Evolution is a joke pt. XV

MAGNIFICENT!!!

I AGREE WITH YOU!!!

Your point of what happened "during Evolution is still improving". What my argument is, String Theory is a great example. As you have read, Evolution is a hypothesis. Posters have stated it a law. Which is incorrect.

Now, since you gained my interest.

I would like to go a step further please. Dealing with Evolution, there are diagrams called "clades" which show how Evolution works. My question to you, since their are so many, which one is correct to show Evolution. Why has their not been a sound model for the hypothesis to move forward when there is so many confused with Evolutions foundation?

 

Time is very significant - just that the significance varies depending on the organism .. bacteria for example reproduce every 4 hours.

Above is a mutation - should that mutation convey a survival advantage - the probability of the survival of the organism is increased - be it a single cell - plant - or human.

Mutations happen due to different factors .. ionizing radiation being one the main ones - simple mistakes in copying process being another. This causes a change to the DNA - add up those changed over time - and you get evolution.

 

Well, the "pile of goo" thing isn't about evolution. That is abiogenesis - how first life started. Evolution isn't about that.

For living material, being of a different species means that interbreeding isn't possible - or at least one gets offspring that can't breed at all. When our food industry (back to the ancients) cross breeds, it is doing so within species. It's true that there are other definitions of species - especially when there are no living representtives to attempt to interbreed.

What evolution says is that fish and cats came from a VERY distant common ancestor. Gradual change over time caused greater and greater differentiation as different intermediate species developed ways of being more successful.

Evolution shows clear evidence why fish can NOT turn into cats as we define fish and cats today.

So, it sounds like you agree with THAT part of evolution, too!!

However, the fish population COULD divide such that one of the species of fish that can breath air to some extent could gradually develop into a land animal that could have some characteristics that might LOOK like other current life forms, but that would take a few million years and the result would still be a unique species, regardless of what it looked like. By then humans might look quite different, too, though there are reasons for the human population to evolve very slowly.

 

forgot the third one - Survival of the fittest - those who are better adapted get to choose who to mate with .. so this argues for my position - good that you brought it up.

 

Evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis. It is a foundation of all modern biology - plants, animals, humans, averything that has been alive.

It is not like String Theory. First, string theory is part of theoretical physics. Theory just doesn't mane the same thing in theoretical physics as it does in science (scientific method, experimental science). String theory is a mathmatical extension of science that can not be tested. In science, if something can't be tested then it can't even be a hypothesis. Being able to be tested is a drop dead requirement.

Evolution is also not a law. Evolution is a description of a process. Laws are not descriptions of processes. They only state relationships. The law of thermodynamics (a major law) says nothing about how or why.

Diagrams of the relationships between species (such as seen in diagrams of clades) are from scientists who study these relationships. As more information becomes available, these diagrams change. That doesn't mean the theory of evolution changed. It just means we keep learning about how actual species are related with more specifity.

Humans have found a tiny tiny percent of evidence of existing life. We have almost no human ancestors found, dinosaur bones found, etc. - when compared to what has actually lived. So, the understanding of ancient species (and evenn modern ones) continues to advance. And, the theory of evolution is critical to this advance in knowledge.

Fitting in new species or new evidence concerning a species into a clade diagram just shows the level of current understanding of the relationships.

Evidence against evolution would come if:
- evidence of a life feature or form was found that clearly defied evolutionary development.
- some other theory was developed where existing relationships are more accurately and usefully described. That is, a better theory. It would still have to be a testable theory, obviouslyl. And, the success of evolution theory is absolutely stupendous. So, this idea is fanishingly unlikely.

 

Let's remember that evolution has a definition. The only real question has to do with who knows that definition.

 

Somehow, you totally misunderstood something.

I don't know what, because you don't give enough info to figure that out.

 

I never said evolution is a hypothesis. The Theory of Evolution has mountains of evidence collected over 150 years and is accepted by 98% of scientists. String "Theory" doesn't have any evidence and scientists are split over it.

No diagram is correct. The process is evolution is really like a complex interwoven tree, and there is simply no way a diagram will be completely true. But these diagrams are mostly true and give us the basic idea.

Also, they are based on the fossil record and genetic evidence which are still every incomplete. We do have the basic idea of genetics and the fossil record, but we are still improving our knowledge.

