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

I think that someone needs to be trained in the specifics. What I am requesting is that outside of Tina and Pierre’s “special” cases, we need to know. If someone calls about Stock/Homestead

Nope not pointless... Just someone who has valid questions… questions that makes evolution look like there is a fairy land where pixies live. And of course you won’t answer on “why” it is so far removed huh? You’ll just say that and let it stand…

No worries.

I’ve been here before with others, and it’s not the seventh continuation and one of the longest threads on this site for nothing… I know I am right, as I mostly am… not saying I haven’t been wrong on occasion, because I have and will admit my wrongfulness, BUT…

On the most part.. I am usually right…

Too late… I have mixed with Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Blacks, Whites, Asians and other… I am racists, but my under parts – well… They’re a WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY!!! I have to listen to their demands or else they might boycott when I need them most!!!

 

There is no “evolutionary gene”! That was me being sarcastic!!!! Gene sequences act the same way they have ALWAYS acted and that is fact. Now… why does, when explaining evolution, you expect the genes (mRNA and the rest of the posse) to act TOTALLY different than what we have proven?

So, obviously you think there is some “evolutionary gene” that acts different from genes that we have… Right? Because you do… You think genes are just going to switch up and turn fish gills into bat wings and stupid crap like that…

That over time a single cell organism can turn into a tree or a Mercedes Benz… Who KNOWS the bounds on which your fantasy holds for your magical “evolutionary gene”… Because what you are suggesting genes do – doesn’t happen, hasn’t happen, never will happen…

So… explain to me this magical gene sequence again and how it develops complexity? Because obviously that’s your magical “evolutionary gene”….

 

You are something special, aren't you?

 

No, I don't. That's why I asked, because it looked like you did.

I'm not going to explain this for a fifth time. Google "duplication divergence" and educate yourself. The results you get will be more complicated than my explanations, though, so I won't hold my breath waiting for you to come back and demonstrate your new knowledge of the subject.

While I'm here, let me, again, correct another misconception from one of your posts. You said:

"Recessive gene" is a misnomer and probably why you're not understanding here. Alleles (gene variations) can be recessive or (co)dominant. Genes themselves cannot be recessive. They are either expressed or unexpressed. A recessive allele is recessive because it can be covered up or overridden by a more dominant gene version. The gene still functions as expected, it just exhibits the behavior of the dominant allele. When a gene is overridden, the entirety of the function is affected. The point is that our ancestor genes aren't recessive. They have been mutated into our genes, or they are just no longer expressed.

So you've basically asked why genes don't function the same way as alleles. It's a nonsense question.

 

What's funny is I was making fun when I stated "evolutionary gene"...

 

Yes Ma'am/Sir I am... Thank your for your intelligent post! It was special...

 

No man… I was poking fun…

Duplication Divergence… That’s funny… I already know about that fairytale… Do you believe in it? Do you believe in the unseen, unknown, and unproven also?

Like God?

Wait… let me get this straight… you just said that Alleles can be recessive, but genes cannot… Did I get that right?

Because I’m confused here… I thought Alleles WERE genes? No? Are they shoe laces? Are they mud skippers? What… What are alleles? Obviously they are not gene sequences, which means the plural word GENES so… Please inform us all what alleles are – please…

Now for my rebuttal. Our ancestor genes are not “mutated”… They are still there. In hiding like all the rest of our genes. In fact, that is the whole point I am making! Science – per experimentation and observation suggests that there IS NO MUTATION. There is, per my websites I provided several times and you hopefully read, is that we only activate and de-activate gene sequences that are already present…

Want to view the websites again or do you remember?

 

Duplication-divergence is a process that has been studied and proven over the last 40 years. I already linked you to two scientific articles on the topic. You will get thousands if you search for the term yourself.

Alleles are forms of a gene. Blue eyes and brown eyes are both alleles of the eye color gene. Blue eyes are recessive. In the case of alleles, both forms are expressed, but the effects of the dominant gene cover up the effects of the recessive one. Brown covers up blue. Or the dominant one makes up for a deficiency caused by the recessive gene (like color blindness). Eye color in general, as a gene, cannot be recessive. It's either there or it isn't. If it's there, then it's either expressed or it's not. If another gene prevents the expression of eye color, we don't say that the eye color gene is recessive, we say it's unexpressed. If the eye color gene becomes mutated so that it isn't expressed, we don't say that it's recessive, we say that it's unexpressed.

