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

Right, but really the change from Homo Habilis to Homo Sapiens physiologically isn't that great. Sure, we lost hair, our skulls got larger, our teeth have changed, and we stand more upright... but that's about it. I mean, maybe if we evolved from single celled organisms into humans in that period of time, you would have a point. But... right now, you don't.

 

Common descent simply means that two organisms share a common ancestor. I mean, look at dogs. All breeds are incredibly diverse, but we are highly certain they share a common ancestor in the grey wolf.

 

That article focused primarily on an example of duplication and divergence without going into specifics about the divergence. This one gives a better explanation. Specifically, they say in the abstract:

For four completely sequenced genomes we show that 20%–30% of duplicate gene pairs show asymmetric evolution in the amino acid sequence of their protein products. That is, one of the duplicates evolves much faster than the other. The greater this asymmetry, the greater the ratio Ka/Ks of amino acid substitutions (Ka) to silent substitutions (Ks) in a gene pair.

When they say "evolves much faster," they're talking about a series of mutations happening in a short period of time relative to the other duplicate.

The article goes into more specifics that I don't have time to translate for you right now.

 

You just named pretty basic things. The diet from then to now is extreme different. I doubt you'd be able to eat road kill...

I doubt you'd be able to live in Chicago with your family outside in the clothes your wearing..

The difference between the two species is ridiculous, and the biggest problem is we would not be able to have children with the previous species... Thus, there is a big difference. They are a different species, and became yet another species, then became apes, then us... It's been a long treck...

 

I was skepital at first until you brought it together (slyly... ) when you put in the Gray Wolf.

This is correct. The Grey Wold and Dogs are of the same species... at one time, per evolution, something changed and made the Grey Wolf, and from there adaptation took effect along with speciation and changed breed specifically until man came along..

Correct..

[edit] I see you are somewhat new - WELCOME!!!

 

Thanks you Burz… I am on it…

 

I went ahead and skimmed through.. Since I skimmed, I may have missed what you were getting at since I didn’t see it. What I did see is when they are talking about divergence (asymmetrical) that the gene that are already present are just having simple mutations within them… That amino acids are just, how should I say, “fixating” or having slight changes within them and just intensifying what it previous responded for. I saw something about alcohol, and it already wired for that.

Maybe I am wrong, but all I saw was a change in already coded DNA sequences. You suggested that inactive DNA sequences sat and piled up mutations and then complexity would appear within life on this earth. I did not see that at all…

Again, I could have missed it, getting late here in Portland and I want to go home to the kids and a hot meal…

 

I mentioned teeth.

And hair.

Once again, on the grand scale of anatomical differences throughout the animal kingdom, these are incredibly minor steps.

It is NOT ridiculous and they are just basic physiological changes. And sure, our ancestry has gone through more "speciation" events than the E. coli in Lenski's experiment, but that isn't much of a surprise considering the remarkably different definition for bacterial species. But just look at the results of Lenski's experiment:

1) Larger cell volumes (comparable to minor physiological changes in more complex species)
2) Glucose specialization
3) Probably most importantly the ability to transport citrate across the cell membrane to the cell interior under oxic conditions.

What exactly is unremarkable about these results? Why are they any less remarkable than the changes from Homo Habilis to Homo Sapiens?

 

First we need to address your idea of complexity. So I'll ask again:

Organism 1: Bacteria that can utilize citrate.
Organism 2: Identical to Organism 1, but can't utilize citrate.

Which one is more complex, or are they equally complex?

There's no point going further if you think they're equally complex.

 

So you agree that dogs share common descent? Also, you mentioned before, I forget in what post, that Homo Sapiens couldn't of evolved from Homo Sapiens. Why is that exactly? Berkeley's definition of evolution is this: "We’ve defined evolution as descent with modification from a common ancestor."

From: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIADescent.shtml

Can a group of organisms (same species) not have a common ancestor that is of the same species in your opinion? Because I don't think that many scientists would agree with you looking at just a few studies. For example:

"New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor."

http://scienceblog.com/15361/all-blue-eyed-humans-have-common-ancestor/

"A clone of E. coli B was used as the common ancestor to found twelve independent populations"

http://www.cns.fr/spip/Escherichia-coli-mechanisms-of.html

Oh, and thanks for the welcome!

 

I might be short on time so I'll try to respond to as much as possible.

