Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

Originally posted by ravenshadow13

Originally posted by BELIEVERpriest
it wouldnt suprise me if humans shared genes with apes. But it doesnt mean we have common ancestry, just that we are made from the same lump of clay.

I don't think that you understand genetics. Genes and inheritance go hand and hand, regardless of whether you believe in evolution.

Here's a good website:

rarediseasesnetwkork.epi.usf.edu...

Right. And, genes and molecular structures go hand in hand to. And what is our dna made of? The same elements of the earth. We share the Rh factor with apes, dolphins and algea. Does that mean we are directly related to algae too?

reply to post by yourmaker

Seriously the god theory is dead, it doesn't work and it never will. doesn't it seem blatantly obvious that we evolved in some form or another over the billions of years this planet has existed rather then simply placed by a god?

What is... um, blatantly obvious is that as a species, we're not as smart as we like to think we are. Science is a book that changes by the decade... and in a century, what today we hold to so firmly and with such confidence, may well be the stuff of guffaws.

One step on... the God theory was never a theory. It is an act of faith in something unseen and unproven... which means that it doesn't compete on the same ever-changing ground science does.

In the end... it is, as it always has been and always will be, a personal choice for the individual, regardless of the smartassery and insults hurled from the lunatic asylums in both extremes.

We either accept that we are all different and each have our own rights... and the abilities to make our own judgments or we set ourselves up for judgement someday in some ungodly and unscientific inquisition.

reply to post by BELIEVERpriest


Good question! That's a good example of convergent evolution, that's why.

www.zo.utexas.edu...

www.pbs.org...

Convergent Evolution:



In the frigid waters of the ocean surrounding Antarctica, fish have a special trait which allows them to survive the big chill. As scientists discovered in the 1960s, the fish have adapted by evolving a kind of antifreeze. It's composed of molecules called glycoproteins that circulate in the blood of the fishes, slightly lowering the temperature at which their body fluids would otherwise freeze and kill them. The glycoproteins surround tiny ice crystals and keep them from growing.

It's another of those ingenious evolutionary solutions that seem almost too clever to be true. But consider this: Nature did it not once, but at least twice. Fish at the other end of Earth, in the Arctic, also have antifreeze proteins. But those two populations of fish split long before they developed the antifreeze genes and proteins. And, researchers have found, the genes that produce the antifreeze proteins, north and south, are quite different. This is evidence that quite separate, independent episodes of molecular evolution occurred, with the same functional results.

This is a dramatic example of convergent evolution, when organisms that aren't closely related evolve similar traits as they both adapt to similar environments. There are a finite number of effective solutions to some challenges, and some of them emerge independently again and again.

Convergent evolution is responsible for the wings of the bat, the bird, and the pterodactyl. In each case, the forelimbs of these vertebrates morphed over time into wings, but they did so independently. Other examples are the different sorts of anteaters, found in Australia, Africa, and America. Though not closely related, they all evolved the "tools" necessary to subsist on an ant diet: a long, sticky tongue, few teeth, a rugged stomach, and large salivary glands. In each case, evolutionary adaptations allow them to exploit a food niche of ants and termites, but the developments occurred independently.

Sometimes one species will randomly have some strange trait, not seen in closely-related groups, because of convergent evolution. This is really interesting in venom systems, for example. That's actually a really good example for the Rh question.

www.nature.com...

The finding, from an analysis of the genes encoding the dangerous mixture, also reveals the striking similarities between the poisons of different animals. The genes resemble those of other venomous animals, such as snakes, lizards, starfish and sea anemones.

So, it's complex, and I'd love to chat with you about it. This is why you can't look at a single trait to determine phylogeny. Each distinctive trait is called a synapomorphy, and basically when you determine evolutionary relationships you find the shortest path... it's like a game... it's called parsimony. You find the way that takes the least amount of "effort," of traits to pop up in the system.

