Questions about Evolution

[lucaspa]

There is no extant professional physicist who ascribes to LET.

 

But not because they used "simplicity" to decide it was wrong.

 

Of course its falsifiable. Particle accelerators did not exist back then. Anything that would falsify special relativity would simultaneously falsify LET, as special relativity and LET are indistinguishable with regard to predicted behavior.

 

Please read what I wrote. LET contains an unfalsifiable statement -- according to the source you provided. Now it appears that you are arguing against your own source! Let me remind you: "However, in LET the existence of an undetectable ether is assumed and the validity of the relativity principle seems to be only coincidental, which is one reason why SR is commonly preferred over LET." As I read this, anything that would falsify SR would NOT falsify LET, because the "undetectable ether" cannot be falsified. If the data eliminated SR, all it would do would eliminate the "coincidence", not the aether.

 

On what grounds? It conforms with observation, including the failure to observe any variation in the speed of light.

 

In order to be valid, ad hoc hypotheses must testable independently of the hypothesis it is meant to save. That is, the ad hoc hypothesis must have effects other than countering the falsification. The contraction has the sole effect of countering the falsification of the Michelson-Morely experiments. There is no other effect of the contraction.

 

Notice that there are many independent tests of the hypothesis. Particle accelerators did not exist in Lorentz' time. All that is needed is one relativistic collision that contradicts the predictions of the Lorentz contraction.

 

How would a relativistic collision be able to counter the predictions of the contraction, since the contraction relates only to contraction in the direction of motion into the aether?

 

Strawman. I never said that, and you know it. I said that physicists use Occam's Razor in part to evaluate competing hypotheses that do an equal job of explaining observations.

 

You said: "Physicists first and foremost demand that a theory agree with observations."

 

Then you said "Physicists use simplicity when two different theories yield identical predictions"

 

Now, I disagree that physicists either do this or should do this. Let's look at some examples:

 

1. String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity. Both end up making the same predictions: the universe we see. String Theory involves more entities (11 dimensions as opposed to the 4 of LQG), but do physicists discard String Theory in favor of LQG because of that? No.

 

2. Accounting for the order of this universe. There are several hypotheses out there for the cause that the universe has this particular order instead of some other order. Some of the hypotheses include bubble universe, quantum splitting, various forms of multiverse, and deity created. They all predict the same observations: the universe we see. Now, of these, deity created has the fewest entities by far. Nor can you say "we don't have evidence for deity" because we don't have evidence for bubble universes, quantum splitting, or multiverse, either. Also, none of the hypotheses explain anything, since they make no novel predictive features. Yet I don't see physicists adhering to the deity created hypothesis based on simplicity. Nor should they. Evaluation of hypotheses for accuracy should only be done on the data.

 

"God", in the context of this thread, is any agent or set of agents that acts outside of natural law. Examples include the pantheon of Hindu gods, the flying spaghetti monster (see this CNN article).

 

A rose by any other name ... However, you have your own strawman here. Most theologies, including Christianity, state that deity sustains natural law. Yes, deity can act outsise natural law, but it is not constrained to only act outside what we call "natural law". Christian theology is that "natural laws" are just as much Yahweh acting as miracles (see below).

 

What you did, however, was duck the issue that, for the specific case I gave, "God is the cause of the Big Bang" is simpler than any other hypothesis for the cause of the Big Bang. ALL the proposed causes are a "scientific dead end" because each of them is outside of "natural law" and each has no cause. Yet physicists don't choose the "simplest" and declare it correct, do they?

 

Science is the study of natural law, including determining the very nature of these natural laws, ascribing behaviors to these natural laws, and predicting outcomes based on these natural laws. By definition, gods act outside of these natural laws. As such, attributing god as the cause of some event is a scientific dead end.

 

Being a dead end is not the same as being wrong. Quantum fluctuation or No Boundary for the cause of the BB are "scientific dead ends". There's nowhere else to go. So that can't be a reason to discard hypotheses either.