 

No. There can be no speciation or adaptation unless there is a genetic mutation.

What you're saying is if I take a White person and put them in Africa or I take a Black person and put them in China, the White person will turn Black and the Black person will turn into a Mongoloid.

That is not how it works.

Thank you for proving beyond any reasonable doubt that you are poorly educated, ill-informed and misinformed on the topic of Evolution.

Animals, plants, fungi, protista, bacteria and archea all arose from separate distinct organism unrelated to one another.

We have no idea how many different lines of Evolution there actually were.

In addition to those six separate distinct organisms, there could have been anywhere from one to two dozen others.

The evidence of any unsuccessful evolutionary line(s) that died out would be obliterated by geologic and tectonic actions.

 

According to what I have read all life on earth probably has a common ancestor. Life on earth began with prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea) and eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes.

Fungi and animals share a common ancestor dating from 800 - 900 million years ago. Plants and animals also share a common ancestor.and are very similar.








https://microbiologysociety.org/pub...cle/the-symbiosis-that-changed-the-world.html

All cellular life on Earth can be classified into one of the three domains: bacteria, archaea or eukaryotes. Whereas cells of bacteria and archaea are small and simple, those of eukaryotes are generally bigger and complex, containing a nucleus that encompasses DNA, and other subcellular compartments, referred to as organelles.

There is evidence that eukaryotic cells arose during evolution from a merger of less complex cells, through a process called endosymbiosis. Recent findings have provided exciting insights into the main players in this enigmatic symbiosis that was responsible for the emergence of all complex life forms on our planet.

A symbiotic origin of eukaryotes?
The observation that eukaryotic cells are compartmentalised was made a long time ago. Konstantin Mereschkowski (1855–1921) noticed certain structural similarities between plant chloroplasts (the organelles in which photosynthesis occurs) and unicellular cyanobacteria, a group of photosynthetic bacteria. In 1910, he proposed that the former evolved from the latter, as the result of endosymbiosis. This refers to a process by which a cell lives inside another after being engulfed and establishes a long-term association with its host. In the 1960s, the idea that endosymbiosis might have played a pivotal role in eukaryotic evolution was re-popularised by Lynn Margulis. She proposed that, apart from chloroplasts, mitochondria also evolved from trapped free-living bacteria. The scientific community initially dismissed Margulis’ ideas. But when it was discovered that mitochondria and chloroplasts contained their own genetic material that turned out to be related to that of bacteria, support for the endosymbiosis theory finally gained momentum. In particular, mitochondria were found to descend from a bacterial group known as the Alphaproteobacteria. These bacteria are usually free-living, but some can engage in symbioses with eukaryotic organisms. Symbiotic
interactions are common practice in the microbial world, but alphaproteobacteria seem to be particularly good at this. In light of this, it is perhaps not too surprising that mitochondria have an alphaproteobacterial ancestry.

Our microbial ancestry finally revealed
Recently, this story got an unexpected twist. In 2015, a new group of archaea was discovered in deep-sea floor sediments of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, close to a hydrothermal vent system known as Loki’s Castle (Fig. 3). By sequencing DNA that was isolated directly from these sediments, we obtained genomic data for a new archaeal group, which we named ‘Lokiarchaeota’ – or ‘Loki’ for short. Fascinatingly, not only did Loki appear to be the closest relative of eukaryotes in the tree of life, but its genome contained a multitude of genes that were only known to exist in eukaryotes. Among these genes were those that play an important role in eukaryotic cell biology – genes that, in a way, make the essence of a eukaryote. Yet, apart from these eukaryotic-like genes, Loki seems to be a typical archaeon. In fact, the role of these genes in Loki is still a mystery. Even more recently, we discovered additional Loki-related archaea and named them after other Norse gods (Thor, Heimdall and Odin); they all contain a large number of ‘eukaryotic’ genes. These discoveries reinforce the idea that eukaryotes have an archaeal ancestry, and that these ancestors were perhaps ‘primed’ to become complex.

 

Even the Bible teaches evolution as reality. You should read it sometime.

 

Did you know that all animal females are still designed to lay eggs, like chickens? That includes women and horses as well.

 

Have you heard about pseudogenes? Genes that are dead because of mutations but they are passed on from generation to generation and accumulate mutations over time.

