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

It's strange that I provided the links that I proved you wrong? You find that strange?

Oh.. okay...

Let me explain this to you again... You - your post that you posted... Your post that you posted in this thread... in this forum stated as follows:

One mutation - then it goes to sleep... after many mutations "build up" then PRESTO CHANGO - a new "physical trait" appears.

Then you link up what a physical trait is - it's PHYSICAL.. thus it could be...

GUESS WHAT?!?!

Fur on a tree... In fact, trees could have the fur DNA sequence already in the dormant stage and just waiting to ATTACK!!!!

Just a matter of time... Patience fur DNA sequence... PATIENCE...

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!!!

And don't go out and find that experiment where they made kittens glow..

 

You are comingling two completely seperate phenomenon and equating them, or actually merging them. You are talking about environmental influences and genetic mutation. The monkeys in the warm pool have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Totally irrelevant tangent.
"Horrible mutations" are horrible because they don't benefit the host, and as a whole they would not be naturally selected and passed on, or it would contribute to the extinction of that species. That's part of the theory. Horrible mutations would not, by definition, be passed on and create a poor cousin.
You are not making arguments that lend any credibility to your claims of being a scientist for the government.
You are missing the tongue-in-cheek of the comments on tree communication.

 

You are correct… I figured you would be able to follow along. Here, I’ll explain. In order for there to “BE” natural selection, there needs to be something that nature needs to select! That is where mutation comes in. Mutations (what is said to be the positive ones) will make different “types” of a species, then when Natural Selection comes calling, the one that has that “niche” moves on.

But, mutation needs to happen first. Sorry… Next time I’ll explain from the beginning…

OH- but it does… For some odd reason people think that the only life that has survived the eons is life that has passed this “Natural Selection” thing we are talking about… That there has been some DNA sequence advantage of other like species that prevented them from becoming extinct and being able to reproduce or replicate. I say hogwash and it by location like the monkeys… If that was true (Natural Selection) then we would see it all over the world within every species. We would see all kinds of mixes and matches like the rat example I left, but we don’t… why?

How can Natural Selection act… if everything on the planet – dealing with DNA Sequences the species are identical?

Oh… no no no… Horrible mutations end up being death or your eyeballs end up where your nuts are and your nuts are where your eye balls are…

But, in theory – it should…

How does life know what the next major extinction is going to me? Life doesn’t, and thus things must evolve, and if “Natural Selection” choses wrong for the rat – it dies… completely extinct – unless it has had some mutations within its population that prevented the extinction from taking effect on its ecosystem and can now reproduce.

I’m not a scientist of the Gov’t…

Ah!! Got it… they don’t sit around the water cooler and talk about X Factor and the one suggest it needs to PRESTO CHANGO into a full on mink coat since an ice age is coming…. Is that right? Being nerdilicious makes it hard for me to understand since my mind is not… well, it’s bionerdernment… We have parties discussing things of this nature… while drinking scotch… or Dead Guy Ale. Some play poker…. We talk biology, geology, archeology… Don’t like dirt diggers too much though - they have a twisted way of putting things together…

 

I never said it needed to be replaced. I've asked for a counter-example showing that evolution is false. For example to disprove: for all x in real numbers; abs(x)=x can be dis-proven by x= -1 for example. No replacement equation required!!!

BTW, before you get too excited about your counter example remember that chromosome 2 mentioned early on in the thread could have been a disproof of evolution. But later it was found to line up perfectly with the theory. The same can be said of Darwin’s initial fear of complex structures like eyes.

If someone found dinosaur bones in the Cambrian era that would put serious doubts on the theory, but that’s not the case. Everything we find 150 years and counting is perfectly in line with the theory. That is why it is no longer a hypothesis and has been promoted to the highest level of certainty by the scientific community. If you would like to meaningfully argue against that you need to bring something to the table instead of NO NO NO!

 

Here is a good paper that will help you to understand why Evolution is a theory and enumerate aspects of the ToE that require complex mathmatical analysis.

http://mmbr.asm.org/content/73/4/565.full

The universality of biochemistry among all life is perhaps the single greatest piece of evidence for common ancestry. Homologous gene sequences among all living things allows for the evolutionary history of life to be objectively ascertained. The mathmatics of comparative phylogenetics are complex.

 

As I'll point out, again, I countered everything you said in each of those links. And if you'll go back and reread my posts (which you should get in the habit of doing, since you almost always seem to misread them), you'll note that I asked you to quote one of my posts where I was wrong. Each time I've asked for that, you've simply linked to one of your own posts.

A normal person, looking to prove someone wrong, quotes them and then provides valid evidence that is contradictory to their statement(s). For instance, when you said:

I countered with one of your own sources that states:
[O]nly a small percentage of mutations cause genetic disorders—most have no impact on health or development. For example, some mutations alter a gene’s DNA base sequence but do not change the function of the protein made by the gene.

Every time I've corrected you, it has gone that way. So, if you'd like to try for a third time now, please quote anything I've been wrong about and provide actual evidence that shows how I was wrong.

