Cute. But time has no power to make these genetic changes.. that is only asserted. There is no process or mechanism to do it. Time is a deflection.. an obfuscation to hide behind. There is nothing in 'time' to cause or allow genetic changes. You merely assume there is. That is faith, not science. I touched on this argument in the OP: "Millions of years are proposed as a reason we cannot test it, yet we MUST believe it to be true." this is one of the main 'arguments' for evolution, i will admit. Yet it has NO scientific backup. You cannot show how time is a factor, but only assert it. It is a philosophical or religious argument, not a scientific one. It cannot be tested, but only asserted. You try to be dramatic & profound with your inclusion of time, but you provide no logical or scientific process that it accomplishes what you claim.
Geology and the fossil record would argue with your postulation.....and defeat it. However, as it is clear your choice in this discussion is to ignore those things that show your position as incorrect, there is very little point in providing you with additional information.
additional? How about ANY? Provide ONE bit of evidence to support this hypothesis. I'm not ignoring anything. I even examined a verbose link that said nothing. I have no argument with geology or the fossil record.. we don't argue at all, but get along fine! We chat & joke over beers. I'm heading for the north rim of the grand canyon tomorrow, on a motorcycle adventure ride, & geology & i will have a grand old time.
You're demand, outside what considered reasonable, is nonsense. The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming and easy to access if you are being honest. My guess is, you're not.....hence your nonsense request. From your post, you are unwilling to accept any evidence unless it is presented to you in person. All I can do here is present links to the evidence but you are unwilling to accept that as evidence. Why? That's more nonsense. Random mutations (only one part of Evolution) adds or subtracts information to the genome and it's been observed: - increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991) - increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003) - novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996) - novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995) The Great Apes, as in chimps... have 24 pairs of chromosomes compared to 23 pairs in humans. This presented a potential problem for evolutionary theory, because it had to be explained how there was a difference between these related species if common ancestry were true. Science hypothesized that two chromosomes must have fused together to form a new longer chromosome, thus reducing the number of pairs from 24 to 23. When the technology allowed, science was able to confirm their hypothesis by what they found on Human Chromosome 2. Every human chromosome lines up with the corresponding chimpanzee chromosome with a fairly high degree of similarity - except for chromosome 2. There we find, two shorter chromosomes in the chimpanzee genome, which line up quite nicely with the single longer human chromosome 2. In fact, it is known that the genes on these two shorter chimpanzee chromosomes match the genes found on human chromosome 2, effectively putting the fusion hypothesis beyond all reasonable doubt. Not to mention, they also found remnants of two extra telomeres in between the two centromeres. This is indicative of a linear connection between two chromosomes and is exactly what would be expected if a fusion event had occurred. You have done no such thing....and no one "cries of blasphemy!" only disgust with the ignorant. That's nice except, you're not really looking for evidence, you're just looking to have your emotional belief validated.
Genetic drift, natural selection, mutation, and migration.... based on environmental, selective pressures over long periods of time = Evolution. ...and no amount of ignorant hand-waving on your part can change that.
Not that I expect you to accept or understand (or even read) the information provided....but I will post it anyway so others will see you in the light I am. "Paleontologists generally come much too late to find anything but skeletons. However, they find something denied to the biologist — the time element. The crowning achievement of paleontology has been the demonstration, from the history of life, of the validity of the evolutionary theory (paraphrased from KurtĂ©n, 1953). In Darwin’s day, the fossil record was poorly known, but this is no longer true. A major focus for geologists is establishing the times of origin of the rock formations in the crust of Earth — the science of geochronology. For paleontologists, it is important to know which rock formations were formed at the same time and thus can be correlated, which rocks were formed at different times, and to put the formations into a time sequence from oldest to youngest in any area under study. Fossils are key to establishing the sequence of the ages of layered sedimentary rocks, and they are the direct proof of the changes that have occurred in living organisms through time on our planet. " http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/paleo_geo_evol.html
One evidence? one? i bet you do know how viruses and bacteria are becoming immune to antibiotics ... Uh now now you should already know about the fused gene , each gene has organic molecules that mark it's beginning and it's end, human chromosome 2 has also two of those molecules in it's middle . Thanks for asking! "This can not happen" is fun when you consider how close the DNA of our cousins is : <0.1% = Homo Sapient ( same species) 0.1%-0.3% = Neanderthal ( same parent species) 0.3%-0.6^ = Denisovan ( same Genus ) 2% = Chimpanzee ( same Family ) 2.5% = Gorilla 3.5% = Orangutans Best part is that you can find several transitional species from Chimpanzee to Human . Species means kind, same species is same kind , morphological differences , differences in lifestyle & surviving methods define different species. The Neanderthals were the closest to us yet they were not made for long distance running ( most genus Homo in Africa did tho) they made different tools and their morphology shows that they are not same species with us. Chromosomes are just hardware for DNA , through a mutation our second one fused , not a big deal those things happen . The "creation" of new species happens through mutation , natural selection , genetic drift and few times by population bottleneck .
