Evolution is a joke pt V

Now that Grasping is gone I can continue...

Question... What if we took out mutation within evolution?

Let's say that the only thing that we can be EVER is what we already have within our DNA. Mutation happens of course - we've witnessed it, but it bad. We don't see GOOD mutations where things happen for the better, but legs on foreheads and flies without wings.

KMISHO - posted something a while back and I have been stating this from the beginning of time. What if we can only be what we already are. There is no mutation of DNA, but a "change" in already present sequencing of DNA to produce different outcomes.

Example: What if the dinosaurs ARE birds... The DNA is still in the what we call birds for dinosaurs, but it's just not active. If it were to go active, then the bird would be a dinosaur. That would put a HUGE damper on evolution now wouldn't it...! That things don't evolve - they just adapt with what they got.

Do any of you know what percentage of DNA makes up your body structure?

Do you how much DNA is left over after that?

 

BS. When you say "larger mass" people can assume what you meant. If you just say "larger", people will correctly see that as referring to size, which is incorrect.

Now you're just trying to weasel out of admitting that you were wrong.

 

And thank you for re-posting the words from THE BANNED ONE! Oh, how we do miss his intellectual conversations as you just demonstrated in your quote...

Genius!

 

Can you please summarize your points? I'm not going to read all that.

 

Fabulous post from kmisho

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

http://www.politicalforum.com/4318569-post233.html

Do any of you know WHY these posts with links are RETARDED IMPORTANT?!?! Evolution is about to get knocked the F out of the park... I've been trying to tell you all this for some time now.

We are unable to "mutate" or "evolve" into nothing more than what we already have packed inside of us within our DNA...

If you are Christian I think you should take time to read read those links also... Kinda deals with you also...

 

That's the ultimate assumption that ALL major anti-evolution arguments rely on.

And a very ignorant one.

 

I'd be more than happy...

Evolution is a religion and those who believe are religious. Evolution is nothing more than a guess on what happened. A hypothesis in scientific terms, and like God unseen. People who believe in Darwinism must have "faith" that what they are being told has weight, but they have been lied to. Evolution is common descent with modification within life. For there to be a theory, a phenomenon must pass the scientific method and evolution has not. Thus, it is a hypothesis.

I ask questions about the Darwin religion because it makes sense, but there is no evidence of evolution. None. If you have something to provide for this I will be more than happy to read it - link - name of experiment or math calculating evolutionary trends that we can predict in life to come.

 

You don't know the basic ideas of this, do you?

Mutations and other possible changes to a species' gene code are not predictable. They're random. Therefore your assumption above (that it would be predictable if it were true), as implied by "name of experiment or math calculating evolutionary trends that we can predict in life to come", is absurd.

You just don't get it. It's a fairly simple point, is what's worse.

 

It's ignorant? Really...? Show me the experiment that shows common descent - because to follow science without experimentation I think is ignorant. I will and would not waste my time with just posting gibberish...

So, that brings me to say, I backed up my "ignorant assumption" with experimentation - it's in the above link... Might want to check it out.

Also, if you have a link of a common descent experiment I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you...

 

Are you suggesting that evolution is Random?

Also, to become a theory - you must pass the scientific method - do you know what that is? The Method is not absurd, it IS. I suggest you Google it before continuing to discuss it please...

At least know its steps..

 

Are you a supporter of the free market?

 

Your assumption is simply that a species' genetic code is like a bag of colored stones, where each colored stone in this analogy is a different gene. Thus if you take reproduction, which in this analogy would be taking half the stones out of each of two different bags and putting them into a third bag (the offspring), you can never get a bag, ever, that has stones which are different than any bag from the past.

That's a pretty accurate analogy isn't it? I'll start there

 

Does a car move at a certain velocity?

I asked you a question...

 

This is correct for the most part… We can work off of this. Is there anything that you can find from experimentation that suggests that a mutation of a gene has been beneficial for a lifeform on this planet that was not already present?

 

If you think that experimentally derived data and mathematics are not constituents of the ToE you have a VERY limited understanding of the data set that supports the ToE. I would really encourage you to actually research the theory of evolution as your statements suggest that you know very little about the massive data set that supports the ToE. Evolution is a scientific theory and that is not going to change anytime soon regardless of what you may think. There is no credible scientific evidence which contradicts the ToE and it is obscenely ignorant to suggest otherwise.

