[ianp622]

Do what multiple times? speciate mice over and over again? I don't believe in the genesis, if that's what you are implying. It's nothing more than a Jewish folk tale with a moral message. I don't subscribe to the fable of evolution either.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

....

Oh wait, you're not joking are you?

....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Nocebo]

How the experiment like in the OP and macroevolution are USELESS to human progress.

How is it useless when it will ultimately prove your belief right? Wouldn't you want more people to know the truth? I guess you're arrogant enough that you want to be alone in being able to "get it". :lol

[Bulla564]

What exactly do you believe then? Do you believe in something you made up by cherry picking things you like here and there? I'm going to guess the answer here is yes. You subscribe for example "Intelligent Design", correct?, which selects a handfull of ideas from evolution science.

I believe that through DNA the many blueprints of all living organisms were drafted, and the only "evolution" that happens, is evolution within humans (skin colors), evolution within dogs (sizes,etc), evolution within finches (beak sizes, etc), and this is all genetic variance. Tracing these differences to an ancestor human, an ancestor dog, an ancestor finch has no real significance other than to satisfy historical curiosity.

DNA and organisms are magnificent things, that are genetically flexible enough to adapt to different environments, but have protections built in against chronic degeneration of the original blueprint (mutations in the DNA) hence experiments show barriers to how much a species changes.

What I don't know is what came first... the chicken or the egg...

[KHarvey16]

I believe that through DNA the many blueprints of all living organisms were drafted, and the only "evolution" that happens, is evolution within humans (skin colors), evolution within dogs (sizes,etc), evolution within finches (beak sizes, etc), and this is all genetic variance. Tracing these differences to an ancestor human, an ancestor dog, an ancestor finch has no real significance other than to satisfy historical curiosity. DNA and organisms are magnificent things, that are genetically flexible enough to adapt to different environments, but have protections built in against chronic degeneration of the original blueprint (mutations in the DNA) hence experiments show barriers to how much a species changes. What I don't know is what came first... the chicken or the egg...

Where's your PhD in evolutionary biology from?

[quadriplegicjon]

Sorry kiddo, the point is THERE ARE NO OTHER EXPERIMENTS that support their claims. Their best examples are rubbish.

only according to your inability to understand exactly what they mean.

How the experiment like in the OP and macroevolution are USELESS to human progress.

curious. what do you think about the study of world history?

by the way, macroevolution theories and experiments led to microevolution theories and experiments.. how has that been useless to human progress?

Where's your PhD in evolutionary biology from?

furthermore, where is his proof of this? experiments? research? etc.

[Count Dookkake]

What I don't know is what came first... the chicken or the egg...

Egg.

[Bulla564]

How is it useless when it will ultimately prove your belief right? Wouldn't you want more people to know the truth? I guess you're arrogant enough that you want to be alone in being able to "get it". :lol

I said in the other topic, the assumption of evolution is unfalsifiable. No matter how much science has ALREADY supported my belief, evolution will never be dropped (for political and religious reasons).

[Monocle]

A fundamental gap in scientific knowledge is closing fast. One by one, god is running out of hiding places.

[devilhawk]

How is it useless when it will ultimately prove your belief right? Wouldn't you want more people to know the truth? I guess you're arrogant enough that you want to be alone in being able to "get it". :lol

That's the point. It will prove him wrong. I wouldn't like that either.

[Bulla564]

only according to your inability to understand exactly what they mean.

It's a difference in INTERPRETATION of results. Evolutionists see two species of mice as evidence of possible common ancestry between all species, and I disagree. I see as speciation not leading to anything else but two mice.

curious. what do you think about the study of world history?

It's essential, due to its cultural and social ramifications. The same can't be said about the history of dinosaurs and birds.

by the way, macroevolution theories and experiments led to microevolution theories and experiments.. how has that been useless to human progress?

Sorry... the discovery of DNA led to microevolution experiments.

[Hitokage]

I said in the other topic, the assumption of evolution is unfalsifiable. No matter how much science has ALREADY supported my belief, evolution will never be dropped (for political and religious reasons).

I like this logic. If I hadn't heard or read about the past 70 years I could declare that humans can never step foot on the moon, and science continues to confirm this! Claims to the contrary are untestable but politically popular fantasies. After all, if it was possible it would have already happened by now.

