Evolution is a joke part X

Unknown ancestors? That’s all there is – is unknown ancestors. From life today we do not have not “one” confirmed ancestor. So, at 0% when does “unknown” become nonexistent? When do we say – all the life that has lived on this planet we cannot confirm “any” ancestor for any living thing that has ever lived on this plant. I will make this quite simple – out of all the life that has lived on this planet, we will take just “bacteria”. Out of all the bacteria that has lived on this planet for the past 4 billion years – what was its common ancestor or what did it evolve into? It’s nonexistent… Its nonexistent with everything until you can give me “one”… all I ask is for “one” lifeform, may it be fauna or flora (plant or animal) – your choice and there is a bunch to choose from since we’ve had 4 billion years to fill the petri dish we call Earth… So, if there was no evidence that all life on this planet never had a parent – never been witnessed nor seen for the past 4 billion years… I would be probably sent to get my head examined to think there was a thing called father.

Which end have I staked out? I think I am the only one who has delivered, on a regular basis links from universities and well known biology sites including the biology dictionary. What I say is not me – it’s what evolutionary biologist say. I just don’t put a spin on it with cartoon figures and make believe fairytales. I just put down their facts….

I like that biologist…. He is stating truths instead of satisfying the Darwinist and trying to link it with evolution and some other lifeform…. Guessing is not a bad thing – it’s what happens… But, for some – they need to “pretend” their guess is truth! Their guess is right! When all it is… is a guess…

 

Sorry about that.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. One observes the results of speciation, and the other observes the pattern of speciation, the process of it happening. Both are observed.

You may wish to do some reading and refresh your memory. Evolution is a branching process that produces a nested hierarchy. If we are discussing, say, house painting, cladistics is the act of painting, and Linnaean taxonomy is the painted house. Both concern house painting.

The usual term is "branched" or "speciated". It means that one species has split into two (or rarely more).

Oh no! This is exactly what does NOT happen. In fact, most speciation events are sympatric - that is, a population splits into two separate species "in place". There are many reasons why this happens, but it's quite common.

So you're talking about something different here, I think. Perhaps you're referring to what are called "subspecies", typically regional variations within a species. But all part of one species, because they all interbreed. Once breeding isolation is complete, two populations are regarded as different species even though they could continue to interbreed just fine if they wished. As more branchings take place, the resulting new species tend to get further from some ancestral branch. Consider lions and tigers, which shared a common ancestor recently enough so they CAN interbreed and produce offspring. Or horses and donkeys. But eventually (that is, with enough branchings and enough new species), this is no longer the case.

I have a hard time parsing this. But I think the answer is that yes, in principle the platypus could become the ancestor of three different species. All three would be monotremes because the common ancestor was a monotreme. I don't know what you mean by "all equal". However, if the current (rather small) platypus population shows signs of developing any breeding isolations between subpopulations, I'm not aware of it. It's possible, but it's probably not happening.

Oh no, this is quite incorrect! You are mixing some things together here. In the time of Linnaeus, morphology was all they had to go by. This was much more than just "looks", it involved very careful dissection of the organisms to find small, or subtle, or internal homologies. At the time, of course, the naturalists didn't have the knowledge, theory, or technology to examine genes or do DNA sequencing. And the advent of these technologies was applied to the Linnaean taxonomy as you'd expect, and in fact numerous errors were located as a result. Not many compared to how much was correct, maybe an error rate of 1% or less. These were corrected. Linnaean taxonomy is still vital, and still used.

You are confusing the words here. "Adaptation" is a MUCH more general term than evolution. As I wrote, evolution is a subset of adaptation. And that subset of course involves mutation and reproduction.

This again is confusing because of word usage. Consider a single branching event. The "parent" and "child" species will be nearly identical, so they will be in the same genus. Now consider a SECOND species branching off the same parent. Now we have two potential lineages. Each child species continues to branch (resulting in "cousin" species). Enough branchings, and those increasingly distant cousins will become more and more dissimilar. Eventually it won't make sense to put them in the same genus. Note that each branching produced little change all by itself. So "evolution above the species level" here simply refers to the gradual divergence of lineages.

Complexity is certainly real. But "important" is a relative term. Important to what?

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Some bacteria experienced a mutation which enabled them to metabolize nylon, AND they had a ready supply of nylon as a food supply. Perhaps the ability to metabolize new things happens often, but if none of that new thing is available, there is no benefit to being able to eat it.

