Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!

reply to post by chr0naut

A genome sequence (for a human being) costs about $1000.00 US and takes less than a week.

That is because the human genome has already been sequenced, an effort that took years and millions of dollars. However, I see that the yeast genome has also been sequenced, so perhaps the experimenters should have sequenced their yeasts and compared the sequences, just to make you and other creationists happy. Somehow, I don't think you're their main target audience, though.

Your excursion into probability theory fails to take into account the fact that deleterious mutations are removed from a gene pool, while those that increase selective fitness are preserved. In other words, it fails to take natural selection into account.

Your argument about environments turning genes on? That's exactly what the experiment was aiming at.

*

reply to post by chr0naut

How many 'generations' does it take for humans to 'evolve' from blue-eyed to brown-eyed?

Usually, it takes just one: two brown-eyed parents have a blue-eyed child.

Changing colour is not a particularly hard trick, especially when birds are eating moths of the wrong colour off the trees.

Here's some interesting reading for you on the subject of how fast evolution can work: 'Instant' evolution seen in Darwin's Finches.

Next!

reply to post by Astyanax


The article you linked to specifically mentions that the change in Finch species was too fast, calling it "instant".

Even if we just look at things from a natural selection only viewpoint, you will see that the drought placed the Large Ground Finch under higher selection pressure (they died off in higher numbers) than the Medium Ground Finch, yet it is the Medium Ground Finch which is noted as having changed.

This is yet another example of evolutionists seeing change and saying it proves their theory but the actual mechanics of the process is contrary to it.

Change does not necessarily equal evolution. There can be other reasons that fall outside of the processes required for evolution.

reply to post by Confusion42

ah, a study that does nothing to debunk the mutation rates i gave.

first problem: the study deals with hermaphrodites. from the article:

Mating systems dictate the way in which mutations are partitioned among offspring and therefore can have a profound influence on mutation accumulation from generation to generation. Organisms that reproduce through self-fertilization are thought to be at a lower risk of accumulating mutations as compared to outcrossing or asexual organisms because selfing promotes the expression of recessive alleles, which in turn makes these alleles more visible to natural selection, allowing them to become “purged” from the population

so they picked an organism that already has a lessened risk of accumulating deleterious mutations. what's more is that this only applies to self-fertilizing organisms.

Given the deleterious effects of most mutations, we would predict that increasing the mutation rate should generate progressively larger reductions in fitness, assuming that the mutations accumulate in the genome and that the effects of the mutations are additive or act synergistically [8]. This prediction is generally upheld by most studies that have examined the fitness effects of elevated mutation rates [2], [14], [18]–[20]. However, if selfing facilitates efficient purging, then selfing organisms may be capable of absorbing increased mutation rates with few fitness consequences.

and then there is this lovely part of the article:

As evidenced by the loss of fitness at all EMS concentrations, we see that purging in obligate selfing C. elegans populations is easily overwhelmed by elevated mutation rates (Figure 3). In fact, even marginal increases in mutation rate are capable of overwhelming purging in obligate selfing populations under strong selection against mutation accumulation [14]. Therefore, the efficacy of purging as a mechanism for preventing mutation accumulation may be quite limited, particularly when dealing with mutations of small to moderate effect size at multiple loci.

www.plosone.org...:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0014473
your article does nothing to debunk the evidence i presented.