[Skittleguy]

I find it funny when people claim that evolution doesn't happen because they don't see it happening around them.

[Nocebo]

I said in the other topic, the assumption of evolution is unfalsifiable. No matter how much science has ALREADY supported my belief, evolution will never be dropped (for political and religious reasons).

It hasn't been dropped yet because new relevant discoveries continue to be made. You seem to not understand that science evolves. Things we're discovering now couldn't have been discovered 2000 years ago because we didn't have the technology to do it. What makes you think we won't have new technology in the future which will lead to new relevant discoveries? This is the nature of science, constantly discovering new things which lead to other discoveries (sometimes not directly relevant to each other). Are you against this process?

[Bulla564]

I like this logic. If I hadn't heard or read about the past 70 years I could declare that humans can never step foot on the moon, and science continues to confirm this! Claims to the contrary are untestable but politically popular fantasies. After all, if it was possible it would have already happened by now.

I can build a rocket and "test" your hypothesis. Maybe you are right... maybe one day they will build a time machine to go taste some of that primordial soup, and watch how fishes crawl into the land. We won't have to rely on baseless assumptions anymore.

I guess evolution IS falsifiable then... oops.

It hasn't been dropped yet because new relevant discoveries continue to be made. You seem to not understand that science evolves. Things we're discovering now couldn't have been discovered 2000 years ago because we didn't have the technology to do it. What makes you think we won't have new technology in the future which will lead to new relevant discoveries? This is the nature of science, constantly discovering new things which lead to other discoveries (sometimes not directly relevant to each other). Are you against this process?

I'm all for progress, but I'm against ad hoc explanations that try to make up for the last failed explanation. I don't see how this is getting us closer to the truth. It's beating a dead horse.

[KHarvey16]

We won't have to rely on baseless assumptions anymore.

:lol

[Hitokage]

... and watch how fishes crawl into the land.

Why wait?



Which brings me to another point, people who advocate intelligent design rarely have even a basic grasp on what kinds of plants and animals there are in the world outside of what you might find in a zoo or an A to Z book. It's a belief that thrives in ignorance.

[Bulla564]

I find it funny when people claim that evolution doesn't happen because they don't see it happening around them.

Yeah... faith-based ideas all elicit the same reaction.

[quadriplegicjon]

It's a difference in INTERPRETATION of results. Evolutionists see two species of mice as evidence of possible common ancestry between all species, and I disagree. I see as speciation not leading to anything else but two mice.

and your background is? i'm assuming you have a college degree.. but, do you even have a master's degree in any scientific field?

It's essential, due to its cultural and social ramifications. The same can't be said about the history of dinosaurs and birds.

All history? how so? prove it.

Sorry... the discovery of DNA led to microevolution experiments.

uh.. nope. 'microevolution' experiments started with Mendel.. way before DNAs role in heredity was discovered.


speaking of DNA.. DNA sequencing has proven evolution to be correct, and has shown how several different species have derived from a common ancestor..

its a bit foolish to say that the study of microevolution and genetics is important, and then just decide to ignore some of the conclusions from those studies.

its damn straight laughable that you try to present yourself as this intellectual that knows better than the greatest geniuses of our time..

[Nocebo]

I find it funny when people claim that evolution doesn't happen because they don't see it happening around them.

What's also funny is that they don't actually see God around them either but still choose to believe in that concept. I think it's because it's a bit size easier to swallow and dumbed down version of evolution. Evolution comes backed with a plethora of facts and intricacies that require understanding on a higher level.
It's a simple psychology thing really.

I'm all for progress, but I'm against ad hoc explanations that try to make up for the last failed explanation. I don't see how this is getting us closer to the truth. It's beating a dead horse.

And therein lies the problem. You clearly see no progress being made. The Evolution science is not the same as it was 1000 years ago is it? You may seem them as "ad hoc" explanations but they are based on facts. The facts will change, the explanations will change, this is what we call progress. Progress is movement required to getting closer to a point, the truth.

[Bulla564]

Why wait? Which brings me to another point, people who advocate intelligent design rarely have even a basic grasp on what kinds of plants and animals there are in the world outside of what you might find in a zoo or an A to Z book.

Cute fish... if found dead and fossilized, that'd be an awesome ancestor to lizards... except it's not.

[KHarvey16]

Bulla564, does it bother you at all that thousands of biologists who study this for a living disagree with your amateur analysis?