You might benefit from reading about this particular case. The mutation that enabled the bacteria to eat the nylon is well mapped, and the mechanics of it is well understood. The literature on this is fairly technical, of course. But no other kind of bacteria can metabolize nylon. When placed in an environment where that's all there is to eat, they starve. They lack that necessary mutation.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Perhaps rather than talking about pear-apples, you should read about the ability to metabolize lactose, or see colors. Humans have mostly lost the ability to metabolize lactose because of a mutation that spread, and have entirely lost one sort of rods and cones in the eye that enabled superior color vision. Mutations happen.

Oh no! This is not the case AT ALL.

Yes, but you are not correct here. When we find insects trapped for millions of years in amber and we sequence their genes, we find that they are totally different from today's similar insects. You are confusing different genetics with different appearances. Mutations are unavoidable, they occur with every reproductive event. EVEN IF we were to have a species so perfectly adapted that no possible mutation could be beneficial, there would be enough neutral mutations so that after a few tens of thousands of generations, the genetics would be drastically different.

No, we don't. After mass extinctions there is of course a good deal of radiation of the surviving lineages. But all life evolves. Even lineages that go extinct, evolved up to that point.

And it is, all the time. So are we. Are you identical to your father? If not, this is evolution in action.

 

Not all, but mostly all. When you reflect that evolution has been happening for billions of years, producing perhaps billions of species, most of which don't fossilize and fossilization among the rest is a rare event so the fossil record is extremely sparse, AND reflect that fossils cannot give us DNA information, you understand that ancestors are difficult to identify.

Wait, you changed meanings in midstream. If you have no idea who your great-to-the-nth grandfather is, if there is NO DATA to find out, does this mean he doesn't exist? Very few people can trace their ancestry back more than half a dozen generations. Does this mean most people HAVE no ancestors? How many generations back do you need to go before nobody knows their ancestors? At that point, you're at 0% known. So do you say that ALL of the people N generations back suddenly become nonexistent?

Well, not as far back as you might wish, but it can be quite a few species branchings in some lineages where data are good. Some clades are pretty well established. Once again, we know that you HAD a great-to-the-nth grandfather, EVEN IF we don't know who he was.

I admit I don't understand your "simple" case. There is good evidence for bacteria at least 4 billion years ago. Why wouldn't these qualify as potential ancestors of current bacteria? Now, flora and fauna belong to a different kingdom altogether. Are you familiar enough with Linnaean taxonomy to understand about kingdoms?

No, what you have done is put down your interpretation of those "facts" that you can find that seem, out of context, to support your interpretation. What I have been trying to do is help you interpret the facts.

I don't think you are correctly representing what he is saying. He is NOT "stating truths", science has no truths. And there are no "Darwinists" anymore; Darwin got a small piece of the picture right, but he is of historical interest only by now. And what you're seeing here is not "guessing", as though there were no basis for speculation. And nobody is pretending anything.

Seriously, there is a reason why the theory of evolution is regarded by scientists as the most thorougly documented, best supported theory in the history of science. Now, the absolutley stupendous quantity of supporting evidence is both good and bad. The good part is, there is so enormously MUCH evidence that the chance of the overall picture being far wrong is nearly zero. The bad part is, no single individual in an entire lifetime can be familiar with all the evidence, and even the best scientists in the field must specialize. For the layman, this enormity might be daunting. For the layman cripped with religious denial (not saying you are!), this enormity permits fairly simple misrepresentation by the simple expedient of cherry-picking what can be easily misrepresented. The overall context is so large that taking something out of context is almost impossible to avoid, and requires knowledge and integrity - the exact opposite of what you're likely to find among the reject-before-learning set.

 

I don't mean to be rude, but if he had a genuine understanding of any of this, do you think there'd be 10 threads?

Looks like the typical case of someone rejecting something they barely understand, then casting aspersions at those who've taken some time to educate themselves. It almost seems like a rhetorical exercise and less of an attempt to gain understanding, it's frankly very frustrating to read.

 

Really... Flintc - here is what this poster stated previously... the subject was inheritance and/or heredity...

So, we don't need no stinking mutation - We no need no natural selection... all we need are "parents" and drift... yea...