 

We have a separate problem, DH, is that in studying "natural law", we don't know if we are actually studying how deity acts:

 

"A Law of Nature then is the rule and Law, according to which God resolved that certain Motions should always, that is, in all Cases be performed. Every Law does immediately depend upon the Will of God." Gravesande, Mathematical Elements of Natural Philosophy, I, 2-3, 1726, quoted in CC Gillespie, Genesis and Geology, 1959.

 

"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this -- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws" Whewell: Bridgewater Treatise.

 

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

 

The two above quotes are in the Fontispiece of Origin of Species. Now, those are belief statements, but they are statements that science is incapable of showing to be wrong.

 

In the context of this thread ("questions about evolution"), the god in question is most likely the god of fundamental Christianity. This group of people adamantly believe in some very ascientific notions and have worked very hard to foist those beliefs on others (e.g., cdesign propentism).

 

The deity for Fundamentalism is a literal Bible, not Yahweh. In terms of evolution, creationism postulates direct manufacture by deity of some entities. This is no longer "God did it" but a specific mechanism of how "God did it". We can test the mechanism and show it is false. However, we can't say that evolution is "God didn't do it", either.

 

Mr Popper got it wrong twice....

 

Popper did get it wrong ... as Popper himself admitted later. Popper, thru his own poor understanding of evolution, thought evolution by natural selection could explain any data. That there was no data that could falsify it. The example of the bacteria on Mars indeed would not falsify evolution, but there is data that would -- if we found it.

 

In terms of natural selection, Darwin set out several pieces of data that, if found, would falsify the theory. Here is one:

 

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." Origin, pg 501.

 

In mutualism, the trait that helps the other species also helps the species with the trait. However, navel oranges have the trait of fruit without seeds. That trait is for the exclusive benefit of humans and, indeed, navel oranges were not produced through natural selection.

[Mr Skeptic]

In terms of natural selection, Darwin set out several pieces of data that, if found, would falsify the theory. Here is one:

 

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." Origin, pg 501.

 

In mutualism, the trait that helps the other species also helps the species with the trait. However, navel oranges have the trait of fruit without seeds. That trait is for the exclusive benefit of humans and, indeed, navel oranges were not produced through natural selection.

 

Yet the seedless oranges are more successful as a human cultivar than wild oranges. Their success is directly linked to being seedless. Hence, the seedless trait is actually benefitial to them. After all, artificial selection is just natural selection in an artificial environment.

[iNow]

Yet the seedless oranges are more successful as a human cultivar than wild oranges. Their success is directly linked to being seedless. Hence, the seedless trait is actually benefitial to them. After all, artificial selection is just natural selection in an artificial environment.

 

I don't follow. They are artificially selected in a natural environment.

 

More to the point, they could not survive without humans to help them... Like bulldogs with head's too big to fit through the birth canal and can only be born by c-section.

 

The beneficiality of the seedless trait to the oranges is only applicable when human cultivation/intervention is present. If humans die, so do the oranges, hence, not very beneficial at all in the long run. It's acutely beneficial, but highly contigent on other helpful factors (like cheap labor from immigrants).

[stand2reason]

I've been butting heads for a year or two on boards with hardcore creationists trying to convince me that information can only be reduced and not added (despite the six-fingered species of humans). Is this the same argument that is typically made about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? If not, what is the typical rebuttal to this question?

 

Also, I would like to read information about the evolution of the precursors to the first single-celled organisms. Can someone direct me to good sources of this type of information?

 

The 2nd law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with information complexity. Also, if someone doesn't believe that populations can evolve under selective pressure, then I'd like them to explain antibiotic-resistance bacteria.

[dichotomy]

In order to be a lifeform, an entity must be able to exist independently. Calling cancer a "lifeform" is like calling skin a "lifeform".

 

And what lifeform can exist independantly? Nothing that I can think of. We all depend on an environment of some sort that agrees with us.

 

 

Maybe some evidence that cancer may be a living organism, a parasite? Or, perhaps an organism in the process of becoming 'independently' alive.

 

“Scientists from The Institute of Advanced Studies at Princeton and the University of California discovered that the underlying process in tumor formation is the same as for life itself—evolution.”