[quadriplegicjon]

Cute fish... if found dead and fossilized, that'd be an awesome ancestor to lizards... except it's not.

hi. DNA is now used to prove evolutionary linkages, not just shape and form.


k.thanx.by!

[Dragona Akehi]

Cute fish... if found dead and fossilized, that'd be an awesome ancestor to lizards... except it's not.

Well how about the opposite direction?

[devilhawk]

It's essential, due to its cultural and social ramifications. The same can't be said about the history of dinosaurs and birds.

Macroevolution is important to human progress. Its study has been for a century. Antibiotic resistance is acquired through horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal gene transfer is macro evolution.

Here is a link for a 1960's article on HGT in bacteria. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13681921 Don't be upset if you don't see the words 'macro evolution.'

HGT has been studied using fungi and yeast as well. The principles learned from early studies of bacteria are still being used today. They are studying HGT and using these principles in humans to this day.

[quadriplegicjon]

Macroevolution is important to human progress. Its study has been for a century. Antibiotic resistance is acquired through horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal gene transfer is macro evolution. Here is a link for a 1960's article on HGT in bacteria. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13681921 Don't be upset if you don't see the words 'macro evolution.' HGT has been studied using fungi and yeast as well. The principles learned from early studies of bacteria are still being used today. They are studying HGT and using these principles in humans to this day.

micro and macro evolution are terms mainly used by creationists... the truth is that it is so intertwined, it really shouldn't even be separated into those two terms. we should really stop using this fools terms. :(

http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutio...icro_macro.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

[Wii]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PRbKN8EkzM

[devilhawk]

micro and macro evolution are terms mainly used by creationists... the truth is that it is so intertwined, it really shouldn't even be separated into those two terms. we should really stop using this fools terms. :( http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutio...icro_macro.htm

No doubt. The term macro evolution was hijacked by creationists because of their concession of micro evolution. Like I said before, the only difference is scale.

[Bulla564]

and your background is? i'm assuming you have a college degree.. but, do you even have a master's degree in any scientific field?

Just like people that get these degrees, I READ and LEARN. Not much different.

All history? how so? prove it.

Prove what?

uh.. nope. 'microevolution' experiments started with Mendel.. way before DNAs role in heredity was discovered.

Microevolution experiments are done through DNA manipulation, and genetics. Inheritance of traits has nothing to do with the effects of random mutations on the genotype.

speaking of DNA.. DNA sequencing has proven evolution to be correct, and has shown how several different species have derived from a common ancestor..

All this time my argument has been that similar DNA sequences ARE NOT the result of common ancestry. Your argument is that DNA proves evolution because "related" species share similar DNA. "Related" species share similar DNA because they evolved from a common ancestor. I'm getting dizzy from the circular logic.

[KHarvey16]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQYAHwKRbMs

More baseless assumptions?

[Bulla564]

Well how about the opposite direction?

Whales? In case you didn't know, now they are being linked to hippos... I guess similar fossils don't mean much these days...

Macroevolution is important to human progress. Its study has been for a century. Antibiotic resistance is acquired through horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal gene transfer is macro evolution.

Wrong. Horizontal gene transfer is simply one of the mechanisms through which evolutionists claim major changes can happen that would lead to macroevolution. Once again, it has only shown to lead to small microchanges in function of currently present genes.

[Nocebo]

Basically people like Bulla564 are only concerned with facts that are directly tangible and understandable. Their psyche fills the void (the part they don't know about) linking those together with a personification of the yet unexplained/unknown(to them) phenomena, God. It's kind of ironic when you think about it, but fully explainable through psychology.

Science fills the blanks with a framework supported by various fields of science and facts. Facts are ever changing, though. It takes effort to keep up with science.
Theists choose to fill the blanks with something that can't be understood, which reassures their mind that they understand. Because they understand that it can't be understood, get it? God never changes and is always the same coat hanger everything can be hung up on, so it's much simpler.

It's like that chick on the view saying she doesn't have an opinion on wether the world is round or flat. It isn't relevant to her world and she just isn't concerned with it so when asked her mind will fill that void with an opinion based on things she knows. The less you know about how the world works the more you need to fill in by twisting things you do know, things you can directly observe. The directly observable earth is flat for instance.

[Hitokage]

Inheritance of traits has nothing to do with the effects of random mutations on the genotype.

