What is evolution?

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


Once you're done with all the arguing and understand how evolution works, I suggest reading 'Misconceptions about evolution'.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

reply to post by Loken68

1st of all wiki is not a very good source and nothing there can be accepted.

Not true.

Wikipedia is what it is. An encyclopedia. It is not source material, it is an accessible summary of source material. It is not perfect, but it is very good, much more accurate than any printed encyclopedia and much more current.

2nd all the mutations you just listed are random chance. There were no reasoning in them.

Absolutely true. You are starting to understand. Now if you could just get that Natural Selection is not random you might demonstrate that there is hope for you.

3rd Why arent all europeans in the same climate with the same genome "fair skinned"?

Several reasons: first, in spite of Mr. Hitler's fantasy, no human population is 'pure'. That is one of humanity's strengths, we like to share our personal gene pool around. Never the less, homogenous populations do demonstrate a high degree consistency. Uncle Adolf was fond of blue eyed blonds, and this is indeed a recognizable trait of northern Europeans, especially Scandinavians. But every population has internal variations in the degree to which an allele is expressed. So it is easy to find a dark haired Scandinavian or even one that is a little more swarthy than most. But it would be extremely unlikely to find a 'pure' Scandinavian that is as black as someone from equatorial Africa.

Vitamin D deficiency manifests itself as rickets. Fair skin allows the body manufacture more vitamin D in the relatively weak sunlight in the north, but is not the only source of vitamin D. In the USA, vitamin D has been added to milk since the 1930's and rickets has almost entirely disappeared. In the modern world there is no reason for a dark skinned person to suffer vitamin D deficiency in northern climates.

4thSickle cell is a killer mutation, cant believe you even brought it up.

Sickle Cell Anemia is a killer disease if not treated with modern medicine. But Sickle Cell Anemia is ONLY possible when the individual has inherited the Sickle Cell Mutation from BOTH parents.

If only one of the parents carried the mutation, their children will have a measure of protection from malaria. This is an extremely valuable reproductive advantage since the child actually gets to reproduce instead of dying of malaria in childhood.

5thcancer another killer mutation...jeeze dude.

Cancer is a killer disease in the larger organism, true. The fact that the cancerous growth is not beneficial to the 'host' organism is not the point of the assertion.

Cancer is (generally) an acquired mutation (or perhaps an uncorrectable replication error) in a cell long after birth, so if only affects an individual or perhaps a few cells, not the entire DNA template of the body.

From the 'viewpoint' of that individual cell, it is an extremely valuable reproductive tool - Cancer is cell reproduction gone mad. Since evolutionary success is defined as reproductive success and cancerous cells have that strategy down pat, cancer is beneficial to reproduction of the affected cell and its descendants.

reply to post by rnaa

So you already knew the answer but you asked it anyway in anticipation of rejecting the answer. That is not civilized behavior, that is trolling behavior.

Of course I am familiar with my own objections to the mutations/selection idea. I’m also familiar with predictable angst that results when this extremely improbable process is scrutinized.

You asked for 25 useful mutations and asserted that we wouldn't find any. You clearly knew already that there are many thousands of beneficial mutations.

No, I do not know that. I am used to seeing the tepid examples you provided, though you did include some interesting additions.

How can anything be less trivial?

The replication enzymes are not trivial at all. But evolutionary theory has to ignore such things in order to make mutations look dynamic. They are obviously not. You won’t find a peer-reviewed paper that realistically appraises the sequence of mutations that would be necessary to produce something like a functioning eye. The odds against all the components and systems involved developing coincidentally as a result of random mutations are staggering.

Originally posted by txpiper
You won’t find a peer-reviewed paper that realistically appraises the sequence of mutations that would be necessary to produce something like a functioning eye. The odds against all the components and systems involved developing coincidentally as a result of random mutations are staggering.