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080801094300.htm

[lucaspa]

And what lifeform can exist independantly? Nothing that I can think of. We all depend on an environment of some sort that agrees with us.

 

 

Maybe some evidence that cancer may be a living organism, a parasite? Or, perhaps an organism in the process of becoming 'independently' alive.

 

Moved the goalposts. When I am talking "independent", I mean able to live without being part of a larger organism. You now try to change "independent" to mean "without anything else". Not valid.

 

When the animal with the cancer dies, the cancer dies. Cancer is not a parasite or independent organism: it is aberrant growth of cells in a multicellular organism. It can only be kept alive outside the individual having the cancer by careful tending by a scientists. Shoot, cancer isn't even infectious! You can't "catch" cancer like you can a cold. A cancer cell in my body could not live in yours. So even obligate parasites like viruses or some microbes are "independent" in terms that cancer is not.

 

“Scientists from The Institute of Advanced Studies at Princeton and the University of California discovered that the underlying process in tumor formation is the same as for life itself—evolution.”

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080801094300.htm

 

Nice try, but it doesn't work. What the article is saying is what people in the cancer field have been talking about for 5 years or more: cancer cells are natural selection in action. In order to be "cancerous", a cell (and its descendents) must have mutations that 1) remove growth control, 2) allow it to evade the immune system, 3) allow it to recruit blood vessels. Having all these capabilities is why cancer is relatively rare: few cells make it thru the entire process without being eliminated by the environment.

 

This doesn't make cancers a separate life form; it just means that natural selection does operate on them.

 

Yet the seedless oranges are more successful as a human cultivar than wild oranges. Their success is directly linked to being seedless. Hence, the seedless trait is actually benefitial to them. After all, artificial selection is just natural selection in an artificial environment.

 

None of what you said changes the fact that seedless oranges were not produced by natural selection.

 

I appreciate you trying to find another way that seedless oranges do not falsify natural selection: being seedless benefits the trees because humans cultivate more of them than other (seed) oranges.

 

However, it is not right to try to change the meaning of the term "artificial selection" or make artifical selection = natural selection. The processes are similar but not identical. Artificial selection is when humans do the selecting instead of the environment, not "natural selection in an artificial environment". Read Origin of Species and how Darwin described artificial selection. In fact, Darwin used "natural selection" to distinguish what happens in nature from what animal and plant breeders were doing. Yes, "selection" happens in both, but the important part is who or what is doing the selecting.

Edited August 19, 2008 by lucaspa
multiple post merged

[pioneer]

Here is an interesting observation about evolution and natural selection. One animal, that humans have been breeding for a long time, are horses. One area where more money is spent per house, in terms of breeding and selection, are race horses. There is a lot of money and prestige in this. This breeding and selection places the horses sort of in an ideal environment where evolution and selection is based on running and speed.

 

One observation I noticed are triple crown champion caliber horses rarely, if ever, seem to breed offspring of the same caliber. The following year a different champ pops up from another stable. They sometimes even they pop up from low budget stables. It does not quite follow ideal Darwin even though we are stacking the deck. The result the breeders are looking for has an objective measure, i.e., running speed, using standard distances and a circuit of tracks. If their goal was subjective, like fancy tails, we could interpret the breeding results to make it appear like the process is working better. But based on an objective criteria, without uncertainty, i.e., called a fixed horse race, it doesn't work as well.

 

The question is, is this due to artificial or unnatural selection? And if so, what theory are they using to make this artificial selection?

[iNow]

Pioneer - Do you understand that artificial selection and natural selection are two different things?

[john5746]

One observation I noticed are triple crown champion caliber horses rarely, if ever, seem to breed offspring of the same caliber. The following year a different champ pops up from another stable. They sometimes even they pop up from low budget stables. It does not quite follow ideal Darwin even though we are stacking the deck. The result the breeders are looking for has an objective measure, i.e., running speed, using standard distances and a circuit of tracks. If their goal was subjective, like fancy tails, we could interpret the breeding results to make it appear like the process is working better. But based on an objective criteria, without uncertainty, i.e., called a fixed horse race, it doesn't work as well.

