Evolution thread.

All that says is that you have no clue what you're talking about.

 

The bible is not a "science journal".
Science supports evolution, what it doesn’t support are your imaginative claims.

 

But to get from a cell to a human you'll have to add information. Where did the information came from? Also how come frog + kiss = prince is a fairytale but frog + time = prince is science?

 

My point was that we didnt directly evolved from them nor are we in the immediate family tree and yet we are 70% related to them. Why not we go by chomozone numbers to compare how we are related? If we do that then ferns would be at the top and cedar trees, opossums, and kidney berms would be triplets?

 

Mutations add info. Selection mechanisms choose which mutations are best.

Present tense, as evolution continues today.

 

We have WAY more genetic info to compare than just chromosome count.

I do not see any hint of a legit point in this post of yours. Or, are you just being facetious?

 

Cute frog word game. But, humans did not come from frogs.

And, I think you knew that humans and frogs ARE related, but you have to go back way farther than frogs to find a common ancestor.

... just like Cinderella was related to her pumpkin - but then you would have to go back WAY farther, back to when plants and animals first became differentiated.

 

Many other life forms have fused chromosomes. There are other weirdisms, too.

Who told you that only humans have fused chromodomes??

Please cite where tyou got that. And, only sites that use science, please - i'm not interested in folks that "believe" that to be the case.

 

So, you want to prove that God is imperfect?

Or, are you trying to claim god cared less about humans, using slap dash methods, even creating some versions that totally failed?

Or, what?

None of this comes even close to the vision of God that I have - a perfect, all knowing and all powerful being. A God willing to sacrifice his Son for humankind.

 

Except humans are not the only living creatures with fused chromosomes. Wild Prezwalski horses have 66 chromosomes while domestic horses have only 64. And a type of chromosome fusion called Robertsonian translocation commonly occurs in cattle with 60 chromosomes producing offspring with only 59 chromosomes.

 

Can you show where does mutations add info?

- - - Updated - - -

The chromosomes numbers are all over the scale. If evolution is true then shouldn't the chromosomes be more in line with the rest of the genetic evolution?

 

Fish evolved into amphibians, amphibians evolved into reptiles, reptiles evolved into mammals and birds. Humans in a sense DID evolved from frogs according to your theory.

The point is the only real difference is time is the hero of the plot and not a kiss.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "where". The issue with mutation as it applies to evolution has to do with changes to genetic material - genes, chromosomes, mitochondria, etc. Those places are the "where" - the plan used in the construction of the next generation.

The number of chromosomes isn't "all over the board". It does change through fusions and splits, for example. But, any species has one specific number of chromosomes. And, a derivative species is hugely unlikely to have some random new number of chromosomes - probably only one more or one less. So, chromosome number CAN change - so can the number of genes. In fact, a species can have two of some gene. Also, mitochondria have dna, too. And, the rules for that are a little different.

The fact that there are many species that have more chromosomes than humans should be no surprise. There isn't some limit on the number of chromosomes. And, humans are NOT at the top of some "food chain" when it comes to evolution. We are just one more animal that evolved to "win" through brain power rather than some other capability. Some other animals have surprisingly similar brain power, by the way. Maybe God will save them, too - or maybe he will save us all, but we haven't been told - perhaps because it doesn't pertain to the test God has faced us with.

So, your question about chromosome number doesn't seem to point to some hole in evolution.

 

No. Humans and frogs share some ancestor. That is VERY different, CRITICALLY different from humans evolving from frogs.

Great poetic way of calling out the importance of time - time really is far more than a kiss in what has happened on this planet - and this universe.

 

All life on Earth has been definitively proven Genetically to be connected.

AA

 

As in show me when a mutation added new information. That doesn't happen.

But there are lower animals in the food chain that has more chromosomes like the fern and tobacco plant.

Except how illogical it is.

- - - Updated - - -

So you won't except any timeline that is too short for macro ecolution to happen?