Title: New perspectives on eye development and the evolution of eyes and photoreceptors
Author(s): Gehring, WJ
Source: JOURNAL OF HEREDITY Volume: 96 Issue: 3 Pages: 171-184 Published: 2005

Title: Evolution of eye development in arthropods: Phylogenetic aspects
Author(s): Harzsch, S; Hafner, G
Source: ARTHROPOD STRUCTURE & DEVELOPMENT Volume: 35 Issue: 4 Pages: 319-340 Published: 2006

Title: Evolution of eyes and photoreceptor cell types
Author(s): Arendt, D
Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY Volume: 47 Issue: 7-8 Special Issue: SI Pages: 563-571 Published: 2003

Title: Comparative analysis of gene expression for convergent evolution of camera eye between octopus and human
Author(s): Ogura, A; Ikeo, K; Gojobori, T
Source: GENOME RESEARCH Volume: 14 Issue: 8 Pages: 1555-1561 Published: AUG 2004

Title: The role of Pax genes in eye evolution
Author(s): Kozmik, Z
Source: BRAIN RESEARCH BULLETIN Volume: 75 Issue: 2-4 Pages: 335-339 Published: 2008

Title: Searching for the prototypic eye genetic network: Sine oculis is essential for eye regeneration in planarians
Author(s): Pineda, D; Gonzalez, J; Callaerts, P, et al.
Source: PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Volume: 97 Issue: 9 Pages: 4525-4529 Published: APR 25 2000

Title: Pax genes in eye development and evolution
Author(s): Kozmik, Z
Source: CURRENT OPINION IN GENETICS & DEVELOPMENT Volume: 15 Issue: 4 Pages: 430-438 Published: AUG 2005


etc.

Your conception of evolution is still wrong. Eyes haven't developed coincidentally as a result of random mutations.

Eyes have been tested, modified and then tested again repeatedly for a billion years (maybe a little less) some incredible number of times.



..I'm guessing thou that you've never read (most people haven't) a single article (peer-reviewed paper) from a scientific journal. But if you have, please name some journals that you've read.


[edit on 26-5-2010 by rhinoceros]

reply to post by rhinoceros


Title: New perspectives on eye development and the evolution of eyes and photoreceptors
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
No mention of mutations

Title: Evolution of eye development in arthropods: Phylogenetic aspects
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
No mention of mutations

Title: Evolution of eyes and photoreceptor cell types
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
No mention of mutations

Title: Comparative analysis of gene expression for convergent evolution of camera eye between octopus and human
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
No mention of mutations

Title: The role of Pax genes in eye evolution
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
No mention of mutations

Title: Searching for the prototypic eye genetic network: Sine oculis is essential for eye regeneration in planarians
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
No mention of mutations

Title: Pax genes in eye development and evolution
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
No mention of mutations

etc.
Rarely ever any mention of mutations

===

…Eyes haven't developed coincidentally as a result of random mutations.

I'm convinced of that.



[edit on 26-5-2010 by txpiper]

Originally posted by txpiper
Title: New perspectives on eye development and the evolution of eyes and photoreceptors
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
No mention of mutations

How does it feel to be a liar? The actual word mutation(s) is used 9 times in the article (btw abstract and article are different things in case you didn't know).

1, 2. Mutations affecting eye development are easily detectable and the eyeless (ey) mutation in Drosophila was discovered as early as 1915 by Hoge.

3. A similar mutation was found in mice and designated as Small eye because the heterozygous animals have reduced eyes, whereas the homozygous fetuses that die in utero lack not only the eyes but also the nose and a large part of the forebrain, including the pineal organ (Hill et al. 1991).

4. The fact that small eye, aniridia, and eyeless are mutations in homologous genes suggested to me that Pax6 might be a master control gene specifying eye development in both vertebrates and insects.

5. To test this hypothesis I decided to construct a Pax6 gain-of-function mutation to express Pax6 ectopically in an attempt to induce ectopic eye structures.

6. Because the first spontaneous ey mutants, ey2 and eyR are caused by transposon insertions (Quiring et al. 1994) they are not null mutations.

7. Therefore, we induced a true null mutation in ey by mutagenesis with ethylmethanesulfonate (Flister et al. unpublished data; Punzo et al. 2004).

8. However, this null mutation only removed the compound eyes in most flies and not the ocelli, suggesting the presence of a second gene with partially redundant function. Indeed, in collaboration with M. Busslinger we discovered a second Pax6 homolog in Drosophila (Czerny et al. 1999) which we designated twin of eyeless (toy).