 

The question is, is this due to artificial or unnatural selection? And if so, what theory are they using to make this artificial selection?

 

1) I hope you have noticed that the same parents can have very different children with different characteristics.

 

2) You are comparing the winning horse to the rest of the population of race horses - it might be more probable that a triple crown winner will sire great race horses than any other SPECIFIC horse, but not the whole population of race horses. You also are looking at winners - a better measure would be average time for all offspring.

 

3) If the owners are selecting only on race time, then they may miss other criteria that might make a worse horse - the triple crown winner may have a genetic problem that he was lucky to avoid, but is brought out when sired with the mare winner. A winning horse requires far more attributes than fast legs - any one of these attributes may not make it into the offspring. Nurture and luck also play a role.

 

4) Over time, we would expect horses bred for racing to be better at racing than horses bred for plowing. That does not mean that the best race horse will always produce the next champion - it just means the next champion is far more likely to come from the race horse population than the plow horse population.

[pioneer]

I agree that race horse breeding will produce better race horses than plow horse breeding, but say we extrapolate this observation to a herd a deer. The triple crown winner of this years mating olympics may not sire the next triple crown winner. It could come from one of the deer who was knocked out in the preliminaries. A few years later, this buck offspring wins, but his offspring aren't champions either, etc. The winner may get the choice of females, but it doesn't guarantee anything after that.

 

Maybe the slow speed of evolution demonstrates that affect. In other words, in the ideal Darwin, maybe the speed of evolution should be faster if we work under assumption of a long lineage of triple crown families. But because this does not occur with any reliability, it shifts around causing the genes to evolve much slower than expect, more in line with the slow evolutionary pace. Instead of perfection, maybe nature choses diversity so all will evolve.

[Edtharan]

Actually Pioneer, what you are not considering is that each Animal has 2 copies of each Chromosome and that some traits require the trait to be one both copies of the chromosome. So if the Mare has the trait, and the Stallion does not, then the foal will not have it.

 

Because the traits that make a winner is not just down to 1 or two traits, and that the plethora of traits that make a winner might occur doe to completely different genotypes, then this means that there is no guarantee that any two horses will necessarily produce a better offspring.

[lucaspa]

The triple crown winner of this years mating olympics may not sire the next triple crown winner. It could come from one of the deer who was knocked out in the preliminaries. A few years later, this buck offspring wins, but his offspring aren't champions either, etc. The winner may get the choice of females, but it doesn't guarantee anything after that.

 

Pioneer, if you look at the pedigrees of race horses, Triple Crown winners today can trace their lineage back to previous winners. That is because the artificial selection has ensured that all race horses are descended from previous winners. So the foal may not be a winner, but it will be good enough to compete. Remember, evolution happens to populations, not individuals. What you need to do is compare the times in major races now to those of 100 years ago. And look at the mean times +/- the standard deviation. Look to see if the curve has shifted. As John noted, you want to see the average time for all race horses.

 

Maybe the slow speed of evolution demonstrates that affect.

 

1. Recent experiments in the wild have demonstrated that natural selection can work much faster than we see in the fossil record:

Evaluation of the rate of evolution in natural populations of guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Reznick, DN, Shaw, FH, Rodd, FH, and Shaw, RG. Science 275:1934-1937, 1997. The lay article is Predatory-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward, pg 1880.

 

This is an excellent study of natural selection at work. Guppies are preyed upon by species that specialize in eating either the small, young guppies, or older, mature guppies. Eleven years ago the research team moved guppies from pools below some waterfalls that contained both types of predators to pools above the falls where only the predators that ate the small, young guppies live. Thus the selection pressure was changed. Eleven years later the guppies above the falls were larger, matured earlier, and had fewer young than the ones below the falls. The group then used standard quantitative morphology to quantify the rate of evolution.

