Evolution is a Joke PT VII (back by popular demand)

Complete ignorance?

As I stated before... You can list the other gene sequences within that Chromo that is in Bacteria and other life.

Go ahead and list it. Because Chromo2 (what's inside) is not exclusive to what you think it is.

I did this before and showed you a sample of that, but of course since it goest against your religion you ignored it and ran...

 

No it doesn't. And the fact that it doesn't means it's also not a theory. Because theories explain facts. And the "cottage cheese" theory explains none of them.

Don't say anything stupid, and I will.

 

And others have added on since. Welcome to the fundamentally progressive nature of scientific discovery.

"If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants."
- Isaac Newton

And? Your point?

 

Seems that someone already answered this for me... I told you to "READ" now didn't I...

 

My point is this is a discussion that does not include you...

 

I'll be waiting patiently... But, I do love your definition... But, doesn't a theory need to pass the scientific method in order for it to "be" a theory? If so, how did NS test? How "can" you test Natural Selection?

 

Sort of correct as I know it.....polinology, or maybe it's palinology, archaeology, genetics, geology, and other scientific specialty areas go into the same Evolution "bucket" of scientifically proven facts that are really puzzle pieces of the theory and hypotheisis known as NS. Fossils, rocks, articfacts, ice cores, and so on so forth are tested, and the results will either support NS in part, in full for that one issue, or not. Every fact we have that supports the theory should have been tested using the scientific method....and those facts that we all accept....IMO provide a compelling case for NS

more to follow

 

Example for my side of arguement.

A mother cheetah looks down at her 6 cubs and kills three... Why? When we get the animals there is nothing wrong. One seems even bigger than the others that live.

This happens all the time.

What is natural selection in a colony of life like in an insect colony?

 

Goldwater, just ask the OP about Human Chromosome 2.

You will be amazed at the answers you get.

 

I don't think a mother cheetah's eating of her cubs figures into NS that much. Friom what I understand about feline behavior...the eating of offspring is done because they are stillborn or defective somehow. So I can't address the mother cheetah eating fit offspring over less fit offspring. If that happened in every cheetah litter I might think it figures into NS.

What figures in is how well adapted any survivng offspring have, compared to other cheetahs in the same environment.

For example...if the three surviving cheetahs are smaller than the nearest family unit, and they both share the same food source...the smaller cheetahs may starve for inferior access to the available food....and then next year when it was breeding time...only the cheetahs with DNA that is more lilkely to produce large cheetahs are alive to breed. So what could have started as a excessive growth mutation caused by UV exposure to the mother or father cheetah who produced a litter of cheetahs, offers an advantage to that mutated strain.

So it's not like the small cheetahs evolved into large ones per se.....it's that the small cheetahs just died, and didn't breed.

That's NS...and without observing cheetah's closely...in a way that doesn't influence the outcome....it's all not even theory...it's a guess. But if you observed all this....you could formulate a hypothesis...with no way to prove it really....that's why NS is a hypothesis.....

but evolution...which is the fact that cheetahs were smaller, and then later observed as being larger, is an observable undisputed fact. You could prove it by counting the large cheetahs and the small cheetahs, and state the observable fact.......and that is why evolution is not a theory or a hypothesis...rather its a fact if the fact is arrived at using the scientific method. You could count the cheetahs over and over again...and that would satisfy the criteria of testability under differing conditions.

 

Sorry Peanut Gallery. Goldwater and I have history talking about evolution in previous threads (here) and knows about the Peanut Gallery already.

I suggest you just do as I asked. If I do not know about Chromo 2 please share with us the other life on the planet that share sequences within Chromo 2 that isn't part of the Ape clade.

I gave you an example last time and of course you didn't respond to it and ran off for a couple months... Now, you are still not responding to the request, how much longer will it take you to run off?

 

You haven’t given my anything. Give me one specie outside the Great Ape Family that has the same exact gene sequences that all the Great Ape Family does in Chromosome 2A and 2B or Human Chromosome 2.

I'll be waiting.

 

It has gone through enough observation and experimentation to be considered a theory. Forgetting everything else, enough experimentation has been done in the field of genetics to give it that designation.

Nobody has "faith" in evolution. Proponents accept it as the most reasonable current model to explain the diversity of life, which it is. Should a better model come along, then so be it.

There's tons of evidence. Again, in the absence of anything else, everything we know about the field of genetics is supporting evidence.

 

Here is a great example of how a man of devoted faith....used science to pioneer our understanding of modern genetics. You probably know this I'm sure....but for those who think science and faith can't coexist....this is for you.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/mendel/mendel_1.htm

It is a critical piece of NS

 

What's your point?

Are you saying that religious faith is part of Mendels work on inheritance?

If you're simply saying that Mendel had religious faith while being a brilliant empiricist then you're of course right, but it's also a no-brainer. No one would suggest that a scientist cannot be religious (though I know plenty who will suggest that many would suggest just that, - but that's an entirely different issue).

 

Funny.....you asked me a question than answered it correctly.

But I did want to emphasize the point that religious people can make great scientific discoveries....and need not be at odds with the fact we call evolution.

 

Glad to hear that was indeed what you were saying.

But still, what's your point?

 

My point was the thing I said that you were glad to hear about.......jk......

Seriously.....there are people on this site who think the world is 6000 years old and dinosaurs hung out with Adam and Eve

 

What does faith have to do with it? If evolution was proven wrong and a new scientific theory emerged that explained life and had solid evidence to support it, evolution would be dropped in an instant.

 

Cheetahs cannot support large numbers of cubs. Even a small group of cheetahs that hunt cooperatively cannot kill enough animals to sustain both themselves and their offspring. Cheetahs exert enormous energy reserves when they hunt and are small enough to be chased off of kills by hyenas, lions, leopards, and painted dogs, among other things. Thus, limited infanticide by mothers would be beneficial in the long run, because it limits the flow of energy into fewer numbers of cubs who are more likely to survive with that increased flow of energy.

Colonial insects are acted upon primarily through queens and drones. The workers, being effectively sterile, work to keep the queen and drones alive. The term "superorganism" is often used to refer to colonial insects because the group of insects work more like a full organism with agreement between cells (not all of which are engaged in reproduction) than as individual organisms.

 

Don't forget that workers, drones and new queens are all siblings, sharing 50% of their genetic material. Aiding in the success of the hive is even more powerful a win of the Darwinian genetic lottery than would be actual procreation.

 

What cave did you crawl out of ?

 

I aleady gave it to you and you can go back and look for it yourself. But, you know I'm nice so here!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)#Genes

Find it yourself... Just take some time and click on those gene sequences and you'll see, if you understand...

 

So, are you suggesting that a mother cheetah looks out inot the vast wilderness, counts the prey and kills off cubs accordingly?

I do understand what it is you are saying, but for a cheetah to have this type of intellect is unheard of.

This does not give rise to evolution though. How do insects evolve? When mutations happen and an insect is "not" like the others, in colonies, don't they feed it to the kids? I know they dispose of the ones that or mutated. How do these "colonies" evolve?

 

It wouldn't be any sort of calculus of that nature, simply a compulsion to kill cubs if there are more than what her brain deems appropriate, whatever measure that is (probably a relatively fixed number based on her own hunger).

Through queens and drones. Workers are sterile, thus any individual mutations in them are null. Mutations in queens and drones affects all offspring (workers), thus creating changes in the 'superorganism.'