't explain events. Evolution is rife with this. Holes. Holes need patches. More patches equals more theory. Theory that moves away from the original theory.

More recently theoriest are saying that Punctuation is in fact supporting gradualism and saltation but that misconception has held that they are opposing. Yet the whole concept of punctuation is born from the fossil records not matching Darwins theory. Go figure. I accept the attempt to consolidate the science and clarify the theory. But I don't think it is helping as the average individual gets lost in theory and may accept it as some kind of fact. Which it is not. Dawkins dedicated a whole chapter to this subject in one of his books. Because it is a hole. He knows it, and now evolution theory is patching its patches together. Which is fine by me as long as they do it with science. And not just theory.

[edit on 29-4-2009 by atlasastro]

Originally posted by atlasastro
Evolution does not explain DNA. Genome scientists in fact, now considered that DNA was indeed needed first, yet it must also need to evolve. Paradox anyone!

No, because "genome scientists" are more than aware that RNA predates DNA. Do you want to know what possibly predates RNA?

It cannot account for Photosynthesis.

DNA can't account for photosynthesis? Whaaat?

It does not explain the cambrian, which is an explosion of life and not a process of evolution over time with persistent competition between species resulting in an outcome of survival of the fittest, the corner stone of the theory itself.

What doesn't? DNA? I have quite a few hypotheses of what caused the explosion of life over a relatively short period of time. Keywords: endosymbiosis, multicellural life, sudden abundance of resources and new niches, changing atmosphere and soil

Evolution also has a problems similar to that of gravity, in that theories to explain it are conflicting or challenges key aspects of Evolution itself rendering it incomplete.

Such as?

I guess it will make sense when we can explain Abiogenesis and DNA, hoxgenes, photosynthesis.

All of that has been explained already.

when we can know and not suggest that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes

I once asked a professor how can we be so sure that Archaea, Bacteria and Eukaryotes share a common ancestor. I mean how can we be certain that life didn't arise on Earth 3 seperate times. Well the answer is that they all share certain sequences of DNA and the probability of that same sequence arising 3 separate times is just astronomically small. There is (imo) one alternative. Archaea and Bacteria share a common ancestor for sure. However Eukaryotes might be just glorified Archaea. It's possible that the nucleus has a viral origin and that family of virus was just an offshoot of Archaea. Of course Eukaryotic cells also have symbiotic Bacteria inside them; mitochondria and chloroplasts.

You know I really enjoy showing evo deniers where they go wrong, but what really annoys me is that they never learn. The just ignore and then a month later repeat their ridiculous claims. They're not interested in truth. You know if it said in the Bible that the hand of God causes objects falling there's no doubt in my mind that you guys would deny gravity just like you deny evolution and mumble something about intelligent falling.

[edit on 29-4-2009 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by rhinoceros


No, because "genome scientists" are more than aware that RNA predates DNA. Do you want to know what possibly predates RNA?

I know this. But new knowledge is raising questions about these.

DNA can't account for photosynthesis? Whaaat?

No Evolution. Given that the thread is about evolution.

What doesn't? DNA?

Evolution. If you wanna play dumb, then so be it. That is if you are playing?

I have quite a few hypotheses of what caused the explosion of life over a relatively short period of time. Keywords: endosymbiosis, multicellural life, sudden abundance of resources and new niches, changing atmosphere and soil

Oh. You have some hupothesis for what may have caused it. And this is all evolution of course. Show how multicellular, multicellular is also reliant on earlier symbiosis is it not. Ok I am getting the picture( theory dogma and doctrine). Endosymbiosis....ehhhmm, theory. Thanks. My point exactly. Co-operation and not competition. Thanks, I think I actually bring up SET theory in earlier post, as I have been on this thread long before these more recent posts, and how it argues against Darwins original theory. Sudden abundance of resources lol. What! the planet suddenly changed into a resource rich planet where there was no resources before and this suddenly enabled life to rapidly diversify. Organisms had to evolve to make use of any change be they atmosphere, soil etc. As any benefit would be as per random mutation and then advantage over other organisms, yet it is all this is still relying on symbiosis too.