 

Ok, so now we just have to dismantle the idea that this analogy is how a species actually works. We have to prove that these individual colored stones can be modified over time, or that new colored stones could be added to these bags over time.

 

Please provide this "understanding" of these experiments and mathematics of the hypothesis of evolution....

Then it becomes unfalsifiable and is deemed irrelavent... Do you know what you just said? God is falsifiable, and thus falls out of the scope of science. You just stated that evolution is the same... Therefore, you agree that evolution is a religion which you must have faith.

 

I don't think then stones would be a good example to draw the parallel between gene sequences and colored boulders.

We should use different colored legos! How's that sound!! I think it works since you have to "build" with lego and they are not seperated like rocks. Micro-biology is tricky and being vague like dealing with rocks might confuse those reading along...

 

Are you trying to suggest that evolution is random. I have answered and played along and you have not answered my first question...

 

My hypothesis.

Giving how much DNA is within a species and how meiosis works with the high percentage of replication errors being corrected, one has to take a look at this. What if... what if there was no thing as "junk DNA" and we have had all this DNA from what we are from the beginning. What if whatever people have lied to you about "evolving" wasn't actually evolving? What if we had all the genes from the jump within us to begin with and all that needed to happen is the right conditions during meiosis to produce what we were before.

We never "evolved" we just adapted using the gene sets we already had with us!! I have stated that during meiosis is a key element to finding the truth and I still believe this. No, I don't believe in evolution, but I do believe in the truth of what experimentations have shown. Like above, we are able to activate certain gene sequences to produce certain outcomes. So, we take this and suggest that birds didn't evolve FROM dinosaurs, but still ARE dinosaurs and there was no mutations, but just certain genes already inside dinosaurs that were activated during meiosis that let them survive.

So, if we have the make up for wings - well if the circumstances presents itself - by God we'll have wings! Or chicken having teeth, or dolphins with legs... If it's in our genome already - just turning on a switch can make a huge difference.

As I stated earlier - how many gene sequences does it take to make up our body - I mean EVERYTHING - and how much is left over? When Chromo 2 was brought up I told the poster to look at it and post what other lifeforms on the planet has what's inside of Chromo 2? Also, I asked, how significant that Chromo 2 is to us, where is the gene split or fusion for our other cousins within the Ape Clade? Yea - we have Chromo 2, but what is the separation between Tang and Gorilla? Chimp and Tang and so forth?

 

What you said doesn't really compute with what he said. Because there is no evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution, it becomes unfalsifiable?

 

Yes and what people who don't understand the basics of it will never understand, is that while mutations etc. are random, selection, which evolution also depends on, is not.

Therefore evolution is not either random or deterministic. It's quite literally both.

You asked a "yes or no" question ("is evolution random?") that doesn't have a logical "yes or no" answer. And you refuse to accept that. You want to force a question to be a simple "yes or no" that way any answer is forced into being a simple "yes or no".

Which is impossible since..the correct answer is not a "yes or no".

 

That no DNA may be classified as junk does not exclude speciation but that's not really important. I'm far more interested in hearing which beginning are you talking about.

We've had all this DNA from what we are from what beginning? Can you be more precise?

 

I can't be more precise, because unlike "most" biologist, I am not going to guess nor fill your mind with false prophecies. I have no clue from what beginning.

But, I will give you this though Freeware... Look at every major extinction - pick or chose any one. If you do you will notice one trend (which is a key point in basing theories in the scientific method) and that is why in the fossil record does the life that survives stay the same afterwards, then there is just an appearance of NEW life completely different from the existing life that survived the extinction.

I conclude that the circumstances within the environment changed and thus changed meoisis for certain species of life for turning on or off specific gene sequences that were detected (I say detected because as you should know that just temperature can make differences in birth - now take oxygen levels or CO2 or radiation... I think you are following) for the ecosystem around. Hence a crocodile in Australia could have had completely different offspring than the crocs in Florida since the extinction effected each area different.

I say this again - this is only a hypothesis and I am looking into it.

But, to give you something back on the subject... If this hypothesis, which is based on experimentation, as I provided with the links, is infact true. Evolution becomes a distant dream! What exeperimentation does evolution have that can provide even a hypothesis such as mine?

Is there one? I have not seen one of common descent yet, nor has one been provided. If we can make glow in the dark cats, why can we not give that same cat wings? Do you know why that is Freeware?