 

It's via that biological process that mutations occur, and because of it produces off spring that differ from the parents, there's a point to natural selection. It'd be pointless otherwise because we'd all just be clones of our parents.

You won't be casting your potentially willful ignorance on me.

 

We can say that science has genetic evidence that supports a change from a species of Ape to a species now called Man.

The advantage that man has over apes is spoken language, the one thing that separates manffrom all other members of the animal kingdom.

 

There are no Apes with 23 chromosomes.
That certainly separates man from the Apes, in regard to a physical change in the genome.

Butit also explains why the Bible says man had no father or mother, but was created in one day by an Act-of-God, i.e.; the chemical fussion between the atomic dust particles of the earth.

This lays the foundation for recognizing the 22 names in the genealogy of Genesis as species:



http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id143.html

Book:
The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans
by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)


http://www.amazon.com/Last-Human-Tw..._m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0ABGJDWD85JKZFZWTV3D

 

I have to break this into to separate posts since it’s too long… Or to many characters… One will be about Cladistics and the other about evolution

No worries!

How about this. We agree to disagree… How species are grouped together really isn’t that important in the discussion. We still have Natural Selection to topple!

Ah! Speciation.. From what I remember, the only way that they do “not” become one again after a speciation event is if mating rituals change. It’s like if we took about 100 poodles and separated them on an island. About 100 generations later, they would be different, but they would be getting busy “unless” their mating rituals changed….

Please explain why you think that they “wouldn’t” and its “not” what would happen please…

[/QUOTE]So you're talking about something different here, I think. Perhaps you're referring to what are called "subspecies", typically regional variations within a species. But all part of one species, because they all interbreed. Once breeding isolation is complete, two populations are regarded as different species even though they could continue to interbreed just fine if they wished. As more branchings take place, the resulting new species tend to get further from some ancestral branch. Consider lions and tigers, which shared a common ancestor recently enough so they CAN interbreed and produce offspring. Or horses and donkeys. But eventually (that is, with enough branchings and enough new species), this is no longer the case. [/QUOTE]
I agree, but as I was stating, everything stays under the species level. That is why the word “species” is kind of vague and gray. Best example is what you just gave an example of – lions and tigers…

I don’t know if you are familiar with terms or I would use them, besides there are followers to this thread and I try to keep it kind of simple for them. I will explain with an example to follow.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_06

Look at the first example. The green one. If you took out the event that branched the two species on the left, and left three direct lines going down (or up when looking) from an ancestor. That is what I was referring too. So, we can discuss it now that we are both on the same line (or clade… )

It’s confusing because you are using Linnaean taxonomy… That’s fine, I understand, but when using it to explain evolution really doesn’t work. It’s basically incorrect. It like if a baseball player hits a homerun someone stands up and yells “TOUCHDOWN!”

As I stated: Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history.
Linnaean is of no use when discussing evolution. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_10

I wish to move on from this subject. Please believe me – dealing with evolution, Linnaean taxonomy is of no use since the grouping has nothing to do with DNA/RNA and common descent. Clades and cladistics is how grouping of life is done dealing with evolution. There is no Linnaean only Zuul… I mean clades…

 

Again… Flintc - Do you think that adaptation “never” involves mutation and reproduction? We can talk about the whole “subset” later. Let’s get an understanding of how we view the word adaptation. I believe in the biology definition specifically… So, that leaves me with the question since you didn’t like the biology definition of adaptation - Do you think that adaptation “never” involves mutation and reproduction?

The link I submitted was Evolution 101. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...cle/evodevo_05 Therefore, it’s important to evolution.

What I am trying to say is, bacteria was seen eating nylon as food… that is a “who cares” scenario. If someone went to a zoo and fed a lion a carrot would that be evolution? If a giraffe ate a Big Mac would that be evolution? No.. it’s a “who cares” situation. The Darwinist – the religious have said this was “evolution” and it’s nothing more than a pigeon eating French fries. I have read and studied the nylon for some time. You throw some other bacteria (done in a lab) and leave just nylon, it will be eaten… in time…

Agreed… Not really worth discussing dealing with evolution though – was kind of just an example…

WHAT?!?! You are kidding right? The Cambrian Explosion showed us Arthropods and Echidoderm(? – spelling)… Are you suggesting that starfish and sand dollars and coral wasn’t present in the fossil record in the Cambrian Explosion or are you suggesting then that they are not present today…? I am wondering why you are suggesting that this is not the case…

I am correct. Flintc – are you saying that since the genes were different that it wasn’t an ant? Because all the ants on this plant “do not” share all the same genes. You do know that right? The Box Ant, Red Ant and Army Ant do not share an identical genome. The ant found was an ant. It was unchanged. The jellyfish – unchanged… The crocodile – unchanged – the starfish – unchanged – the sand dollar – unchanged… They are not different animals – they are tsill sharks, starfish and whatever else you they were before… What was a crocodile then? Is it still called a crocodile? Why… Did it evolve into something else? No – it’s still a crocodile.