Ok, so it's not evolution you're denying, it's the link between genotypes and phenotypes.

[quadriplegicjon]

Just like people that get these degrees, I READ and LEARN. Not much different.

:lol no, that not all they do..

Prove what?

prove to me that the study of ALL history is essential due to its cultural and social ramifications. .. as you claim.

Microevolution experiments are done through DNA manipulation, and genetics. Inheritance of traits has nothing to do with the effects of random mutations on the genotype.

uh... evolutionary theory is based on the works of darwin AND mendel (among others).. its all intertwined.

All this time my argument has been that similar DNA sequences ARE NOT the result of common ancestry.

what proof do you have?

Your argument is that DNA proves evolution because "related" species share similar DNA. "Related" species share similar DNA because they evolved from a common ancestor. I'm getting dizzy from the circular logic.

:lol


okay. how do you explain mitochondria and the fact that it has its own (circular) DNA ?

if we didnt evolve from anything.. we just came to be.. why is it that mitochondria so closely resembles a prokaryotic cell? why is it that it has its own self replicating DNA? why the hell does it have a double membrane?

there is so much evidence proving evolution, yet you dismiss it so simply by saying.. you disagree. you offer no valuable insight whatsoever..

[Buttchin]

endogenous retroviruses (ERV's)

and im off

[Nocebo]

Just like people that get these degrees, I READ and LEARN. Not much different

Do you have all the facts though?

[Bulla564]

Basically people like Bulla564 are only concerned with facts that are directly tangible and understandable. .

True. There is enough tangible facts to refute common ancestry, and the ones filling the void are the evolutionists with their own set of beliefs and psychological dispositions.

Science fills the blanks with a framework supported by various fields of science and facts. Facts are ever changing, though. It takes effort to keep up with science.

I have to STRONGLY disagree with you there. Truthful facts NEVER change. The problem is that many evolutionary tales are not and have NEVER been "facts" but rather interpretations/inferences (a.k.a OPINIONS). In science, this is ok. However, evolutionists interpret evidence based on the "fact" that macroevolution is true. This is in it of itself only an OPINION/ASSUMPTION, and not a fact.

When you assume things based on other assumptions, you are not really getting closer to the truth.

prove to me that the study of ALL history is essential due to its cultural and social ramifications. .. as you claim.

Where should we start? the earliest societies of hunters and gatherers and the social ramifications?

uh... evolutionary theory is based on the works of darwin AND mendel (among others).. its all intertwined.

Yet genetics and molecular biology are NOT dependent on assumptions of common ancestry, like some claim here.

what proof do you have?

The burden of proof is on you on that one. Why is similar DNA the result of common ancestry?

okay. how do you explain mitochondria and the fact that it has its own (circular) DNA ? if we didnt evolve from anything.. we just came to be.. why is it that mitochondria so closely resembles a bacteria cell? why is it that it has its own self replicating DNA? why the hell does it have a double membrane?

It's a difference in interpretation. You have NO EVIDENCE that a bacteria just squeezed in our cells and evolved into our mini power plant, and I can show you the intricate design of a self-sufficient vital structure within our cells, that COULD NOT have arisen by random mutations. Again, you have to assume evolution is true, in order to consider the mitochondria as evidence for evolution.

there is so much evidence proving evolution, yet you dismiss it so simply by saying.. you disagree. you offer no valuable insight whatsoever..

If we are both looking at a ball in the ground, and you say the ball was kicked from across the street, then bounced in the wall, then it hit a lady that was passing by, to ultimately land at a certain spot, while I say that someone came in and placed the ball there... we both have opinions, but yours is less plausible than mine due to natural laws.

[devilhawk]

Whales? In case you didn't know, now they are being linked to hippos... I guess similar fossils don't mean much these days... Wrong. Horizontal gene transfer is simply one of the mechanisms through which evolutionists claim major changes can happen that would lead to macroevolution. Once again, it has only shown to lead to small microchanges in function of currently present genes.

Now you are changing the subject. My contention was the study of macro evolution through HGT's was integral to human progress. The principles we learned through HGT (whether it even happened or not, where it happened or not) will help us develop some of the most intriguing science in the coming future. This, solidifies the fact that the study of macro evolution was/is worthwhile to human progress.

[Bulla564]

endogenous retroviruses (ERV's) and im off

The more we learn, the more we know of their actual functions. SEE!! there IS progress in science!!