Such as?

Oh sorry, I didn't get the memo where we had a unified theory explaining everything. Can you link it, cheers. As I would love to read just one, complete, agreed upon, theory that explains evolution.

I guess it will make sense when we can explain Abiogenesis and DNA, hoxgenes, photosynthesis.

All of that has been explained already.

So where is your noble prize. You fool. Abiogenesis is the Holy Grail. Why are these still being studied if they are all explained.

when we can know and not suggest that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes

I once asked a professor how can we be so sure that Archaea, Bacteria and Eukaryotes share a common ancestor. I mean how can we be certain that life didn't arise on Earth 3 seperate times. Well the answer is that they all share certain sequences of DNA and the probability of that same sequence arising 3 separate times is just astronomically small.

Everything about our existence as a probability is also actually atronomically small. But I am sure you can explain it all. Nice appeal to authority on the Professor. It is funny how this DNA thing keeps popping up. Please keep explaining exactly how we know how it came to be. I mean right from the start. Because you said it has been explained, but obviously I, and the rest of the Planet have missed it.

There is (imo) one alternative. Archaea and Bacteria share a common ancestor for sure. However Eukaryotes might be just glorified Archaea. It's possible that the nucleus has a viral origin and that family of virus was just an offshoot of Archaea. Of course Eukaryotic cells also have symbiotic Bacteria inside them; mitochondria and chloroplasts.

Have a listen to yourself. Thanks for answering my question with more SUGGESTIONS, more for sure its maybe possible that its just this from that and that of course needs this for all those maybe possibilities to actually be. I mean after all, all i said was this.

when we can know and not suggest that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes

Thanks Dude, I mean you are right ontop of this. Absolutely awesome. Maybe. Could be. I mean IMO for sure it could be, maybe, if this virus happened when that did too. Because I asked the professor guy. Yeah. You Know. Everyone else doesn't because you read the book, and that guy told you and everyone else will just look dumb if you just paint them as a stereotypical religious simpleton. I mean look everyone, he asked the professor. Yawn.

You know I really enjoy showing evo deniers where they go wrong, but what really annoys me is that they never learn.

I think what you enjoy most is talking about yourself, and how clever you think you are, but that is just an observation.

The just ignore and then a month later repeat their ridiculous claims. They're not interested in truth.

Please go back to my earlier posts. No one answered these questions, as I have raised them before, or challenged the sources I linked in my earlier posts.

You know if it said in the Bible that the hand of God causes objects falling there's no doubt in my mind that you guys would deny gravity just like you deny evolution and mumble something about intelligent falling.

Well you can believe anything you want, it appears you already do. If you would like to point out where I use religion in any of my posts on this thread, or mention GOD, or the Bible or Intelligent Design I will gladly accept the massive assumptions that seem to go hand in hand with the massive opinion you have of yourself.

Cheers.

The questions I have have not been answered, there are only theories, Ideas, or Hypothesis. Which is why I said, " i guess we will know when we....".

Cheers.




[edit on 29-4-2009 by atlasastro]

reply to post by atlasastro


"In fact it is a punctuated event. It is an unheralded event where life went from being scarce and simple to massive and complex, in fact it is where most of what is now modern Phyla first appeared. Life here diversified rapidly, Complex life from simple. Diversified. Rapidly. From a period of stasis development. Hence the term given of explosion. I'd call that a signifcant evolutionary punctuation. 100.000,000 Does that mean we ignore the fact it is unexplained, are you for real. Since when does timeframe relegate punctuation useless. It endd approximatel 1.7 million years ago."

You need to calm down and read what you wrote before hitting the submit button, please. A "punctuated event" in evolutionary terms is a single change of relatively major proportions. So 100,000,000 mya years of development would hardly count. It was a process, not an "explosion". The term "explosion" was popularized before the dating was fully clarified. Jumping the gun on the research will cause such problems.

The fundies jumped on the "explosion" meme while ignoring the on-going investigation. They wanted a "miracle" point, and were grasping at any straw they could find. That's the state of fundie science now, GIGO.