That is what I am saying… unless you can tell me that they were named something else and “evolved” into those species, I am correct.

[/QUOTE]No, we don't. After mass extinctions there is of course a good deal of radiation of the surviving lineages. But all life evolves. Even lineages that go extinct, evolved up to that point. [/QUOTE]
Yes we do and here is a site that provides the evidence I need to be right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

You can go to each extinction event – go to their site and then look at the life that survived. After each one – the life that survived is unchanged to this day. Dating back to the first extinction event…. I am right.

Me not being like my father is evolution which is common descent/ancestry? How the… What the… Flintc – you lost me. That is NOT evolution in any way shape or form... If you can explain how natural selection and mutation was involved in creating a new species our of me from my father - I'd love to read it...

 

What?!?!?! Willful ignorance...?

Your post made absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever... Riddle me this - what is a clone of an apple and a car tire look like? I know - I know... Seems crazy, but it's about as ridiculous as saying that someone can be an exact clone of a male and a female...

 

... is this the point where I reminder not everything procreates sexually?

Yes, willful ignorance, that's all these threads are about. Or maybe it's a rhetorical exercise for you, I honestly have no idea what your angle is.

 

We can say that biologist have an anomaly that is not represented in studied/observation/tests that support a change from species of Ape to Homosapien Sapien.

Man is part of the ape classification – as some say, we are apes…

 

This is a great example of not knowing what you're talking about and it get out of control...

Now let me "remind YOU" what you stated...

You posted Parents TWICE thus you didn't make a typo... I understand ignorance dealing this these threads - ALL TEN OF THEM I see ignorance....

So, please let the people know how creation happens when "parents" are needed and it doesn't happen "sexually"... And then you can answer the riddle of these parents having clones of themselves when they (which are different) have offspring...

Like I said - I see ignorance ALL THE TIME!

 

Should have written parent(s), ok that's my bad. Changes nothing, but would have been more accurate.

This is still perfectly possible. Prokaryotic fission is an example of this and answers both of your inane questions.

Do you ever get tired of losing at this stupid gotcha game?

 

Yes, you should have been more accurate. If you would have - there would be no need for gotcha. Because I was only answering what you posted. If you post something and mean something completely different... What do you expect the reader to do - touch their screen and read your mind on what you "actually" meant?

And no - it doesn't answer my questions since you posted parents (plural) and simple life do not have parents... Please try again...

 

No exctly.

What we have is not an anomaly, but direct evidence that positive mutations DO take place.
We also se an animal called man still carrying the same 24 Chromosomes as the apes, but mutated by fussion so as to change an Aope to a man with 23 chromosomes.

This is that tangible example of a man ascending directlu from the apes which people are questioning in regard to his ascent from the Apes.

How much clearer can it be??/

 

That's not true, we can tamper with them, nature can tamper with them, DNA is delicate and can easily be changed. Most of the changes are not likely to produce beneficial traits, that is true, but given the mistakes can happen trillions of times a day when you consider every living thing and all the cells on the planet dividing, even if the chanes of producing a beneficial trait is .001%, it WILL happen because it happens so frequently.

Define impossible. It is impossible for a fish to give birth to a lizard, but that's not what evolution says.

Which they didn't. That's not how wings evolved.

Not true at all. First of all, we would have to be able to extract the DNA without damaging it. Then, we'd have to modify all the genes necessary to do such a thing. Lastly, we would have to be able to return it to the living creature in such a way that would not be harmful, or put the DNA into a viable zygote. I have greatly simplified an incredibly difficult process that we don't have the technology to do. We can do the first part and the last part, but not the middle part. Modifying all those genes requires us knowing exactly how they all interact, which we don't know, and modifying them in a controlled manner, which we also don't know how to do. One day, we may, but we don't today.