uuu The mechanism is easy to comprehend. Learn of phase coherance of em signals and you will comprehend the basic mechanism of living evolution. For a simple comprehension, just give a child a red and a blue crayon and watch what happens. sure. As each born are literally of the combining of both parents, into a new generation I am educating you on comprehending evolution Im not concerned with you playing word games. All life is evolving, at every moment and for some reason, you think that you can just put up YOUR rant and all must comply. Bull sheet i am stepping all over ignorance and that is a defining of the moments for what i am doing. Stop talking genetics as you apparently dont know what you are talking about.
Between what and what? Evolutionary theory is a well-supported explanation of how evolution happens. We observe that offspring are not identical to their parents. Why is this? What causes this, and what are the results? THAT is what the theory explains. I'm not sure what this is intended to mean. The descendents of moths will always be moths, just like the descendents of the first mammal will always be mammals. Which in turn means that humans, opossums, and rats are not "different creatures entirely". They are all mammals, and all share the attributes of mammals. It is supported by every living creature today, and by extension everythingf that has ever lived. The evidence is far far larger than the evidence for any other scientific theory. What foolishness. Biology is not religion. Now, there ARE some religions whose doctrines are incompatible with biology, and adherents of those religions are tireless in denying biology for religious reasons. But if you ignore that particular religious sect, you find nothing but good science. Of course not. ALL scientific assertions are substantiated with enormous amounts of observation and experimental evidence. The evidence for millions (indeed, billions) of years is multifaceted and solid. This means we have MANY dating techniques, and they all agree with one another. What? This does not happen. Evolutionary theory says it CAN not happen. No, it has never been asserted. Now, once again, there is a religious sect whose doctrine requires that they deny biology. So they claim (falsely) many things biologists will tell you don't happen or are impossible, then they mock these false claims and think they've challenged evolution. Here you are wrong. EVERY mutation to a gene, however minor, results in a new gene. So consider a given gene at some point in time. In that organism's offspring, mutations will make that gene slightly different. Not very different, only a tiny bit. But THEIR offspring are different again, and THEIR offspring are different again. Given enough generations, you have enough mutations to the original gene so that the descendents' gene is notably different. Evolution is like a journey taken one small step at a time. Each individual step is not a journey. How many steps must be added together to make a "journey"? You mean, like ANY mutation at all? Like imperfect copying? Like sexual recombination? Do you understand how DNA testing can positively identify a criminal, and positively distinguish him from every other living person? How could this be possible, unless his DNA is unique? In practice, it happens. More often in plants than in animals, but chromosomes occasionally do fuse or split (I assume you're talking about chromosomes here). What? Where do you think evidence comes from, if not observation and research? If you're not willing to read the evidence unless somone looks it up and physically retypes it for you, you're not willing to learn. The evidence is more extensive than you seem able to grasp. It fills entire libraries composed ONLY of journals filled with evolutionary and biological studies. If you are not willing to read or understand the evidence, that doesn't mean there is no evidence. You risk sounding like a blind person denying there's such a thing as a sunset because you've never seen one. But you just pleaded with everyone NOT to present evidence. You become repetitive. The evidence is there. The theory rests ENTIRELY on evidence, nothing else. The evidence is mind-bogglingly enormous. It is fully self-consistent. Tens of thousands of highly trained, highly intelligent researchers have spent their entire lives determining and providing this evidence. Which is of course what was used, and continues to be used thousands and thousands of times a day, to produce exactly what you refuse to accept even exists. Most of those doing this research are not religious at all. Religion is not involved. Only evidence.
You guys are funny.. when I get to a real computer, I'll respond.. I'm at the north rim, now, with a smart phone.. not a good tool for scientific discussion.. I'm studying the geological column, & i'll share my findings when I get back.
I am sure you scientific inquiry will result in amazing insight missed by the many geologists that have studied this area.....who knows, you may prove it was created by Noahs flood.