I hope i don't get "repped" for that?

For irreducible complexity; one specific example Darwin was concerned with is the human eye. However, intermediate forms of a compound eye can be found even today. It no longer poses no threat to the theory. Other members of the Discovery Institute like to talk about bacterial flagellum (spelling?), the blood clotting mechanism and other things but none have been able to do any damage to the theory. This "Test of time" and constant scrutiny only helps the theory. That is what science is all about!

The Cambrian explosion is less well understood (probably because of the elapsed time involved) but Evolution being a proper theory does not rely on any specific piece of evidence. Only a falsification example can dethrone the theory at this point (Because of the overwhelming supporting evidence). Theories are allowed to have open questions. FFS there are open questions about the theory of gravity but no one posts "Gravity is a joke part vii"!

 

i. What do you mean "use it for life"? "Thinking" or using intuition is not valid science (Rabbit Hare comment), but if they are closly related and share a recent common ancestor.... Evololution would need an explanation of this descrepancy. You can obviously use this as your counter example I'm looking for if you like. But saying that they have different #'s of chromos is not enough in light of the chimp-human situation.

ii. Chromo 2 has been tested by decoding the entire genome of both species (human/chimp). That is the test? repeatable etc. What am I missing here?
Again what do you mean "how life is"?

 

I did state that is was a "reasonable suggestion"

We may be able to say it is an open question (how the Cambrian explosion occured) but again evolution does not rely on this to proceed. It is simple a question people are trying to answer. At this point the explosion neither confirms or refutes the thoery (IMO).

 

i. An example of this situation may go as follows: After a forest fire the trees which compose of the canopy are all burned down (Lets assume these tall trees are now extinct). At this point life that does not reach so high in the sky is given the opportunity to receive sunlight it otherwise would not have access too. A previous vine plant strategy to climb tree trunks and limbs to gain access to sunlight is no longer a winning strategy. Other kinds of plant may begin to find other winning strategies. From this point a whole new element of the ToL may become the new canopy. The point is once a species that maintained dominance is gone other lineages have the opportunity to fill the void. It's not so far fetched.

ii. Much of life on the Galapagos have no natural predators (relative to other mainlands). That is why there are birds with wings that cannot fly, but have become more adapted to life in the water (flippers or fins). A once flying bird species does not lose this advantage unless their circumstance allows them to survive without flight. Hench evolution by natural selection -its what its all about! Penguins are another example of this.

iii. I've made my response to it being incorrect above.

On "overbearing life": there is still limited resources to put those species in check. Also, on a side note, successful or species with a particularly useful adaptation are at constant competition with would be fakers. For example some flies have evolved to look like bees because they gain an advantage of appearing frightening even though they are as harmless as a fly. The point is in time, even though the "overbearing" species may have the advantage at the moment, other species will copy their success and become a competitor. Just as we see in the free marketplace (generics, knock-offs, and the use of similar strategies (i.e. netflix/blockbuster)) etc.

 

A DNA sequence across the eons would work, but you wouldn't be able to find it because DNA will not preserve in the time frame we are talking about. I was talking about going from things that slither, to crawl, to walk, to fly etc. (Or an similar progression).
Also remember, that when you are talking about about "complexity" (I'm not even sure is the # of chromo's is related to complexity) of plants etc you are referring to life that exists in our age and is therefore just as "modern" as we are.

 

i. All i have to say about your comment that evolution is a religion is that you cannot simply understand all the reasons evolution is true in one little conversation. To expect to learn what thousands of people have been working on since 100 years before you were born, in the deepest detail, over brunch is rediculous. Finally, you are safe in your conviction that evolution from a scrap of ammino acid to a modern animal has not been observed. This for obvious reasons will never happen. It does not falsifly the theory because there are other ways to see evolution. The deduction that all life has a common ancestor came after other observations were satisfied.

ii. Of course everything I've mentioned is stand alone!!! They are meant to cause you to question what is going on here. Did you really expect me single handedly prove (without a doubt) evolution on this forum? It has taken thousands of lifetimes to establish evolution to the point it is now. If that is what you are looking for on this forum you will never be satisfied. I... however, can be satisfied with one (just 1!!) example that puts evolution on it's knees.

iii. E. Coli was (as I read the experiment) was never meant to show common decent. It has not failed because it has shown specific changes that allow one lineage to survive better in the witches brew then the lineage in the tube next to it. A test tube will never provide the environment that can produce a bird/monkey/horse because the that kind of life is not possible is a tube.