NONE of this disproves evolution, by the way. Just because WE can't do something doesn't mean nature can't. We can't travel to distant stars, but natural objects and particles do it all the time.

False. There is plenty nature can do that we can't do in a lab.

Making cats glow isn't hard. Putting wings on a lizard is. I'm sorry, but nothing you're saying here is scientific or even logical. Genetics and evolution are two related but different scientific fields, but yet, genetics show nothing but support for evolution. You didn't answer my question about the chamipanzee gene count versus the human. Show me specific examples, not made up ones based on nothing more than your own imagination.

Not at all, the fossil record can't show us microscopic bacteria and soft tissued animals. Fossils are the remains of BONES, most times. If the animal didn't have bones or hard tissue, there probably won't be a fossil. Your conclusion is flawed.

Who said we've discovered all the fossils there are to discover? You are not showing how the fossil record disproves evolution, all you are proving is we haven't found all the fossils yet.

The Cambrian explosion was not an early event in the evolution of life on this planet, it happened after many many years of life already existing.

No, because again your conclusions are seriously flawed.

First of all, life didn't just appear from the extinction. The life was there prior to the extinction, it just was given a chance once the dominant animals went extinct. Prime example, mammals after the dinosaurs died off. If that hadn't happen, we probably wouldn't be here. The dinosaur extinction allowed the small mammals that lived then to get larger, take the sources of food that the dinosaurs were taking, and thrive. They reproduced and more and more offspring began to specialize more and more in their traits. Primates were alive back then, they just weren't like they are today because of evolution. And the few that are the same are that way because they have no NEED to change. A crocodile has no evoultionary reason to change. It hunts the same way and is successful enough to reproduce. We haven't existed long enough to see anything evolve, but perhaps we will. Perhaps we will see if the alligator of Florida evolves to adapt as they start to co-exist with humans. We have already seen birds do it. The ones that can adapt to our encroachment will survive, and the ones that can't won't. Their offspring will survive, and as they do, they will start to specialize more and more to living in our world IF NEEDED. Nature doesn't reward an evolutionary change if it's unwarranted.

Life is NOT unchanged. Rodents have changed substantially since the dinosaurs went extinct. The fossil record shows it. Humans have changed since they first evolved, in fact, we are not the FIRST human species if you recall. We have fossil evidence of other humans. You can't explain that away as we have a really good fossil record showing where we came from.

You are taking the facts and drawing conclusions that suit your agenda. You're entitled to it, but you cannot claim to be anymore right than those of us who draw the conclusion that evoultion is correct.

False. You are attacking the way a theory is formed, and clearly you have a problem with evolution so my first guess is you believe in the religious formation of life be it God or some other creater. You can't experiment with gravity in a lab. Show me gravity. Don't think a falling apple "shows" gravity. Show me the particles that are pulling the apple to the ground. Show me the energy that's doing it. You can't. Gravity is a theory that explains a phenomenon we observe. An apple doesn't fall in space, but does that mean there is no gravity? Of course not, gravity is everywhere, but you can't see it, touch it, and you certainly can't ALTER IT IN A LAB TO EXPERIMENT with it. So you're sunk, if evolution isn't a theory, neither is gravity, hence how it's relevant.

Evolution is correct so far, you have offered nothing to disprove it.

No, most have no effect. Some are harmful, few are beneficial. But it happens so often, that no matter how small the odds, the beneficial ones occur.

So? That doesn't mean its not a theory. Again, relativity is a theory and how much of that can we reproduce in a lab? Your notion of lab reproduction isn't the only way something becomes a theory. WEre any of the laws of thermodynamics reproduced in a lab? No, they are simply observations we have never seen to be proven untrue. Just like evolution, no one has seen anything disprove it. You think you have, but you simply have flawed conclusions based on your bias. The obvious conclusion is evolution. It's much simplier than life "appearing" from a creator or some other mechanism, it fits with the other theories we have seen to be true, and it is supported by each new data point we find. It's a theory, and it's a good one.

 

I answered this completely. I'll do so again. Adaptation is a general term. It includes evolution, along with many things that are NOT evolution. What this means is that everything evolution involves, adaptation also involves. Do you know what a subset is? Red is a subset of all the colors of the rainbow. The important point here is that while adaptation includes evolution, evolutions is not adaptation, just as while the rainbow involves red, red is NOT the "color of the rainbow".