 

So we have a study in the wild, not the lab, of natural selection and its results. The rate of evolution was *very* fast. Evolution is measured in the unit "darwin", which is the proportional amount of change per unit time. The fish evolved at 3700 to 45,000 darwins, depending on the trait measured. In contrast, rates in the fossil record are typically 0.1 to 1.0 darwin. However, the paper cites a study of artificial selection in mice of 200,000 darwins.

 

2. So, why is the rate of evolution so "slow" in the fossil record? Two reasons:

a. Large populations

b. Purifying selection.

 

Remember, natural selection comes in 3 forms: directional, purifying (or stabilizing), and disruptive. We tend to think only in terms of directional selection. When a population is well-adapted to the environment, purifying selection will keep the population the same. No change.

 

Also, as populations get large, it takes more and more generations for a new trait to spread thru the population. That slows down evolution.

 

As Edtharan noted, most traits are polygenic (involve more than one gene) and most genes are pleiotrophic (involved in more than one trait). This makes reasoning based on simple Mendelian genetics misleading.

 

Also, as John noted, the artificial selection has been narrowly focussed only on speed. But since humans don't know all the traits it takes for a horse to run fast, some of the breeding will actually get traits that hurt speed. Look at the horse this year at the Kentucky Derby. Apparently the breeders didn't take into account changes in the strength of the bones. The horse could run fast, but the bones weren't really strong enough to bear the forces on them.

 

 

 

 

In other words, in the ideal Darwin, maybe the speed of evolution should be faster if we work under assumption of a long lineage of triple crown families. But because this does not occur with any reliability, it shifts around causing the genes to evolve much slower than expect, more in line with the slow evolutionary pace. Instead of perfection, maybe nature choses diversity so all will evolve.

[TrickyPeach]

I've been butting heads for a year or two on boards with hardcore creationists...

 

Butting heads... it is all you'll ever do, my opinion is (unless of course you find it fun) not to bother. You can't logically convince them using any argument, because they believe they are right - even in the presence of blindingly obvious proof.

[Knupfer]

I've been butting heads for a year or two on boards with hardcore creationists trying to convince me that information can only be reduced and not added (despite the six-fingered species of humans). Is this the same argument that is typically made about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? If not, what is the typical rebuttal to this question?

 

Also, I would like to read information about the evolution of the precursors to the first single-celled organisms. Can someone direct me to good sources of this type of information?

 

The only reason that anyone believes in evolution is because people are afraid to question anyone with letters after their names. All one has to understand is the simple birds and bees to know why animals can't breed human descendants. But since most evolutionists don't know the difference between animals and humans, then they're the last group of people to understand basic biology.

[foodchain]

The only reason that anyone believes in evolution is because people are afraid to question anyone with letters after their names. All one has to understand is the simple birds and bees to know why animals can't breed human descendants. But since most evolutionists don't know the difference between animals and humans, then they're the last group of people to understand basic biology.

 

 

I am probably the last person anyone would think to call on someone for trolling but I cant possibly understand what you mean?

 

If I could suggest one counter argument is that as you would have it evolution in terms of biological evolution has been studied by such a large variety of sciences with success for it to be nothing at least, and at most maybe just maybe the science of such actually does represent the reality, its just a thought.

[Knupfer]

I am probably the last person anyone would think to call on someone for trolling but I cant possibly understand what you mean?

 

If I could suggest one counter argument is that as you would have it evolution in terms of biological evolution has been studied by such a large variety of sciences with success for it to be nothing at least, and at most maybe just maybe the science of such actually does represent the reality, its just a thought.

 

Actually, scientists are coming out in droves disclaiming the theory. And again the only reason people buy into it is because they never question the methods of scientists. They simply buy anything scientists say, hook line, and sinker. But if people were capable of thinking for themselves they would understand why apes or monkeys don't breed elephants, lions, tigers, bears or humans as descendants any more than humans breed monkeys, goats, lions tigers or bears as descendants. It's as simple as the birds and the bees.

 

But unfortunately, people's faith is in the letters after the names of scientists so they blindly believe anything scientists say, then look just as foolish as scientists do when scientists once again say; "We now know that what we once thought was true is not true."