Here's a link on how evolutionary relationships are determined

reply to post by BELIEVERpriest


We aren't "directly related to apes" in the first place. That's another creationist misquote. We share a common ancestor with them, but we aren't directly related to them.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Speak for yourself pal

reply to post by Zaphod58





Here's a graphic to illustrate.

reply to post by boymonkey74


No, he's right. See link to image above.

Edit - well I guess it depends what you mean by "related," but extant apes aren't our closest related species.

Originally posted by BELIEVERpriest
Does that mean we are directly related to algae too?

Every living organism in this planet shares a common ancestor, so yes, you're related to algae too. Of course the common ancestor of you and algae lived a quite long time before the common ancestor of you and some chimp..

reply to post by ravenshadow13


I know its a little joke, Iam half boy and a bit monkey

Some more of our primate cousins here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by rhinoceros


But that doesn't explain the presence of a certain genetic trait that the poster was interested in--it's kind of aside the point. I've explained what he was asking about in my convergent evolution post, above.

reply to post by boymonkey74


Haha, sorry! I can't joke right now, I'm trying to teach science on an internet forum of conspiracy theorists...

reply to post by Zaphod58


Indeed. We share more genetic information with the common chicken than we do with any monkey on Earth.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Oh Lucy, we have a problem here:

Such a transition is a fete of genetic rewiring and it is astonishing that it is presumed to have occurred by Darwinian processes in such a short span of time. This problem is accentuated when one considers that the majority of anatomical novelties unique to aquatic cetaceans (Pelagiceti) appeared during just a few million years – probably within 1-3 million years.

The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years (according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper), that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility.

Whales require an intra-abdominal counter current heat exchange system (the testis are inside the body right next to the muscles that generate heat during swimming), they need to possess a ball vertebra because the tail has to move up and down instead of side-to-side, they require a re-organisation of kidney tissue to facilitate the intake of salt water, they require a re-orientation of the fetus for giving birth under water, they require a modification of the mammary glands for the nursing of young under water, the forelimbs have to be transformed into flippers, the hindlimbs need to be substantially reduced, they require a special lung surfactant (the lung has to re-expand very rapidly upon coming up to the surface), etc etc.

With this new fossil find, however, dating to 49 million years ago (bear in mind that Pakicetus lived around 53 million years ago), this means that the first fully aquatic whales now date to around the time when walking whales (Ambulocetus) first appear. This substantially reduces the window of time in which the Darwinian mechanism has to accomplish truly radical engineering innovations and genetic rewiring to perhaps just five million years — or perhaps even less. It also suggests that this fully aquatic whale existed before its previously-thought-to-be semi-aquatic archaeocetid ancestors.

SOURCE

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Could I have a primary source for that, please?

Even though the OP is evidently completely clueless regarding mulecular genetics and evolution in general, he made me think about the fact that modern science, upto this day, has failed to provide a sound theory on how the first complex amino acids were able to form the first living cell.

I'll give him that.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

Indeed. We share more genetic information with the common chicken than we do with any monkey on Earth.

Chicken is about 60% so you are wrong!!!!

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

Taxonomy is actually quite complicated, if you don't understand it.

Even extant birds *should* be classified as reptiles. See: Interordinal relationships of birds and other reptiles based on whole mitochondrial genomes.

edit on 8/13/2013 by ravenshadow13 because: (no reason given)

Well experts say the Xui bird is older.

Interesting in this article they say,

even T. rex had a wishbone

What??? Big bad T. rex Dinos with wishbones? That should be the number one highlighted fact whenever skeletons are displayed, Sadly I bet most people never heard of it. Way to suppress the obvious, scientific community.

Source

My guess is they all tasted like chicken and fights over the wishbone would have been epic if they survived to our day. Oh wait they did...we still got chickens, turkeys etc.