Do you have all the facts though?

Nobody does.

Now you are changing the subject. My contention was the study of macro evolution through HGT's was integral to human progress. The principles we learned through HGT (whether it even happened or not, where it happened or not) will help us develop some of the most intriguing science in the coming future. This, solidifies the fact that the study of macro evolution was/is worthwhile to human progress.

That is not macroevolution. It's a hypothetical step to macroevolution. HGT's can be studied without the extrapolations of humans evolving into different creatures.

[Hitokage]

STUDYING THE EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF AN ORGANISM IS A WASTE OF SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES and is less fruitful than studying the design and purpose of said organism.

If you understood ecology at all, you'd understand that evolutionary histories are their "design and purpose". Nothing evolves in isolation, and filling niches is a prime driver of the process. These are not disparate subjects.

[Bulla564]

If you understood ecology at all, you'd understand that evolutionary histories are their "design and purpose".

The stories of fish to reptiles, of apes to human, of dinosaurs to birds, etc, have NO significance in understanding the current structures and roles within an ecosystem of different species.

There is no "looking to the past, to understand the future" in evolution. Ecologists are not helped by knowing that "... durr yeah this COULD HAVE evolved from this.... DERP DERP this probably evolved from that... HURRR"

A waste of resources.

[Dragona Akehi]

He really has no idea how any of this actually works. It's both fascinating and depressing.

[devilhawk]

The more we learn, the more we know of their actual functions. SEE!! there IS progress in science!! Nobody does. That is not macroevolution. It's a hypothetical step to macroevolution. HGT's can be studied without the extrapolations of humans evolving into different creatures.

It very much is macro evolution. It is studied under its pretense regardless. It is important in the endosymbiotic theory which is a crucial step in the evolution of humans.

I still want you to tell me that the studying of endosymbiosis and HGT's is not integral to human progress.

[Nocebo]

Nobody does.

But you're opposed to getting more facts? You realize noone has all the facts yet you claim you already know the truth. Now you're undermining yourself. You can't know the truth without all the facts.

And yes facts are not set in stone. I think that's what makes the idea of a world that changes constantly so hard for you to come to terms with. It used to be a fact that the world was flat relative to our understanding. Everything we discover is relative to our understanding, we're unable to know what the truth is unless we have all the facts. We shouldn't stop the persuit of the truth just because you have found a truth you find easy to swallow.

One field of science can give birth to many other fields. You can't say what is being discovered is useless, because you can't know.

[Boozeroony]

Wow, there are no words...

Will read again!

[Lesath]

The stories of fish to reptiles, of apes to human, of dinosaurs to birds, etc, have NO significance in understanding the current structures and roles within an ecosystem of different species. There is no "looking to the past, to understand the future" in evolution. Ecologists are not helped by knowing that "... durr yeah this COULD HAVE evolved from this.... DERP DERP this probably evolved from that... HURRR" A waste of resources.

It's not your money, time, or effort. Cry more.

[Naked Snake]

It's now thought that life did not begin with DNA, but RNA, specifically because RNA can act as both a coding molecule and an enzyme. Specialization into a molecule solely for coding, DNA, and enzymes crafted from amino acids, proteins, came later as the genetic process itself evolved. At the very least, we know that the coding sequences themselves didn't always match like they do today. It's also important to note that even basic bacteria took two to three billion years of evolution. Multicellular organisms were able to rapidly develop and diversify because much of the basic templates were already hammered out. Once you have an organism with prokaryotic cells, a brain, two eyes, a circulatory system, a respiratory system, a skeletal system with four limbs and a spine, and sexual reproduction, you pretty much have every vertebrate animal ready to go outside of proportion tweaking and miscellaneous traits.

I swear I come into many threads only to read your posts. It blows my mind how you know so much about every damn subject.

[Jonm1010]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQYAHwKRbMs More baseless assumptions?

surprisingly this was ignored by the creationist.

[Esperado]

Design and purpose? :lol
Isn't that to not be eaten and reproduce?

[Bo]

He really has no idea how any of this actually works. It's both fascinating and depressing.

Looks like he still clings to irreducible complexity too.

[Yagharek]

I would be interested to see an ID avocate:

a) Explain the existence of cancers

and

b) Explain away the evolution of immunity in bacteria and viruses