Again, I have never, ever, ever said "PRESTO CHANGO" as part of that explanation. So you're, again, fabricating an argument that you can then attack.

Also, turning bark into fur is almost impossible in my example for two reasons. The first is that bark and fur aren't the result of a single gene. My example only dealt with one gene that originated as a duplication of another. Secondly, my example left the original gene intact. To turn bark into fur, the genes that are responsible for the expression of bark would have to be altered or removed in order for fur to be produced instead. For the dozenth time, a real biologist would know that.

Duplication and divergence in zebrafish cone photoreceptor genes (Admittedly, no evidence that the duplicate gene ever stopped being encoded.)

Duplicaction-divergence model of protein interaction network - This one specifically mentions the duplication, inactivation, and slow acquisition of new functions in genes.

Frankly, this is something that was originally researched in the 70s and is still being studied. The references at the second link provide ample information on duplication and divergence in genes.

Well hell, that's easy enough:
Goats with spider silk genes (Personal note: Randy Lewis taught my intro to molecular bio class at UW)

Cows with human milk genes

 

Much of what you are posting is so absurd, it's tough to take you even a little bit seriously.
You might be a janitor in the wing where biologists work, but you are not a scientist of any stripe.
"If Natural Selections chooses..."? Seriously?
You don't understand this theory on even the most rudimentary level. I will wind up being one of the ones you put on ignore, because to talk to you seriously would mean to go back so far, to the very basics of middle school science that it would be pointless.

 

Kids are up... I can't sleep... Might as well answer some of the posts!!

Okay... I totally understand and acknowledge the website that you presented. I know of the material.

What I will say that it is more for the grouping of species per there relationships dealing with mRNA and other gene sequences more than anything to do with evolution.

The paper talks more about filling in the "gaps" that are missing for placement of species than anything else. This practice is quite sketchy to say the least. This is why there are SO MANY Trees of Life.

I appreciate the paper and thank you for posting it.

 

OKAY!!! No more "no no no's"...

I will start by saying that first saying that Evolution... I'm not trying to prove false. What I am saying is that evolution shouldn't have to be proven false since it has never been proven. It has never passed the Scientific Method.

Now, about the fossils in certain periods. This is an argument I dislike due to the fossils found on Earth. We know already that it is (*)(*)(*)(*) near impossible for a fossil to exist in the first place and we should be happy that they even exist... You have a better chance of winning the lottery twice, consecutively than becoming a fossil.

That said... was the Earth even able to "produce" fossils billions of years ago? Looking at fossils from times back then - there is a trend in fossils found. That leads one to believe that "maybe" (hypothesis since it can't be proven) that land flora and fauna was not acceptable to fossilization due to the Earths atmosphere and conditions...

It's hard now to fossilize... The Earth was a totally different place back then... Therefore the conditions of fossilization was completely different...

 

how can that occur? Your posts are nonsense, meaning 'no sense'

You NO that you are beating a dead horse, and that 'creation' is for unevolving idiots

you cant. It's impossible to prove incorrect, when evidence far exists the 'religious wingnuts creationary beliefs'

It has been proven, but the math and rendition via the molecular mechanism has not been 'provided'. The evolution of knowledge to living species has been evidenced and proven via evidence.

The problem is the physical mechanism cannot be sustained in a reductionary scope of change, via the existing paradigm of the chemical model (walking the planck (planck / heisenberg).

ie...just because the physics are incorrect does not mean, evolution is incorrect.

sure it has, but your obtuse and subjective approach dont sustain science as your mode of evidenciary support.

What a few of the people here do not comprehend, is your opinion and position is theologically based.

you dislike evidence that has already made the creationary model moot

but they do exist. Dont care if you dont like the 'possibility'.

I suppose to a religious wingnut, 'god' put them bones in the ground just to curb the unemployment issue and give curious folk a job and something to do?

exactly. meaning, if there is not enough of them to make you happy, perhaps pick up a shovel and find some more.

How about and even crazier set of odds?....... you'd have a better chance of walking to the moon, than supporting a creationary model of the religious wingnuts beliefs

fossils aint produced, they are remnants. People produce fossils from their efforts of seeking them in the soil.

OK....... But no one is talking about fossils from 'billions of years ago'


But be certain, with NO DOUBT; there is no way in hell, mankind was created by some GOD as rendered in a book called genesis! The earth was here well before that god was even created by mankind!

 

I wasn't really talking about fossils. I used it as an example (if it were the case) to shed doubt on the theory. No theory has been analyzed in every possible direction and there are always open question. Theories are called theories because scientists deem that any new evidence is unlikly to falsify the claim. That said, which element of the scientific method has it not yet passed?

Do you know of any observations that should falsify evolution? Again, if it did you'd be the first so you might want to let the researches know.

 

The hypothesis is still a hypothesis... In order for it to get "past" hypothesis, certain things need to be done. Those steps have not been done.

If evolution cannot be falsified, it is not science "per say"... Things that are cannot be falsified are like - invisible men steal gas out of my car at night while nobody is around then come inside and pimp slap me while I sleep and I wake up and I hear a whisper, "'Buy a hybrid you cheapskate..." But it never happens when people are around or I'm awake or put up cameras... It's like they know... Evolution is exactly that...