Hal Lindsey Report

There Is Absolutely No Proof, or Evidence Supporting Evolution

reply to post by BBalazs

Consider the facts. (*Link* ^^^ "Hal Lindsey Report") Darwin was a delusional man, who had a delusional train of thought. The very fact that evolution was ever taught anywhere, is proof that people will believe ANYTHING without even researching the topic for themselves. The so called, "evidence", that people use as back up, being the fossils, are roughly only forty percent there. Scientists, deliberately finished up their skeletal remains with human attributes to fool the dumb minded, and easily brain washed. These so called "past relatives of Homo sapiens, or Humans", are in fact the fossils of the ancestors of the four classes of Big Foot spread through out the world, (which do still roam the Earth today, in the thick forests where man could never survive, and haven't even explored, except from the air) not the ancestors of Humans, or Homo sapiens. What they don't tell you, is that every living creature, both plant, and animal, are around 98% made up with the same genetic code, because all life, both plant, and animal, were created from the same materials. There is no evidence supporting this bogus IDEA, out of the mind of a truly bogus man, a.k.a., Darwin. Riddle me this Batman, why are there countless amounts of individual species? Why are there still different types of mammals, amphibians, etc.? The simple, and dumb minded thought that we all came from a single organism is beyond redundant, and absolutely delusional. If this IDEA was factual, then there would be ONE species. Evolution explains NOTHING, and SOMETHING cannot come from NOTHING, in which the very thought of NOTHING is SOMETHING, created by reason. Therefore, NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Like wow man....really? Wow....like hey...wow...


So, you had to give us the def on the word fact because you say it's fact cuz baby it's a beautiful thing... (?)
I'm soooooo sorry to say this but you gave us no facts...

In fact...I have this nawing feeling that after reviewing your thought process on that one you probably wish you would have left that 2nd drink alone. Your facts leave something to be desired in the fact finding mission.

Originally posted by TheBeatMasta
These so called "past relatives of Homo sapiens, or Humans", are in fact the fossils of the ancestors of the four classes of Big Foot spread through out the world, (which do still roam the Earth today, in the thick forests where man could never survive, and haven't even explored, except from the air) not the ancestors of Humans, or Homo sapiens.

What they don't tell you, is that every living creature, both plant, and animal, are around 98% made up with the same genetic code, because all life, both plant, and animal, were created from the same materials.

Genetic code refers to a translation table from codons to amino acids (see e.g. my thread). What's this bull# about 98% "same"? First plant genome sequenced (A. thaliana) was about 157,000,000 bp in size. The largest plant genome known is about 150,000,000,000 bp in size. Yeast genome is about 6,000,000 bp in size. Human genome is about 3,000,000,000 bp in size. Tell me how these are 98% the same.

Riddle me this Batman, why are there countless amounts of individual species? Why are there still different types of mammals, amphibians, etc.?

Because there exists a massive amount of different niches.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Genetic code refers to a translation table from codons to amino acids (see e.g. my thread). What's this bull# about 98% "same"? First plant genome sequenced (A. thaliana) was about 157,000,000 bp in size. The largest plant genome known is about 150,000,000,000 bp in size. Yeast genome is about 6,000,000 bp in size. Human genome is about 3,000,000,000 bp in size. Tell me how these are 98% the same.

The 98%, which is a miss interpretation from an old article, and is more in the order of 91-93%, is based on amino acid similarity of CDS.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

Sorry Bob...but EVOLUTION can be PROVEN with a $75 Microscope...some Bacteria you grow in sugar water...a little bit of Bleach in Water Solution...and about an HOUR of time. All one has to do is read up on how to perform the experiment from a Biology Book and have a Control Group and after placing some Bacteria on a slide and applying Bleach in Aqueous Solution...then taking those surviving bacteria...allow them to reproduce by Mitosis by feeding them....then take the now new grown Bacteria slide and repeat the procedure...several times and each time you will get a greater number of Bacteria that have a resistance to watered down bleach.

THIS IS EVOLUTION and it is UNDENIABLE. The people and experiments and papers they have written are all BULL. A KID can run this experiment and prove EVOLUTION. To say it is not a fact is ignoring reality!

Split Infinity

reply to post by BBalazs


The only fact there is, is this moment of presence.
Everything else is fiction (a story about what may or may not have happened).

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by BBalazs

 

The only fact there is, is this moment of presence.
Everything else is fiction (a story about what may or may not have happened).

Yeah it's all just made up, unlike the bible, which is 100% dead on accurate. We know because it says so. Evolution isn't backed by dozens of repeatable experiments or anything. It's just a story.