You don't actually understand gene regulation, so you think that it is somehow a replacement for the idea of mutation. Gene regulation is an evolved process that improves efficiency in an organism. Like the lac-operon system that only allows for the production of lactose metabolizing enzymes in the presence of lactose. No real scientist actually thinks that gene regulation mechanisms rule out mutations. That's insanity.

 

do hold your breath; that one dont research beyond the babble

a fine, intellectually expressed. comment

at least you posted a good analogy in response

 

You've used it repeatedly.
You're fooling noone.
I am cutting out of this thread, because you have such a basic, rudimentary misunderstanding of this theory that you are constantly asking people to respond to truly ridiculous questions that are meaningless, but you don't know it.
It's not that you are making great arguments.
It's that they are so baseless it is embarrassing to engage them.
Have fun.

 

i. like it or not, scientists have given it the theory status. It's your turn to falsify it is you don't like it.

ii. It can be falsified, I provided 2 examples of how to do this (fossils and chromosome 2)

iii. That came out wrong but I think I know what you mean. There is no evidence we can watch.
Unfortunatly evolution does not happen is the scale of a lifetime so that will always be a challenge to see. But:
There are some examples of evolution with short life cycles. Richard Lenski is working on a 20 year and counting experiment with e-coli with interesting findings.
Also, we don't need to see it to know evolution is the case. The thoery is founded on clues. (Is OJ guilty? yes -Did you see him commit murder? no)

iv. I don't know why your talking about recessive genes. They may play a part in how evolution occures but it does not suggest or refute evolution. If your making an analogy it is not valid.

Your main point I'm gathering is that there is not sufficient evidence to be certain evolution is the case. There are so many ways to show evolution, I'll just pick on one people tend to hate: the fossil record. One way to suggest evolution is in direct contrast to the fictional example I gave about dinosaur bones in the Cambrian era. If evolution is not case, why are the fossils arranged in the rock bed in a manner that is consistent with evolution (That is we have simple to complex life, and the ToL can be followed chronologically up the eons?).

Also, I'm familiar with the scientific method and formal logic (proof and deductions). I know what the difference between a hypothesis is and a theory. I know that a theory doesn't need to be replaced with another theory. Please stop assuming I'm stupid. Thanks!

 

Great… Now answer the question I asked and stop trailing off the subject… This is why we are even talking about expressed and unexpressed gene sequences.

http://www.politicalforum.com/4816209-post401.html

Good you've said that- provide one with the experiment that shows this (as you so suggested) build up of dormant DNA to appear as complexity...

OR - I'll even except a experiment that has put foriegn DNA in a lifeform that produced complexity!!!

Like the links I provided earlier, you are not going to “mutate” into something that isn’t already present with your already existing gene sequences…

You keep posting that and I keep proving you wrong and you never answer the questions. But, I think that my last post came across incorrectly. I shouldn’t say that there “isn’t” any mutation, you are correct and that is insanity for me to even suggest that! Mutations have happened and been replicated.

What I should say is there is not this “stack” of mutations that you suggest that lead to complexity….

 

Here are the gene sequences for Chromo 2 http://omim.org/search?index=geneMap&search=2

Now please explain to me how Chromo 2 (the gene sequences – there are right there) help evolution? Also, how does the fossil record provide evidence of common descent, when there are billions of lifeforms that are not presented in the fossil record? I’ll explain that better later in this posts…

I know of the E. Coli experiment… yes… it’s at some university and I think it’s been going on for about 40 years if my memory is correct…

It is valid… Here are some websites:

http://www.politicalforum.com/4317755-post227.html


http://www.politicalforum.com/4331216-post242.html


These describe what I was referring to….

They are not consistant with the fossil record. Do you know why? Prepare to be dazzled!!

What the fossil record shows is life just “appearing” out of nowhere… Like the Cambrian Explosion… No life then there is life all over the place. Now… where the fossil record is the worst case for evolution. Now we have life on the planet – great! Life is getting fossilized. Great. Now… a major extinction happens!

What the fossil record shows is that the life before the extinction that survives the extinction “does not evolve”, but then Presto Chango – life is all over the place again…. How did these new species of life come about if the present life didn’t evolve into them? I mean like whole complex lifeforms just “show up”! After every major extinction! The fossil record shows that life is unchanged is what it does! The appearance of “new” life is unexplainable, like the Enterprised beemed them down… but, it doesn’t help evolution.