You ask what observation should falsify evolution.. the fact that there isn't anything to observe IS the evidence.

Here I'll explain: How many generations does it take for an entire species to change into another completely different species? Quite a long time depending on the species.... Question: Out of the google of life on this planet, how come we are not seeing ANYTHING in this transition? Like something having offspring to the "evolved" lifeform and also the previous species since the genes would still be there. Kinda like two black labs will, and may have a yellow because of dormant genes...

We know this happens, because it's been witnessed... How come it has not been witnessed dealing with evolution? A former species popping up here and there because of dormant genes? Because if we were monkeys at one time, every blue moon, due to dormant genes, some woman would have some kid she couldn't get out of a tree every 100,000,000 births (just a guess). Shoot, I'd give even 100,000,000,000 births... But, it would happen, just like albinism...

This has been witnessed, observed and tested and passed the scientific method for how dominant genes and recessive genes work.

Are evolutionary genes different? Do they not follow the rules that are fact?

So, because there is no observation of what is proven fact of recessive gene sequences emerging randomly, out of all the life on this planet since we have been recording life, I feel that evolution has nothing to stand on except speculation, especially since it has not past being a hypothesis.

 

Your posts show a fundamental lack of understanding of the theory of evolution. This is a pointless exercise.

 

Agreed. But the pimp slapping was certainly an interesting twist.

 

Anyone who says that evolution is simply a "hypothesis" probably doesn't know much about evolution.

 

definitely not by you.

If evolution cannot be falsified, it is because science has enough material evidence to sustain the hypothesis to become a bonafide theory.

That is a step in the evolution of knowledge to sustain science and enable the comprehension of 'fact'.

You must have the mosterestest bestest drugs doood.

Religious 'creation' cannot be falsified in the fashion you are representing, because it is a 'creation' of the mind, not of fact.. That mental fib cannot be 'falsified' since the nutjobs want to believe it happened based on their weakness of conscious responsibility: lack of personal integrity. Kind of like a nut ranting on evolution, knowing that HE himself came from a single celled organism; sperm/egg. ie... not a human being alive was born an adult but had to evolve from their orignal conception.

just because the time line does not fit, the selfishly weak morons, will continue to discount what they themselves, know is real

are you talking about the religious creation? ie... the fact that there isnt anything to observe IS the evidence.....

but 'we the people' can see dinosaur bones and even find that the embryo of a human being, looks just like the the blob of single celled critters, to the fish, to the dog, to even a whining baby, that can comprehend, they are wasting their time trying to discount evolution, because some idiots hold theology over science.

i dunno.............

Bunches..... (technically speaking of course)

How many generations did it take to 'create' a book caled "genesis"?

How many generations did it take mankind to create a 'god'?

How many generations did it take mankind to combine a bunch of god(s) into one god, which supposedly had a kid that can walk on water?

I know, in one generation, I taught many kids how to walk on water, personally!

but we can.

lots of them.

glad you answered your own inquiry....

attaboy

the doma tribe happened and it witnessed and is a human evolution; for their environment.

attaboy

attaboy

no such gene as an evolutionary gene. Evolution is a description of a process.

try to stay focused!

I deleted the last part of your post, cuz it is recessive and would have required me to delete the 'attaboy's'.

So use today to treat yourself to an ice cream for 'evolving' with knowledge.

or

Go jump in a lake!

 

Nope.... Not at all... You asked a question and I provided known fact that a child (6th grade and above) would know about recessive genes and how and why they have blue eyes and their parents do not...

I will ask again then. Why do "evolutionary" gene sequences not follow how all of genetics has been proven, through the scientific method and repeated experimentation shows is supposed to happen with recessive genes?

Question then... Where did the genes go of our previous ancestor? Did they disappear? Our ancestors genes are there... Is there like a time limit for genes and then whole gene sequences disappear? Is the genetics we know about to take a drastic turn due to genes from evolution and previous ancestors disappear and do not become recessive and randomly appear?

I feel that most, who do not have an understanding of genetics will not understand what it is I propose, that is taking what we already know and applying it to they hypothesis of evolution.

We know of recessive genes, been proven. Why is there no evidence of ANYTHING - LIVING ON THIS PLANET show randomness with offspring with a common ancestor...

Don't you find that odd? It should happen per experimentation and what we find in nature... why doesn't it? I would love to know an explanation...

 

Evolution... really...


IF you think evolution is a theory, please explain how it became a theory...

 

This is so removed from the basics, it is pointless.
Stay where you are. Just don't reproduce.
The world will miss you.

 

Just so we all know what you're trying to say, can you define "evolutionary gene?" In your mind, how is an evolutionary gene different from a regular gene?

 

LOL!!!
Well said.

 

he cant answer that.

 

I'm sure he has an answer, but it's just made up or misunderstood garbage, as usual.

 

This thread is in the 'religion' section as it is rooted to what a liar would sustain, not science!

 

No... it couldn't considering that hair is exclusive to mammals and requires α-keratin, which trees don't have.