Yes you don't know what are you talking about , i bet you don't even understand what is the main different characteristic between chimps and humans.
I am expecting 'evidence' that proves the claim. vague links, & assertions do not provide that. I will look now at the evidence you provide that alleges to prove genetic jumps in complexity. This is the central problem in the hypothesis. We are using the scientific method to either prove the theory, or show it does not have the evidence to draw the conclusion. Shirley, you don't expect me to accept these vague references as 'evidence'. At least post a link to the findings, & the experiments that make your point. This is even more vague than the other, where at least a link was provided. This is a 'scientific view' of origins. I already am quite familiar with the assertions. IF there was actual evidence, it would be very easy to show it, & it would be loudly trumpeted to prove the hypothesis. IF there was evidence, i'd go along with it. But i am a skeptic, & am not easily convinced by assertions or intimidation. Hardly. Similarity in function does not indicate descendancy. IT is like the 'causation/correlation' argument. The rooster crows every morning, & the sun comes up. Did the rooster crowing CAUSE the sun to come up? No. Similarity in dna, either by some vague notion of percentage or common feature (we both have thumbs! We're related!) does not prove anything. ASSERTING that something MUST have happened does not work, either. Science must prove by experimentation, that this CAN happen, for it to be valid. You are merely assuming that it did happen, since humans & chimps have similar dna. This is fine as a belief system, but it is not science. As a skeptic, i am quite used to hearing the cries of 'blasphemy!' from those with religious or philosophical arguments, only. I have no vested emotional beliefs in this.. i am a scientist, & demand scientific proof for my 'theories' to have credence. I have spent a lifetime sifting out the wheat from the chaff.. many things i once thought were 'facts' i have discovered to be merely beliefs. So i am much more critical of assertions claiming to be 'truth'. I am not unreasonable.. i will concede truth where there are real facts to support it. But my skepticism will not allow blind faith in a process that cannot be tested, repeated, or even explained by scientific means. It can only be asserted. You make a reference to my 'emotional belief'. Where have i made any argument about beliefs? How is that even a factor? Regarding religious beliefs, most people believe in evolution & god. They don't seem to have any conflict. It could be possible for an atheist to not accept the evolutionary theory, too. I don't have any poll numbers for that. But this is not about correlating religious beliefs with the theory of evolution, unless you are saying they are the same... that is, that evolution is merely a religious belief, which is why that subject ALWAYS comes up in any scientific discussion about evolution. 1. Genetic drift only occurs WITHIN a species or genetic 'type'. 2. Natural selection only occurs WITHIN a species or genetic 'type'. 3. Mutation & migration do not cause genetic 'jumps' to newer, more complex life forms. Your statements are unproven assertions. Mine are supported by thousands of years of observation & scientific research. Who is doing the hand waving? There is NO mechanism that can cause the jumps you suggest. Mutation cannot add chromosomes or genome pairs. It can alter existing dna, & is either neutral or negative.. new traits are not added by mutation, but are shown to be descended from the original stock. IF you claim that genetic material can be added so easily over the years, it should be easy to demonstrate it under perfect laboratory conditions. We have not been able to do that. We are left with unproven assertions, with all the evidence suggesting that this process is impossible.
Well, this opens up a whole can of worms regarding dating methods & the assumptions there.. uniformitarianism & the theories of fossils are subject to scrutiny, as well. But this is to support your claim that 'time' has some power to affect genetic change. This is an unproven assertion, & is even illogical. What in 'time' has any mechanism to produce complexity? Time is on the side of entropy, & 'causes' degeneration, or a breakdown of all things in to simpler forms. THAT is what we observe. Your quotes are wonderful sermons to extol the virtues of your belief system. I like 'the crowning acheivement' part, too. But i see NO correlation between time & genetic increases. That is assumed. It is another 'causation/correlation' argument. You have to prove that, not just assert it.
Well, other than a few ad hominems, you provide little for me to rebut. You are still claiming that being born somehow proves evolution. It seems we have little reference points on what is 'evidence' or the scientific method. this is a scientific exercise. If you want to post some evidence for your views, & can examine them & review your conclusions. But as it is, i don't see any evidence, or even much in the way of logical arguments...