 

Drastic evolution tends to occurs when there is an isolation of a group of species (i.e. a tribe of rats is separated by a change in geology which separates them... water, mountains, migration across these, etc.). This allows the species to change gradually without sexual gene flow from the now distant half of the tribe. This allows a lineage to change "together" to the point that if the tribes were re-introduced later on they would not be able to mate (Some peoples definition of a species). The E. coli experiment has the same situation of isolation at play. It is all perfectly in line with the gradual changes suggested by evolution. I see no conflict?

 

That's not what evolution suggests. It states that modern apes and modern humans shared a common ancestor. Modern primates are not our ancestors (According to evolution which is obviously in question in this thread).

 

On topic to your OP, a proper scientist will hold no allegiance to the theory, they are only concerned with what is true. If you think that the worldwide scientific community has pulled a fast one on us I can't, in so many words, help you with that.

BTW, I've never encountered a person who rejected evolution for non-religion reasons and it's why I'm even bothering to discuss the topic atm.

 

HA HA HAAA!!!!

Using my own site against me... fabulous!!!

That is EXACTLY it, but you're misunderstanding the definition... It means that the previous ancestor is unable to mate and have children or offspring from the "evolved" species... Like "what they used to say" about Neanderthals and Sapiens... Or if hyenas and wolf came from a common ancestor, they would not be able to mate...

Do you understand? That is what it means... Please read more from that site please..

I think that if it is a common "ancestor" it is of a different species period. It's an ancestor of that species like what I described above. Our common ancestor is Homo "whatever" not homosapien per evolution and the scientific classification.

That classification along with clades show common descent and there is never, and I will repeat this, NEVER the the same species that a species comes from. Like the ape clade there isn't homosapiens that evolved to become chimps, gorillas and tangs...

If you can show me a clad that has this, I will be very surprised and probably stop posting about evolution since I understand that it doesn't happen that way. Basically... I'd eat my hat...

And of course people with blue eyes have a common ancestor, if they didn't they wouldn't have blue eyes...

 

dcaddy I am sick and will try to answer... in time... not feeling well...

 

DBM aka FDS, trust me, I have done my homework considering my great interest in the subject. I understand what the definition means and it has nothing to do with the previous ancestor being unable to mate with an evolved species. What you are describing is speciation and is separate from the definition of evolution. Descent is obviously an organism descending from its parent/ancestral species and modification refers to genetic material being modified via mutation as well as other processes that change genetic material.

So, in your opinion a species can't have a common ancestor of the same species. You do realize that science isn't ruled by your opinions, obviously, and you cannot dispute that common ancestor is being used by both of those studies to refer to ancestral organisms of the same species. So, what exactly is your response to this beyond "NOPE!"? Do you not agree that those studies are using common ancestor to refer to an ancestor that is of the same species or...?

Edit - Even in the Berkeley website which you called "your site" it shows an example of evolution dealing with beetles. These beetles are obviously still beetles, but guess what? They are using it AS an example of evolution. How can you call it "your site" if you blatantly disagree with what it is defining as evolution?

"The changing color in example 2 is definitely evolution: these two generations of the same population are genetically different. But how did it happen?"

- Berkeley

Even changing color is considered evolution, so how can you go out of your way to say it is not?

 

I asked what part of the scientific evolution failed pass. You reply

I'm not an evolutionary biologist but here's the first 3 IMO.
Observation:
The body of an ape looks a lot like the body of a man
All vertebrates tend to have the equivalent of a: Humerus, tibia and fibula, metacarpals, "fingers" in that order.
Nerves in animals from fish to giraffes control the same muscles. Bones in the head for example can be found in the same span of animals. i.e. all mammals have 3 ear bones and these bones can be traced by embryonic development to jaw bones in reptiles (Which only have 1 ear bone). The similarity was probably the first observation.

Question:
Why are different species, although different, similar in so many ways?

Hypothesis:
All life is related in some way.

I'd say those are the easiest of the bunch. No evidence required.....

 

Okay... I'm back and will answer the questions from all of you now!

 

Interesting… How would you rate complexity then if not by chromosomes?