9. Null mutations in toy have a much more severe phenotype (Flister et al. un- published data; Kronhamn et al. 2002), they are essentially headless, forming only the proboscis and the thorax but no antennae and head structures, except two spheres of eye facets found back in the thorax, which presumably reflect the residual activity of the eyþ gene, which is still present in these flies (Punzo et al. 2004).


I'm sure it's the same story with the other articles but I don't have the time (nor will) to read 'em.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by rhinoceros]

Isn't it amazing that the ones who have to lie to defend their position are typically Creationists who believe lying is a sin. They are so adamant about protecting their superstitious myths about Creation that they will risk their immortal souls and LIE about evolution

Apparently their faith does not permit God to use natural processes to bring about life and bio-diversity but limits God to magic.

Science is just studying the Universe and if someone believes God created the Universe that's fine but it doesn't mean suddenly evidence of the Big Bang or Evolution get thrown out in favor of fairy tale superstitions. We still have to follow the evidence in studying "God's" Universe...

I just wish Creationists would understand that. Rejecting the myths in your ancient book DOES NOT mean rejecting God outright, it merely means following the evidence... And if the evidence points to Evolution and only Evolution than evolution is EVIDENTLY true - if something is evidently true in God's Universe than rejecting said theory is only rejecting the truth of God's Universe...

reply to post by rhinoceros


Okay, let's back up since you've completely missed the point. What I said, and what you quoted me saying, was:

"You won’t find a peer-reviewed paper that realistically appraises the sequence of mutations that would be necessary to produce something like a functioning eye."

There was no need to search past the abstracts. If any of the papers dealt with that particular subject, it would have been apparent in the opening summary, if not the title. They were not about that. They were irrelevant.

However, you can undertake the task yourself if you think a rational accounting is possible. I'll read every word.

reply to post by txpiper

Hey liar. I really hate it when people bring accusations of logical fallacies into discussions, but more than that I can't stand it when people are moving the goalpost.

Title: A PESSIMISTIC ESTIMATE OF THE TIME REQUIRED FOR AN EYE TO EVOLVE
Author(s): NILSSON, DE; PELGER, S
Source: PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON SERIES B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES Volume: 256 Issue: 1345 Pages: 53-58 Published: APR 22 1994


quotes from discussion:

The development of a lens with a mathematically ideal distribution of refractive index may at first glance seem miraculous. Yet the elevation of refractive index in the lenses of both vertebrates and cephalopods is caused by proteins that are identical or similar to proteins with other cellular functions.


If we assume a generation time of one year, which is common for small and medium-sized aquatic animals, it would take less than 364000 years for a camera eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.


Because eyes cannot evolve on their own, our calculations do not say how long it actually took for eyes to evolve in the various animal groups.


[edit on 26-5-2010 by rhinoceros]

reply to post by Kandinsky


So what's your explanation for fossils? Let's forget about transitional fossils and micro evolution in insect populations, bacteria etc etc

Fossils are not easily created it requires rapid burial.

The flood of the Bible best explains this.

As for you next statement the smaller slower organisms will be on the bottom ........ because they are smaller and slower.

The larger organism would have continued to higher ground trying to escape the flood waters until they ran out of ground and perished.

The flying creatures would have lasted the longest and therefore would have been on top.

This also explains the great coal fields just about everywhere on the planet. Large mats of floating vegetation that sank and was buried.

Realize the waters were upon the face of the earth for over a year.

As for transitional fossils there is no such evidence.

Take a set of dead bones to court and tell the judge and jury that this set of bones when alive gave birth to a creature different then it self.

What proof do you have..........none........You can not prove that it even had any offspring.........Like structures does not prove evolution........ If something works you continue with the same idea, like round wheels on all vehicles.

Do not fool your self about those who do not adhere to evolution.
I was educated in public school so I know all to well the theory.

I just woke up one day and realized that it just does not work.

I educate my self all the time I buy school text books and they are always filled with the magical statements of

It could have, It is believed to, It is possible that,


Those are statements of a belief that is not science as defined as the study of the workings of the world and such.

reply to post by ACTS 2:38

The flood of the Bible best explains this.

No, it has been proven that the geology, particularly the stratification, is not and could not be caused by a Global Flood.