80% of the olfactory receptor (OR) genes in dolphins are inactive due to mutations. Since they live underwater most of the time they don't need most of those genes that their

ancestors inherited from land animals. The DNA sequences of those dead OR genes resemble those of land animals.


About 40 million years ago, in the common ancestor of all primates, a gene (GLO) needed to synthesize vitamin C was inactivated by a mutation. That common ancestor did not need to synthesize vitamin C

because there were adequate amounts of vitamin C in its diet. The primate that most recently branched off from humans (chimpanzees) has a GLO pseudogene that resembles the human GLO pseudogene

more than that of the orangutan GLO pseudogene. That is true because there has been more time for mutations to occur in the orangutan GLO pseudogene relative to the chimpanzee

GLO pseudogene.


https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2014/09/13/why-humans-must-eat-vitamin-c/

In fact, the cells of nearly all animals on the planet make plenty of their own vitamin C and thus have no need for it in their diets. Humans and other primates are pretty unique in our need to have vitamin C in our diet. This is an example where our ancestors clearly had more functionality than we have now. Somewhere in our lineage, we actually lost the ability to make vitamin C.

How did we lose it? It turns out that we do have all of the genes that are necessary, but one of them is “broken.” The broken gene, nicknamed GULO, codes for an enzyme called L-gulonolactone oxidase, which is responsible for a key step in vitamin C synthesis. We have the gene, but it has been mutated to the point of being nonfunctional, making it a so-called pseudogene.

Somewhere in the ancestor of primates, the gene suffered a mutation, rendering it inoperable, and then random mutation continued, littering the gene with tiny errors. We can still easily recognize the gene. It’s there and the vast majority of the code is the same, but there are a few key parts that have been mutated









.

 

WWI German soldiers had that motto on their belt buckles. Prussian soldiers used it in the 19th century. https://www.aboutww2militaria.com/ww1-enlisted-men-prussian-gott-mit-uns-belt-buckle.html

 

Exactly...

A troll as you say...

No knowledge about the subject..

That makes you a troll... Do you know to that? Do I need to explain it to you?

Yes, trolls happen.

Explain why you are not a troll?

 

The "above" was Photoshop.

About evolution being sparked by "gamma" radiation is ridiculous. There would be Hulk's. And the Japanese would be evolving as we speak.

Question:. How many life cycles (because Evolution doesn't deal with time) does it take for a lifeform to evolve?

 

Agree with all of that...

Question though.

When the new species came to form - who did it have sex with to create more species of that kind?

We know that cross-breeding does not give viable (?) offspring. As also, gene manipulation does not (no evidence by the Scientific Method) show that Evolution can actually happen.

We can turn cats glow in the dark, but can't prove Evolution... It is FAITH that (if you do, don't know) people believe in Evolution.

Give me that. You can't deny it....

 

Evolution is NOT A THEORY!!!

IT IS NOT A THEORY!!! NOT A THEORY!!!

If it is a theory please provide the Scientific data going through the Scientific Method is which over five (5) other scientist came up with the same results.

Can't find that?...

Not a theory...

Please look up what "Evolution" is. I think you are confused with my argument. I wl explain in a sentence.

Do you believe that from a pile of goo, all life was created from that pile and made fish into dogs?

 

Is this the Clades you say is correct from other religions from the Evolution base?

Just asking...

 

That was a ridiculous statement... I will give you one mess up...

 

There is a post from...

Micirea? Miciurea?

Whatever the f... Read his post...

 

You are correct with the "loose" word of "theory".

Evolution is not a theory. You can say whatever you want. Fossil record, this guy said this and this guy said that...

We Evolution is still a faith for those who are not smart enough to look up their own faith..

Which is...




Evolution...

 

Exactly... They do not know what they (maybe you) believe in..

 

Good GOD that is to much to read.

How about this...

You are wrong. You did not acknowledge what Evolution was or support the argument.

Thank you. You helped me out more than you know by putting that diagram there. Others will put another diagram and it will not be the same as yours...

Do you know why? Hahahahah!!!

DO YOU KNOW WHY!?!?

Because Evolution is a joke and FAITH based and it isn't science. Find three (3) diagrams from different Biologist that mach the one you sent me...

Funnnnny....

 

Have read a many Bible and you are wrong. But, the Faith of God is different. No religion says their beliefs are based on science.

Only yours (Darwinism) does...