I APOLOGIZE!!!!

But, please understand that some people who post are stupid and think that one must “replace” evolution with another theory. They do not know about the scientific method and the difference between theory and hypothesis… Well, I shouldn’t say some – I will say 80%... Those folks have no clue and they, to me, act like religious fanatics who have never read their Bible and just post ridiculousness and then when confronted with Darwin Religion they go into a frantic attack and post gibberish!

If they are not already posting, they will be soon… I just ignore them… Again, I apologize…

 

Edit: I have no idea why the capitalization is all screwed up in this post. Please bear with it.

 

I'll read the articles tonight. About the goats and cows... first that isn't complexity... if they made those spiders give milk - that would be complexity.

As I stated - you are only using what DNA is already present... I'll explain a little better.

I want 1,200 base pairs slapped into a fish that gives it legs and arms... Now do you understand? I want complexity...

 

Okay... Just got done with the second site explaining CRALBP. The second says absolutely nothing about building up mutations for complexity. Again, you stated that a mutation happens, goes dormant (just saying) then after several mutations have “stacked” on complexity happens..

Can you point out the section in which it states this in the second link you provided? I might have missed it… I don’t think I did, but you never know….

Thanks

 

I have used “evolutionary” gene repeatedly to poke fun at people who think genes, out of the blue, somehow act different when it comes to evolution. Thus, since they think that, dealing with evolution, that genes do not act according to fact, I have to make up an imaginary name for these gene sequences that defy genetics.

If you think they are baseless – that’s fine and on you. But, to suggest that certain gene sequences defy genetics without explanation…

Evolution is common descent with modification and nothing on this planet, for the threads has been brought forward to suggest that it is what happened… nothing. If you have such an understand of evolution – just wrap up how evolution passed the scientific method for us here. How did it go from hypothesis to theory!

You can go ahead and just link the experiment where the outcome was common descent with modification…

 

How does Chromo 2 help evolution?: I found an interesting discussion from Dr Ken Miller. He is discussing it over a what sounds like previous a court hearing attempt to have creation in the schools. I know a thing or 2 about evolution and biology but he is in a better place then me to explain such things. What I find that most puts a thorn in the side of anti-evolutionists is that common ancestry between man and apes was predicted by evolution YEARS before we could ever decode DNA. Evolution stared directly in the face of being falsified by things that weren't even imagined by Darwin. But as usual, another bit of evidence FOR evolution was discoved at that moment. Simply amazing IMO. A true theory, the power to predict etc. Link below.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk"]Ken Miller on Human Evolution - YouTube[/ame]

I'm familiar with the argument of the Cambrian explosion. And another pet arguments of anti-evolutionists like irreducible complexity for example.
The disappointing thing about these arguments is that they were a topic of concern of Darwin himself.. opposers didn't even come up with this themselves. But still they have not falsified evolution, creationists try as they might!
But back to the Cambrian explosion you referred to, this event was not unique; the Ordovician radiation is another example of sudden life. And when you say "suddenly" you still talking about 10's of millions of years. It is also reasonably suggested that the explosion is exaggerated because the life that existed just prior to the fossils found was likely soft bodied and would not fossilize.
Also, on your point about life "booms" after an extinction. This is predicted by evolution because of the extinction of predators life is given the chance to evolve in a situation without them (this assumes survival of the fittest, fit in this situation is not so specific/demanding).
However, you have somewhat dodged my remark about the simple to complex organization of the fossil record. If all life has the same DNA (Which I think is your claim) why should life progress per the fossil record in a manner consistent with evolution?
Also, I feel that your concern about "new" life "appearing out of no where" does not make sense. If your so concerned about "new" life and just simply stumped by it you should probably..... consider that it is evidence for evolution? That is what it's all about by the way.

EDIT:
BTW I'm leaving out a response to recessive genes for now. still not seeing the link you are trying to make.

 

Everything we know about life is in support (ok maybe there are a few poorly understood situations). It is for this reason it has "passes" the scientific method to become a theory.

What part of the method did it fail to pass?

If your going to say "evidence" sigh, I'd hate to spend the time to pick 20 examples when they are so easily available with this world wide web we got going here!