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate?

 

Apes and monkeys don't breed elephants, lions, tigers, bears, or humans as descendants, even under evolution. There is no lizard that spontaneously gave birth to a mammal. It's an incredibly gradual process, making the changes almost utterly unnoticeable unless you scale back and look over millions of years.

 

Really. You look foolish when you don't even understand what the scientists are saying.

[Knupfer]

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate?

 

Apes and monkeys don't breed elephants, lions, tigers, bears, or humans as descendants, even under evolution. There is no lizard that spontaneously gave birth to a mammal. It's an incredibly gradual process, making the changes almost utterly unnoticeable unless you scale back and look over millions of years.

 

Really. You look foolish when you don't even understand what the scientists are saying.

 

Do you know what a descendant is? A descendant is not just a first generation offspring. It includes offspring thousands of generations later as well. So sorry, but apes can't produce goats, lions, tigers, bears or humans as descendants whether over millions of years or 9 months! The reason is very simple; because apes don't carry the DNA of the above animals any more than they carry human DNA. So we could never be a descendant of an ape. That's so obvious that even a child can understand it. But not scientists. In fact, in a documentary I just saw, scientists were surprised that they haven't found one ounce of neanderthal DNA in humans. Well duh. That's because only scientists don't understand the birds and the bees.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Do you know what a descendant is? A descendant is not just a first generation offspring. It includes offspring thousands of generations later as well. So sorry, but apes can't produce goats, lions, tigers, bears or humans as descendants whether over millions of years or 9 months! The reason is very simple; because apes don't carry the DNA of the above animals any more than they carry human DNA. So we could never be a descendant of an ape. That's so obvious that even a child can understand it.

 

So you dispute the concept that DNA can, indeed, change over time. You know, mutations and duplication and that sort of stuff.

 

That makes perfect sense. I'm sure you can explain how bacteria rapidly become resistant to antibiotics or suddenly develop the ability to digest new materials with your model. Or how SARS and HIV spontaneously appeared, after evolving from previous viruses. Or why people are worried about H5N1 bird flu suddenly developing the ability to spread among humans easily. Or dozens of other phenomena that have been observed and are explainable through the theory of evolution.

 

Please do explain those phenomena. I'd be interested to hear your version of events.

[Knupfer]

So you dispute the concept that DNA can, indeed, change over time. You know, mutations and duplication and that sort of stuff.

 

That makes perfect sense. I'm sure you can explain how bacteria rapidly become resistant to antibiotics or suddenly develop the ability to digest new materials with your model. Or how SARS and HIV spontaneously appeared, after evolving from previous viruses. Or why people are worried about H5N1 bird flu suddenly developing the ability to spread among humans easily. Or dozens of other phenomena that have been observed and are explainable through the theory of evolution.

 

Please do explain those phenomena. I'd be interested to hear your version of events.

 

A mutation acts on what is already present in the cell. Animal DNA doesn't "mutate" into human DNA any more than goat DNA mutates into elephant DNA.Mating and breeding between animals capable of breeding together is what produces descendants. That's basic biology.

 

But evolution gets into science fiction; "Let's say that long ago there was once a giant half-man half-beast that turned into a human? In the imagination, anything's possible which all sci-fi books and movies demonstrate. So again, you need to know the difference between science and science fiction.

 

So "my" version is what happens in reality; apes breed apes, humans breed humans. your version is conjuring up a fictitious animal and claiming that it turned into a person. My version is thus based on reality. Your version is based on your imagination which makes it imaginary.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

A mutation acts on what is already present in the cell. Animal DNA doesn't "mutate" into human DNA any more than goat DNA mutates into elephant DNA. Mating and breeding between animals capable of breeding together is what produces descendants. That's basic biology.

And there's also something called genetic duplication, where duplicate genetic material is accidentally introduced into chromosomes and then mutates to serve different functions than the original material.

 

In no point in the theory of evolution do animals not capable of breeding together have to mate. It's gradual change, mate.