Yes, it's important.

Oh no, absolutely not! That is an extraordinary, newsworthy, and very appropriate scenario, because the ability to metabolize food was NEW, it never existed before. It's a superb example of a beneficial mutation for those bacteria.

No. You seem determined to miss the point. If lions experienced a mutation that enabled them to metabolize something they never could before, that is how evolution works.

No, it will not. Not unless just the right mutation happens along. And seriously, if you wish to criticize the theory of evolution, it's important for you to criticize what the theory says, rather than something totally irrelevant that you made up.

No, it wasn't. It was an attempt to pick an irrelevant example as a way of dismissing what IS relevant. And so I mentioned mutations that ARE relevant, examples of actual evolution.

That's not what I said. I thought I was clear, but I'll try again. Evolution is a continuous process. Mutations keep happening. Genetic drift means mutations reach fixation (that is, are possessed by all individuals after some number of generations) even when they are neutral. So if I say you are not identical to your father, I'm not saying your father didn't exist. I'm saying you are different. The descendants of organisms living 500 million years ago are very very different at the genetic level. Even if they LOOK exactly the same (and they don't).

Certainly it wasn't the same ant. Ants from millions of years ago are FAR more different from today's ants than humans are from monkeys. And today, ants are an entire family, consisting of multiple genuses, each genus consisting of multiple species.

No, this is simply not correct. All of these groups have changed a great deal over long periods of time. Just as one example consider Crocodiles. Look under the heading "phylogeny". It shows you a cladogram of about 50 species of crocodiles, working back to a common ancestor. None of the current species ARE that common ancestor, of course. But that whole large diagram is an immediate illustration that "unchanged" is hopelessly incorrect. The same of course is true of the ants, the jellyfish, etc.

Look again at that cladogram. How many different species do you see? How many ancestor species do you see? How many levels of branching do you see? Cladograms like this illustrate what evolution produced.

I have no problem with your link; it looks exactly right. So what do you think it indicates that you're right about? I don't follow your argument here.

Oh no! This is totally incorrect. The life that survived became the common ancestors of all descendent species. NOTHING is unchanged to this day. Your link says nothing of the sort. Change is constant.

Yes, that's evolution - the change from one generation to the next. Such changes provide the "raw material" selection has to work with. Look, natural selection is ONE of the mechanisms of biological change over time. This mechanism consists of two parts: variation and selection. If all organisms are identical, there is no variation. If all organisms survive, there is no selection. Both parts are required - but ALL the various parts are necessary to this mechanism. You being different from your father is one of those parts - a new variation.

For most of human history, there was almost no sharing of genetic material between human populations. This near-breeding-isolation led to distinctive differences between these distant populations. Now, this trend never got as far as actual speciation - members of all groups certainly took advantage of the opportunity to cross-breed with other groups whenever those rare opportunities arose. Yet the degree of isolation did lead to visible differences (and some not so visible). Now, why would tropical people have dark skin and sub-arctic people have light skin? Is it just coincidence that such pigmentations were beneficial where they were found?

Remember that for much of human history, populations were pretty tenuous - many of them starved. The hominids have a pretty lousy track record - at least a dozen species, and only one of them survives. For most of human history, relatively few newborns lived long enough to breed. Evolution therefore worked quickly - selection was merciless. The results are clearly visible. It's estimated that these differences occured in fewer than 5000 generations. After 10,000 generations, the groups may very well have chosen not to interbreed. After 15,000 generations (5000 generations of no interbreeding at all), chances are they COULD not interbreed even if they wanted to.

Again, you can't see the forest because your nose is pressed up against one piece of bark on one tree. In one single generation (between you and your father), differences are very minimal. But combine large numbers of generations with very heavy selection, and you get new species.

 

Okay… That’s fabulous. We are on the same page with adaptation.

Okay… I will do some research because I am almost positive that over time other bacteria will do the same – it’s not evolution… Found it…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

[/i]Scientists have also been able to induce another species of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, to evolve the capability to break down the same nylon byproducts in a laboratory by forcing them to live in an environment with no other source of nutrients.[/i]

I actually do think I know what I was typing Flintc… It was an example… pear-apples… an example.