 

Here is a very good example of the Scientific Method. I am not saying you don’t know it, but do understand there are several people who read this post daily. I am putting it up more for them to follow along…

Scientific Method:
The scientific method is a series of steps followed by scientific investigators to answer specific questions about the natural world. It involves making observations, formulating a hypothesis, and conducting scientific experiments. Scientific inquiry starts with an observation followed by the formulation of a question about what has been observed. The steps of the scientific method are as follows:

Observation

Question

Hypothesis

Experiment

Result

Conclusion

Observation:
The first step of the scientific method involves making an observation about something that interests you. This is very important if you are doing a science project because you want your project to be focused on something that will hold your attention. Your observation can be on anything from plant movement to animal behavior, as long as it is something you really want to know more about.

Question:
Once you've made your observation, you must formulate a question about what you have observed. Your question should tell what it is that you are trying to discover or accomplish in your experiment. When stating your question you should be as specific as possible.

Hypothesis:
The hypothesis is a key component of the scientific process. A hypothesis is an educated guess about the answer to your specific question. It is important to note that a hypothesis must be testable. That means that you should be able to test your hypothesis through experimentation.

Experiment:
Once you've developed a hypothesis, you must design and conduct an experiment that will test it. You should develop a procedure that states very clearly how you plan to conduct your experiment. It is important that you include and identify a controlled variable in your procedure. Controls allow us to test a single variable in an experiment because they are unchanged. We can then make observations and comparisons between our controls and our independent variables (things that change in the experiment) to develop an accurate conclusion.

Results:
The results are where you report what happened in the experiment. That includes detailing all observations and data made during your experiment. Most people find it easier to visualize the data by charting or graphing the information.

Conclusion:
The final step of the scientific method is the conclusion. This is where all of the results from the experiment are analyzed and a determination is reached about the hypothesis. Did the experiment support or reject your hypothesis? If your hypothesis was supported, great. If not, repeat the experiment or think of ways to improve your procedure.

http://biology.about.com/od/biologysciencefair/p/sciencemethod.htm

DBM aka FDS
It’s the first three I have a problem with dealing with why they suggest that evolution is a theory. First off, “Common Descent with modification” has not been observed. Then, Darwin based his questions on what was not evolution, but speciation (I am in hopes you do know the difference between Speciation and Evolution – Common Descent). Lastly, there has not been any experimentation dealing with evolution where there has been an outcome of Common Descent/Ancestry.

I have asked every biologist I know about evolution and one question I always ask is – what questions did you have concerning evolution? Did anything not seem right that you wondered about? Or did you just believe evolution feet first – All In…?

For me, it was more like a Religion… honestly… It was Professors making statements and then me asking, “Okay, let’s test that – how do we test that… Where can we observe this…” and there was nothing… I’m just supposed to believe it like he was reading out of a Bible. Moses parted the see – Jesus walked on water – a single cell organism turned into a tree – fish gills turned into bat wings – there is a guy named Satan that makes you do bad things that lives in a different dimension… Gremlins steal my socks… horrible… and that is what I thought was the difference between biology science and fairytales, but I was wrong…

Every piece of evidence as you stated needs to be tested and it’s just a stand-alone phenomenon in most cases that people try to use as evidence for evolution. Unless you can test it for evolution it’s just more water walking to me. What I find funny is that the biology community doesn’t see any reason to test anything dealing with evolution! Flavobacteria… test it... Only experiment that I know of is the E. Coli experiment and that is a complete FAIL… The results have not shown common descent…

 

Any time an organism has offspring, one observes this phenomena.

They're closely related concepts and, besides, Darwinian evolutionary ideas are outdated, we now deal with the Modern Synthesis.

 

Yes, but does that mean we can use that for life? Because it doesn’t work that way… Who do you think is closest related to a Hare? Rabbit maybe? Why is it that this example doesn’t apply with the Hare and Rabbit… I believe mice and hamsters are also part of the group that doesn’t work along side ours…

This Chromo 2 is not testable within the biology community since it does not follow along how life is. There are several hundred like species with a shared # of Chromo’s and about half (going off memory) of that number that do not match up like the example that they (biologist against Creationism) have not matched up so. Thus, as that person stated on your video, we have just proven evolution wrong again. But, of course the Darwinist will shrug that off and make up some other outlandish discovery that can’t be falsified… But, if they put things out there that can be falsified – they will be.