 

OK, I did some "research":

I googled "examples of mutation adding information".

And, I came up with:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

This is one article in this site:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

That has an organized list of claims related to creationism - everything from ethics and theology to biology, evolution, what is science, etc. It has a good sized segment on paleontology.

It looks pretty good. If you don't bother looking at this site, I suspect responding to your questions just became trivial!!

 

First, you need to show that you understand what "information" means. Here is a good place to start.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/shannon.html

No, it shouldn't because the number of chromosomes is not that big of a barrier to reproduction, otherwise you wouldn't see horse/zebra hybrids.

If you are going to disprove evolution, first you must show that you understand evolution. Reptiles did not evolve into mammals, they both evolved from tetrapods.

 

This is what most Creationists do not understand.

When you look at an Ultrasound of a fetus in the womb in early development you will see the fetus going through a billion years of evolutionary traits in it's development as you can see the YOLK SACK a remnant of when our ancient ancestors of life laid eggs.

You will also see how the Fetus breaths fluid as the lungs of a fetus get's it's O2 from the fluid very much like GILLS in a fish or amphibian.

You will also see REPTILIAN traits as the Human Ear Bones evolved from the jaw bones of Reptiles.

And you will see many other things as the Fetus displays it's connection to all forms of life as it develops.

Creationists simply are neither educated to these FACTS....or they just don't want to know....which is sad.

AA

 

"Food chain" is a different issue. Some life forms compete by being hugely plentiful - so their numbers preclude them from being wiped out. Some are big enough that, regardless of what they eat, few are interested in trying to eat them.

And, their chromosome count has to do with the mutations that occurred along their evolutionary path - whether that path took them to a fish or a sunflower or a human or whatever. Different mutations happened along the way, including changes in chromosomes. Some ancestors still exist from very far back. We have yeast! We have bacteria.

I fail to see your issue with "illogical".

Share a timeline? I'm not sure what you mean. Science has not discovered much in the way of fast macro evolution. Macro evolution is just micro evolution taking place over a much longer period of time. Lots of mutations are usually required before one gets a new species. To get a new genus requires far more. Getting new differentiation as significant as a family would take FAR more.

Once you get back to the point where the animal kingdom split from the plant kingdom one has gone VERY far back into history. And, of course, abiogenesis occurred before that. If you have a problem with that, well, physics, geology, cosmology, etc., all say that we had that amount of time.

 

For the purposes of ANY argument here, I can not find ANY doubt in that.

Out of general interest, it does seem there are some interesting ideas concerning the early on period, such as where mitochondria came from (a second abiogenesis? an evolutionary division that got swallowed?), where fungi came from, what about yeast, etc.

But, for the purposes here it seems that can all be relegated to the separate question of how things started.

 

When one looks at a Virus which is not LIFE...but rather very close to Life and a Virus has DNA....it's not so hard to understand just how close the Inanimate is to the Animate.

It is simply a matter of Molecular Complexity.

Quantum Evolution is the process that developed the Virus and Life.

When Quanta continues to arrange itself into greater and greater complexity using Universal Mechanisms such as Fusion and Chemical Reaction.....EVENTUALLY....we get LIFE.

It's really not all that hard to understand but some here think it is some great mystery.

It is not.

AA

 

I suspect people constrain themselves to the odds of life happening on earth.

But, the forces and environments we experience here are the same as the ones on untold (but huge) numbers of other planets that have been around for billions of years - a LOT of lab time.

And, it's very clear that we would be on a planet where it worked - not on one where it failed!!

 

As far as the odds.....the odds are better than a person will get struck by lightning while in a submarine wearing a rubber suit than win Megamillions.....but still people do win.

When you have this many existing stars and planets in over 100 Billion Galaxies there is bound to be life.

AA

 

That example is only doubling if existing information. Would the doubling of scales would eventually turn it into a feather?