 

But evolution gets into science fiction; "Let's say that long ago there was once a giant half-man half-beast that turned into a human? In the imagination, anything's possible which all sci-fi books and movies demonstrate. So again, you need to know the difference between science and science fiction.

This is what's known as an argument from incredulity -- "it sounds ridiculous, so it's wrong". It's a logical fallacy.

So "my" version is what happens in reality; apes breed apes, humans breed humans. your version is conjuring up a fictitious animal and claiming that it turned into a person. My version is thus based on reality. Your version is based on your imagination which makes it imaginary.

My version says nothing of a sort. My version says species gradually change. If you split up a species into two independent groups, they'll end up changing in different ways (gradually) and appearing different.

[Knupfer]

And there's also something called genetic duplication, where duplicate genetic material is accidentally introduced into chromosomes and then mutates to serve different functions than the original material.

 

And how does a human gene "accidentally' get into ape genes? :eek:By your claims, then elephant genes can accidentally get into human genes. Everything you say is all coming from your imagination. Observing genetic duplication then claiming that that's how man was formed is no different than seeing trees in a forest then claiming that the earth was once a giant forest.

 

Sorry, but an ape can't gradually change into a human any more than a human can gradually change into an elephant. Again, do you know how descendants are produced? Or not? Do you know what mating and breeding results in? Do you know why no human has ever produced a goat as a descendant? or not?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And how does a human gene "accidentally' get into ape genes? :eek:By your claims, then elephant genes can accidentally get into human genes. Everything you say is all coming from your imagination. Observing genetic duplication then claiming that that's how man was formed is no different than seeing trees in a forest then claiming that the earth was once a giant forest.

What? What's a "human gene"? Genes are just different sequences of DNA. One can mutate into another easily enough. An ape can have a mutation that produces a trait similar to a trait humans have.

 

Sorry, but an ape can't gradually change into a human any more than a human can gradually change into an elephant. Again, do you know how descendants are produced? Or not? Do you know what mating and breeding results in? Do you know why no human has ever produced a goat as a descendant? or not?

 

Because a) we haven't waited a few million years to see and b) there's no reason for natural selection to make descendants with sheep-like characteristics to survive.

 

I ask you again to answer my questions and explain these:

That makes perfect sense. I'm sure you can explain how bacteria rapidly become resistant to antibiotics or suddenly develop the ability to digest new materials with your model. Or how SARS and HIV spontaneously appeared' date=' after evolving from previous viruses. Or why people are worried about H5N1 bird flu suddenly developing the ability to spread among humans easily. Or dozens of other phenomena that have been observed and are explainable through the theory of evolution.

 

Please do explain those phenomena. I'd be interested to hear your version of events. [/quote']

[Knupfer]

Because a) we haven't waited a few million years to see and b) there's no reason for natural selection to make descendants with sheep-like characteristics to survive.

 

That's right, you haven't waited millions of years to see. So your claims are merely speculation, not observable phenomena. So they're no different than claiming that in a million years, humans will evolve into aliens. That's called science fiction, not science.

 

That makes perfect sense. I'm sure you can explain how bacteria rapidly become resistant to antibiotics or suddenly develop the ability to digest new materials with your model. Or how SARS and HIV spontaneously appeared, after evolving from previous viruses. Or why people are worried about H5N1 bird flu suddenly developing the ability to spread among humans easily. Or dozens of other phenomena that have been observed and are explainable through the theory of evolution.

 

Please do explain those phenomena. I'd be interested to hear your version of events.

 

I'm glad you brought this up because it actually disproves evolution. Bacteria become resistant to antibiotics because it's the job of a cell to survive. So they become more virulent bacteria. They do not become healthier cells. A cell can only do what the nucleus programs it to do. So a bacterial cell can only remain a bacterial cell and re-enforce the characteristics it already contains.

 

So bacterial cells do not mutate into healthy cells any more than a "lower primate" mutates into a superior primate. So your example proves my point and disproves evolution.

[iNow]

I would like to point out to the casual reader here that Knupfers posts on evolution can be safely ignored. You won't be missing anything of importance or any accurate reflections of reality by doing so.