The Great Deception is that "Mankind" or "An Alien Seed" is the end all, be all truth - The largest portion of human minds stop there, their minds weak and young. Electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity and everything "observed" in quantum mechanics should be beyond a landslide of proof that "reality" is fabricated in such a way...Such a precise, intended way, that we should be falling to our knees in gratitude for living in the time of this understanding. Proof of God and his holy design is as clear as the keyboard I'm typing on and the in the water I'm drinking right now. The unfortunate use of ridicule and synergy words to mock believers in Christ and in God, the one, true Creator serve as additional proof that thousands of years ago, it was prophesied to happen exactly like it is happening.

Reign down, Father...It's so overdue by our humble calculation. Let your Kingdom come.

Originally posted by LuckyLucian
Is this supposed to somehow show evolution is wrong? A couple hoaxes, a scientist that came to incorrect conclusions from over a century ago, a bunch of mistakes, a biased article by someone that apparently doesn't understand the mountains of evidence regarding Neanderthals, or that Neanderthals were a contemporaneous species and not a "missing link" but are more concerned with some huckster, the more than 200 years of study of the peppered moth that has, in fact, stood up to rigorous scrutiny, Dawkins being a proponent of the possibility of panspermia?

Sorry, no. What you've just gone on and on about would be akin to someone "proving" Christianity false by pointing to Jim Bakker, Ted Haggard, the Salamander Letter or Kinderhook Plates. There is an astounding amount of evidence for evolution and more is found almost daily. Enough to actually fill entire museums the world over. Unlike creationism, evolution stands up to the scientific process.

Of the hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence, points of data, studies, observations, predictions, fossils, DNA studies, etc., you've pointed to a handful of frauds that constitute far less than 0.0001% of the evidence. Creationism continues to try to fall back to a safer position but it's increasingly relegating itself to a "god of the gaps" theology. These are its death throes. Its final last spasm of fight before total irrelevance.

In case you missed the news, there is NO evidence of evolution what-so-ever. Any and all examples force fed the gullible masses have been proven to be out right lies and hoaxes. Evolution does not stand up to the scientific process since there is no confirmed, verified facts to base any conclusions on.

There is evolution within a species, but not between species. I believe we call that adaptation. Ape is not the same specie as human. Feline is not the same specie as canine, etc etc... A couple of lies and hoaxes? No, ALL lies and hoaxes have been the norm for the last couple hundred years of evolutionary theory....sorry bro...

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Excellent. A discussion.

1) Step 1 - always look at your source. It's an intelligent design website, not a primary source. There are enough peer-reviewed journals that if this had been a legitimate study critiquing pre-existing timescale estimates, it could have been published in a primary source. But it wasn't. Probably because it couldn't get through the peer-review process. You have a biased source. Scientific journals aren't biased. If the hypothesis leads to a test that doesn't support the hypothesis, it's published "oh well, this doesn't seem to be true."

2) Really, any estimates about gene mutation and timescale are generally a ballpark estimate to begin with. Any attempt to link gene turnover rates to morphological expression is ridiculous. This probably requires an ecological evolutionary development (you may have heard of this field as eco evo devo, or evo/devo) course to understand. I've taken one. You probably don't trust me.

3) But basically you can't hop from an estimate about how much a gene sequence is changing to an estimate of how much morphology will change. Environmental pressures will totally skew those estimates for you. This talks a lot about how *hard* it would be for this aquatic transition to take place. But it doesn't really mention...

4) Increased food resource availability and a lack of predators specialized to feed on a newly-aquatic taxon. There's tons of food, and sharks aren't used to eating you yet. There might not even be sharks near where you are.

5) Dealing with kidney tissue and salinity, the general foundation for filtration shifts are already in place. Also, other aquatic non-marine mammals nurse under water, ex. seals, so a mutation to facilitate feeding wouldn't be too hard to get. etc., etc., and individuals capable of these things would do quite well from the get-go due to point 4.

But points 2/3 are the major ones. Those aren't interchangeable estimates.

Questions? Comments? Concerns?