This is off memory – I’m going to wiki this one…

FOUND IT – AMAZING!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count

Looking through that – it’s worst for evolution than I would have imagined… Plants with over 1,000!!!!

What about birds who have over 100?

But, what I want you to notice is like species that have common ancestry… Life that belong on the same clade together… That is what’s interesting and my point. If Chromo 2 is your lifeline for evolution then it should be testable with other life that have common ancestry also. It should be like that with ALL life like the rabbit and hare… Shrimp… horses and donkeys… But, it’s not… Thus the coincidence that it happened with humans has not become null and void since the rest of life on the planet does not follow suit.

I am going to try to find a better list of chromosomes within life. I know already when you look at the numbers they will stick out in your mind of how life (simple life too) can be so complex! That’s what did it for me, I’ll try to find it… Because I remember saying, “Uhhh, how can you suggest that we evolved from fish when some fish have more and others have less chromosomes that we do… Can we (life) lose whole pairs of chromosomes?” I think he answered that in the video…

That is HIGH – LARIOUS!!!! You and only YOU (and you will get repped) know that Darwin had a problem with his own theory (hypothesis). I have stated this for YEARS on this site and people (all of them) said it was not so.

KUDO’S!!!

That is a hypothesis… and if that was the case there could have been mammals this whole time that also were soft bodied and thus not fossilizing. I find it weird that they (Darwinist) only use specifics if it works “for” their case instead of using it as they should with science with ALL cases scenarios.

I do not think this is the case. When we look at areas that have been devastated by natural disasters, this doesn’t happen. Why would be assume that it did previously? All life are predators in one form or another. Just because some life doesn’t move doesn’t mean it isn’t life. The fact, if this is the case you would use, if there were no predators, ALL life would be devastated, including plant life. If the predators died (meat eating) it would only be a short time span until plant life would be devastated by the surviving plant eaters.

It’s a quid pro quo.

Thus, that prediction from evolution is incorrect. Also, what we have observed in nature is the tendency for certain life to become “overbearing” and take over ecosystems without any opposition. This would wipe out species and make even some extinct while they ravished the landscape. This is what happens and has been observed. The pretty equilibrium of life just flowing along is not reality…

I’m not following… As in DNA sequences? As you can see above, complexity is in the eyes of the beholder… plants are more complex than we are…

Ah!!! I will clarify!

I mean this… Dealing with the E. Coli experiment, when does E. Coli become something different? At that point, how long does it take for E. Coli to become extinct OR does it co-exist with the previous species? Because I have a question for you..

At one point a species is going to evolve into something else and not be able to mate with the previous species where the children are going to come out okay and not retarded… When that lifeform comes into existence… Who does it mate with?

Once a chicken mutates and now it’s different and cannot perform it’s mating ritual – it dies without mating… In most cases I see, if something evolves, it basically signed its own death warrant. Which brings me to – why do previous species life evolves from disappear? There should be our ancestor running around climbing trees… observation states yes! How, look at life that has survived over millions of years unchanged where “evolution” skipped their species. OR – did some offspring evolve and they basically stayed the same like “evolution machines” pumping out the next complex lifeform…?

 

Welcome back Ahklut, it always is a pleasure!

You are not looking at Common Descent as evolution describes it with common ancestry.

Not really… one ends up as a new species as the other continues to be the same species…

Please link…

I am not that familiar with the Germ Theory…

They are all still E. Coli… There is no common descent. We did not evolve from Homosapien Sapiens…

 

FOUND SOMETHING!!!!

Here is a website that basically does the Chromo count per clade (or branch or group - your choice)

Interesting... Now, the question arises how do we explain the difference between them? People say Chromo 2 within our genome is explainable, now, explain the others...

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/15sim03.htm

Now this is from a (what I would call a non-worthy site) but it still brings a good point... It's Creationist, but do not let the title mislead you. The chromosomes are correct... and that is the discussion. If they are not correct - then provide a site that states so.

But, per the discussion it is one that shows life in taxa which is good for the discussion.

OH dcaddy - I am not a Creationist...

 

ALMOST FORGOT TO ADDRESS THIS!!!

40,000 generations!!! Isn't that just interesting?!?! I find it amazing!!! Because in that time we went from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis

To what we are now... We went from looking like chimps to developing space craft!!

Now... What has E. Coli done in it's time under the microscope? Not even close. So, either what we think happened was wrong, or the experiment is a complete failure...