Let's also not forget that the idea of a loving God horrifically drowning every human being and lifeform on the planet is a moral conundrum and insult to the intelligence of every thinking human being. Just ask anyone who's been water-boarded how much fun it is to drown - yeah, but God loves us all so much

Here's a great two part series on debunking the Great Flood:

I was educated in public school so I know all to well the theory.

One of the primary reasons there are so many Creationists running about is because Evolution is taught very poorly in public schools. It is often only glanced over in the early education years and only in High School biology is anything substantial about it taught.

There is no theory or idea in biology that conflicts with Evolution.

There is no science that agrees with Magical Creation.

reply to post by rnaa


Wiki also has links to child porn if you like that to.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


No theory should be taught in public school you fool. Evolution is the only subject that is taught as fact and theory, which if you know anything about science you would be hard against.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


No theory should be taught in public school you fool. Evolution is the only subject that is taught as fact and theory, which if you know anything about science you would be hard against.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Titen you are the subject matter when "God" said the fool hath saith in his heart, there is no God. Evolution has been debunked and you just keep coming back with bs just like a global warmist on a hot day........give it up!
Quit posting your lie is junk.

reply to post by Loken68


You clearly have no idea what a scientific THEORY means. A scientific theory is made up of facts.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d851ab31c9ed.jpg[/atsimg]

Creationists exploit the academic meaning of theory as though it were only blind speculation like their own position is. But a scientific theory isn’t a ‘guess’ or ‘conjecture’. Look it up. In most instances, a Theory is a field of academic study.

A scientific theory is not the same as a layman's theory, for instance GERM Theory of disease is taught in schools and we know that germs cause disease. We used to think that demons caused illness but I don't here many arguments in favor of that conclusion - while I see a great deal of people arguing that Evolution, which is proven just as well if not BETTER than Germ theory, should be replaced by magical Creation.

If Creationism were taught side by side with Evolution in schools it would easy for children to see the truth about the mountains of evidence in support of evolution and the complete and utter lack of evidence for Creation. Teaching the controversy, in other words, would only prove that there isn't a controversy, just a bunch of people clinging to bronze age superstition in favor of actual evidence and hard science.

We can’t discard any theory just because we haven’t perfected every part of it yet. You can’t trade something that works for nothing that doesn’t. If the original theory works at all, you’ll still have to use it, and perhaps fix it. But we can’t dismiss it until we can replace it with something better. And Darwin’s theory is actually better-supported than Newton’s theory of gravity.

Source for both Excerpts




[edit on 26-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Loken68

 

You clearly have no idea what a scientific THEORY means. A scientific theory is made up of facts.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d851ab31c9ed.jpg[/atsimg]

A scientific theory is not the same as a layman's theory, for instance GERM Theory of disease is taught in schools and we know that germs cause disease. We used to think that demons caused illness but I don't here many arguments in favor of that conclusion - while I see a great deal of people arguing that Evolution, which is proven just as well if not BETTER than Germ theory, should be replaced by magical Creation.

If Creationism were taught side by side with Evolution in schools it would easy for children to see the truth about the mountains of evidence in support of evolution and the complete and utter lack of evidence for Creation. Teaching the controversy, in other words, would only prove that there isn't a controversy, just a bunch of people clinging to bronze age superstition in favor of actual evidence and hard science.

Moderator please follow ats rules and remove this Titens post since clearly he is copying and pasting someone elses research without their permission. And it's clear that instead of doing his own research he would rather steal from others. No sources. 15% rule not followed. Thank you

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Loken68]

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Loken68]

reply to post by Loken68


I posted a source in an edit.

Your position has been so decimated that you are actually calling out for censorship to keep the truth out of this debate

And so there can be no question as to where I got the image:



The transcript link I posted above is merely a transcript of that video from which I screenshotted the image in the above post.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Loken68

 

I posted a source in an edit.

You're position has been so decimated that you are actually calling out for censorship to keep the truth out of this debate

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

Yes because none of the research is your own. 10% rule has not been followed. Just like the science you would wash the numbers.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Loken68]

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Mod I call into question this cats full post in this thread from start to finish. I would like to know if he has followed rules of decorum from front to back of this thread.

Edit add: I would also like to have all his post checked, involving evolution and creationism. I firmly believe he has violated several rules and standards of ATS. If not let me know and I will resign my membership.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Loken68]