On the contrary, we observe that offspring are EXACTLY like their parents.. they are the combined dna of the parents. They do not ADD new genetic material. THAT is what we observe. Then why is evidence for this hypothesis impossible to find? All anyone would have to do is show verifiable experiments that provide the proof that jumps in genetic information can be made. We fire gamma rays, & have tried EVERYTHING to try to prove the theory, but we can't do it. We cannot make a jump between distinct species, or 'different creatures entirely'. You cannot put wings on a reptile, or warm blood in a cold blood. You assert this has happened, but nothing in genetic research allows this. What mechanism forces this change into increased complexity? I get the assertion. Yes, there can be variability. Some genes are lost, as variability is reduced. But your assertion that mutation produces new genes that increase complexity or add variability is not substantiated. That is merely asserted, like a religious belief. It is what you believe, but you cannot prove it, scientifically. I see no evidence for your view. You merely double down on assertions. You plead volume, yet have no specifics. Where is the reviewable experiment that shows new genetic material being added, so life can increase in complexity? You argue mutation, which can alter genes, or make neutral or negative changes to a life form, but it does not add feet to a fish, or wings to a lizard. There is no evidence that this incremental change is possible, yet it is asserted as proven fact. This is a scientific discussion, not a religious one. IF you make a hypothesis, you have to prove it, scientifically. Religious assertions are not accepted here.
I always find it very ironic, when discussing the scientific processes of evolution, & especially as it fits within the growing genetic research field, how ridicule & ad hominems are used more than science or evidence. To me, this shows a deep commitment to the philosophy of evolution, with little scientific backing. This is the cries of 'Blasphemy!' i spoke of earlier. The process here is quite simple. We provided a hypothesis, then we look for evidence to support it. I'm willing to examine the evidence, if it is presented. Something this profound, being trumpeted as 'fact' everywhere should be easy to show evidence for. But it is an argument of assertions, built upon assumptions that have no basis in scientific fact. At one time, 'scientists' believed the earth was flat. They believed in geocentricity, alchemy, vitalism, spontaneous generation, & the 4 humors. At any time in human history, the elite thought themselves at the 'pinnacle of knowledge'. It has always taken skeptics.. questioning people who do not accept the status quo at face value, but want the real truth.. they want understanding, not glib explanations. In time, the ToE will either be proven true.. some mechanism will be discovered that WILL provide evidence for the theory, or it will join the others in the dust bin of history. Real science eventually wins over superstition. Evolution is a tough one, though.. it has a lot of very dedicated followers, who are zealous for it as a philosophical construct, & bluff their way through the science part. Most people don't bother with the science part, anyway. They believe what 'really smart people' tell them, & accept the status quo. It doesn't matter a lot.. most people keep their religious views & philosophy of life, regardless of their opinions on origins. But for scientific truth seekers, it is an exercise in the scientific method, not a matter of belief.
I almost missed you, M, though my earlier replies address your points. 1. No, there are NO transitional species from chimp to man. I'm surprised you make this claim. Surely you would expect me to see through this bluff. 2. Percentages of correlation do not indicate causation or descendancy. You can assert or assume there is a correlation, but that is not the only explanation, & there is NO SCIENTIFIC evidence to corroborate your conclusion. 3. Neanderthals have had a fascinating history. I have watched them 'evolve' over the years, & recent discoveries in their dna have been very enlightening. Here are some facts about them: 1. they used tools, had music & art. 2. ~ 2 billion people today have neanderthal genes in them! 3. ~ 60% of the neanderthal dna has been recovered. Many scientists are conceding that neanderthals were just humans.. like pygmies or any other 'population bottleneck' species. They were not a distinct subspecies of humanity.. at least that cannot be proven. There is just as much evidence that there were merely human beings, regardless of the cute diagrams & human evolution flow chart we've been fed all our lives. ..make sure you study it a bit before responding with some old notion you learned in middle school, or something you saw on a nature show..