But, they are not different species as what is described by evolution. They do not “evolve”… yes, I am different from my father, but I am still a homosapien sapien. Thus, what I stated still stands. After all the major extinctions, life stayed the same. We have no evidence from the fossil record of evolution – new life just “appears”.

Exactly, and since they are so diverse this could have just been another species that has gone extinct. It means nothing as an example of evolution. Since we have SO MANY ants with different genomes, finding another ant that has a different genome means nothing… It is not an example of evolution. How can it be? Because it’s different from all the other different types of ants we have now? No not really…. What it is, if it didn’t go extinct, would be just another ant…

If you click on their common ancestor it takes you here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodyloidea to another crocodile… Outside of that – as I stated… there isn’t one (nonexistent). Like all the other life on this planet.

Okay… Flintc… Look… The example and link I gave showed you EXACTLY what I was discussing. Life did not evolve… Fish didn’t turn into dinosaurs. If you clicked on each extinction event they will show you life that lived and died. The life that live past each extinction is still called what it was back then. There is no it was a fish then – now it’s a bird. Do you understand? See, sand dollars are still called sand dollars because after the extinction event – they are still sand dollars to this day. Did the sand dollar evolve into a tree? NO! It’s been billions of years and it’s still a sand dollar – a star fish – coral…

Evolution (and I can’t express this any more direct) does not deal with single – individual life.

Here is the definition of evolution: (1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.
(2) The sequence of events depicting the evolutionary development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny.


Between me and my father is not – and I will repeat “is not” evolution…

 

How is that a positive mutation? What was positive about it… what do you think it did??

Apes is a classification that “man” is in. You are basically saying “Turning a dog into a pit bull”….

Do you think that this fusion separated us from the other apes, that if this fusion didn’t happen we’d be swinging from trees still?

 

DNA can’t easily be changed… In fact – it “can’t” be changed without horrible repercussions. Why do you think DNA can be easily changed? If that was the case – biologist would be giving pigs wings…

Not saying that either

We don’t know how wings evolved…

Yes we do have the technology and we know how to do it. It just doesn’t work… Good Gravy- we can make cats glow in the dark… We have the technology – again – it’s just that DNA doesn’t like to be tampered with or altered.

Like? Please present what we can’t do in a lab that happens in nature… (biology)

So… You are saying that taking a sequence from one lifeform to another isn’t hard, but taking a sequence from one lifeform to another is INDEED hard…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-prevent-aids/2011/09/12/gIQAdq89MK_blog.html

The fusion of chromosome 2 means nothing… How’s that?

You are incorrect - http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/greenalgae/greenalgaefr.html

Nobody stated this…

A hypothesis since there is no evidence of life.

Evolution is a religion and hasn’t passed the scientific method…

 

DNA can’t easily be changed… In fact – it “can’t” be changed without horrible repercussions. Why do you think DNA can be easily changed? If that was the case – biologist would be giving pigs wings…

Not saying that either

We don’t know how wings evolved…

Yes we do have the technology and we know how to do it. It just doesn’t work… Good Gravy- we can make cats glow in the dark… We have the technology – again – it’s just that DNA doesn’t like to be tampered with or altered.

Like? Please present what we can’t do in a lab that happens in nature… (biology)

So… You are saying that taking a sequence from one lifeform to another isn’t hard, but taking a sequence from one lifeform to another is INDEED hard…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-prevent-aids/2011/09/12/gIQAdq89MK_blog.html

The fusion of chromosome 2 means nothing… How’s that?

You are incorrect - http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/greenalgae/greenalgaefr.html

Nobody stated this…

A hypothesis since there is no evidence of life.

I am only provided sites from evolutionary colleges to prove those who believe in the religion they are wrong and know nothing about their religion… This post here shows your knowledge of biology is limited. Errors in replication are not based on “A Need”…

Limited Knowledge – Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02

Evolution is a religion and hasn’t passed the scientific method…

 

`DNA can be changed.

Around 1972 Annie Chang, Paul Berg, and Seymour Cohen realized that restriction enzymes could be used for recombining virtually any two pieces of DNA to make what is termed recombinant DNA. This is the basis of the new technology that has revolutionized research in genes and molecular biology.

To make a long story short. DNA is cut with restriction enzymes and "glued together" with DNA ligase.

So you can insert genes into a corn plant from an different species.

You can insert DNA from one lifeform to another...it is done all the time.

 

Evolution is no more a religion than chemistry.