No transitional species? uhoh Ardipithicus Ramidus was a bipedal ape with a grasping toe - this means tree jumper , he is definitely a transitional species . Without going into details ( i can if you want to ) there are three major differences between chimp and human a) Bipedalism , humans evolved to live on the ground yet as i posted above there was at least an ape that also had tree living abilities b) Canines , from chimp to human there is a series of transitional species that show decreasing size of canines d) Sexual dimorphism , from chimp to man transitional species show decreasing size difference between males and females Percentages show the genetic difference between species and there is a very clear pattern , we have 80% identical DNA with a cat , 60% with a chicken and 40% with a banana , since evolution is a reality we can build an ancestry tree . It is not a matter of luck that things are the way they are. We are related to all primates because we are the only family who has nails instead of claws , we are related to all mammals since we are the only family with specialized teeth , we are related to the reptiles because we all have a trunk , a head and for limbs , we are related to fish since we all have jaws .... do you know how much of the tree of life all those species from fish to men make? follow this image : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Phylogenetic_Tree_of_Life.png we are the "animalia" . Neanderthals inhabited Europe for 100's of thousands of years before our kind paid them a visit and they had NEVER produced any art or musical instrument , very few of them did imitating us . Yes since we had the same parent species we could breed with their females but i think you are missing the point there , if genetic distance of 0.3% indicates relation why 2.5% doesn't ? Of course Neanderthals were human like Erectus or Idaltu but they were not same species with us, no way. They didn't had any population bottleneck because their numbers were always small ( a maximum between 5000 and 15000) . Pygmies like Negritos have the same genetic markers with us while Neanderthals do not and this is natural since we came from South Africa and Rift Valley and they came from France ! Many scientists believe that their American football ball shaped skulls , huge bones and gigantic chests do not make them different species? where did those guys took their PhD from , foundation institute ? LOL
The story of Genesis of how the life was created is a simplified explanation for children to understand. The time when the bible or any other religious book was written was during a time when most of the population could not read or write. This is the main reason why religions had so much power over its population for so long in history. Children are taught by their parent’s religious preference before they are old enough to enter the school system. It is very difficult to change their beliefs because their thinking is built from their environment during their child development years. The independent thinkers usually will not be satisfied with the explanation of life taught by their religions for obvious reasons. The information taught by their religions often conflicts with other authors written in the same book. The child’s version of how life was created lacks many of the details of the actual process of changes in life forms throughout history. This is where science is important to educate us on the process of life on earth. It may or it may not be the actual truth but it is so far the best explanation we have right now until other evidence comes to our attention that can dispute it or change how we view it. To take the attitude that you will only believe what your religious beliefs tells you to believe of how life was created indicates that you do not want to or are incapable of wanting to further your education of how life came into existence. For people that want to believe that a God created the initial origin to get life science started does not conflict with science since it also does not have the proof or the actual step by step process from its origin. Science begins after life already got started and has does the best they can of determining how life evolved from there. There really is no conflict between religion and science when you can see it from this point of view.
Really? You can't tell any difference between yourself and your parents, and neither can anyone else? Amazing. Every experiment providess this proof. Maybe you are defining "jumps" and "information" in such a way that biology doesn't work that way? If so, you might wish to consider how biology actually works. And not only that, the theory of evolution says such jumps cannot happen. Something sort of similar to what you describe was proposed over a century ago, called "saltation". It doesn't happen. How are you defining complexiity? All living organisms today are equally evolved. You seem to have this fantasy in your mind of a pig giving birth to a bat. As a bit of advice, if you wish to criticize the theory of evolution, you might wish to criticize the theory as understood by evolutionary biologists. Your concept bears no resemblance to that theory. Again, you are using words unattached to any scientific meaning. What do you mean by "new genes"? What do you mean by "complexity"? I pointed out that a single base pair change in a gene produces a new gene. Is this not "new enough" for you? In order to make your case you need an operational definition of your terms. Read about Lenski's experiments. I am not going to try to force you to drink, I can only point out that you are in the middle of a great lake of drinking water. If you refuse to look at it, this is not my problem. Again, you must criticize the actual theory, not your wild misconception of it. For example, if you look at fish, you find that many of them actually walk along the bottom. And some of them come out of the water and walk across the land considerable distances and find swimming pools. Are you saying that the appendages they walk on are not "feet"? If anyone has ever noticed that you are not identical to your father, that's evidence of incremental change. It is a straightforward observation. I pointed out that DNA evidence can individually distinguish everyone alive, even between "identical" twins. THOSE are incremental changes. It's why DNA identification works and is accepted. Except yours, of course.
If you examine the phylogenetic tree, you will see that chimps and humans had a common ancestor, perhaps about 6-8 million years ago. Humans and chimps did not "transition" into one another, they SPLIT. Consider a tree. Branches split (they "branch", get it?) but they do not merge later on. Anyway, this discussion grows tiring. The problem isn't that your claims are false, the problem is that you are not addressing what you claim to be addressing. You are taking things that do not happen, asserting that they do not happen, and saying that shows a theory is wrong that never claimed those things happen. If you wish to criticize a theory, you must address the actual theory, and not a bunch of imaginative distortions.
