Evolution Test!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dr.Trax
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 445
  • Views Views 62K

Do you believe in Evolution?


  • Total voters
    0
Status
Not open for further replies.
in the immortal loathsome words of CZ.. whatever you say..
I am pretty sure folks can stick any of the above mentioned or afore mentioned in google and see the actual outcome rather than the dreamt up outcome..

on this note I bid you a great evening.

all the best
 
I am pretty sure folks can stick any of the above mentioned or afore mentioned in google and see the actual outcome rather than the dreamt up outcome..

It is already too obvious that both human and chimp genomes do exist. If it were impossible like you claim, then we would not exist. Therefore it is obviously possible to survive the chromosomal fusion event that turned 48 into 46. We only need to look in the mirror to determine the survivability of that event.
 
It is already too obvious that both human and chimp genomes do exist. .

Yes Genomes exist and not just for humans and chimps ;D

all the best

At least we agree on that!

Now all you have to do is explain the origin of the differences in genome design that all humans in this forum obviously all survived too or else they would not be here either.
 
At least we agree on that!
I agree only with what is in accord with accepted standards of science. Not concocted pseudoscience built entirely on fallacious assumptions!
Now all you have to do is explain the origin of the differences in genome design that all humans in this forum obviously all survived too or else they would not be here either.

This statement has no logical or meaningful connection!

all the best
 
I agree only with what is in accord with accepted standards of science. Not concocted pseudoscience built entirely on fallacious assumptions!

Then what do you agree with when we compare genomes of human and chimp. Right away find a fusion that only exists in humans, in chromosome number 2:

humanChimpChromosomes-1.gif

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=69

When the locations of HOX genes that help determine bone size/shape are highlighted we find that some were involved in the fusion allowing the inference that the rearrangement would have likely caused immediate morphological change to our limb structure:

Human:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/mapview/map_search.cgi?taxid=9606&query=HOX**&qchr=&strain=All

Chimp:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/mapview/map_search.cgi?taxid=9598&query=HOX**&qchr=&strain=All

What makes us human and a chimp a chimp is rather obvious to anyone who takes the time to look at the genetic evidence. It is not believing one side or another it is seeing for ourselves what is going on so we can honestly make up our own minds.

What is your coherent explanation for all this? Is this (or is this not) how the Creator works?
 
Last edited:
What is your coherent explanation for all this? Is this (or is this not) how the Creator works?

My responses (some of them quite detailed) are given all throughout this forum and this very thread. You are right, folks are free to make up their mind.

unlike you, I don't feign to know how the creator works, but kudos that you do, perhaps you can go and create some Dr. Moreau and amuse us with your finds..

moreau-1.jpg



all the best!
 
My responses (some of them quite detailed) are given all throughout this forum and this very thread. You are right, folks are free to make up their mind.

Yes. With or without your input, they will make up their own minds.

unlike you, I don't feign to know how the creator works

And from experience I can say you said that exactly like a true Atheist would.

, but kudos that you do, perhaps you can go and create some Dr. Moreau and amuse us with your finds..

You even included an insult following the dodging of a serious question to impress your friends with. Only problem with that though, is it's still too obvious you are unable to provide an honest unbiased answer to a serious question.

all the best!

Yes thanks, I'll keep the search for the Creator going in science for all those who have faith that we are more than a purposeless accident regardless of insults against even the teachings of Prophet Muhammad who said:

And in your creation, and the crawling things He has scattered abroad, there are signs for a people having sure faith; And in the alternation of night and day, and the provision God sends down from heaven, and therewith revives the earth after it is dead, and the turning about of the winds, there are signs for a people who understand. (45:3-5)
http://www.newstatesman.com/200404050019
 
Yes. With or without your input, they will make up their own minds.

Indeed.. and I think the poll results are a nice echo of that!

And from experience I can say you said that exactly like a true Atheist would.
More like an honest realist!



You even included an insult following the dodging of a serious question to impress your friends with. Only problem with that though, is it's still too obvious you are unable to provide an honest unbiased answer to a serious question.
Neither are you, you simply delude yourself that you do and expect that others should subscribe to your delusions under some threat! It is surprising you haven't headed down to Stockholm to claim your Nobel yet oh glorious one. Again, come speak to me about how God works once you have invented a cure for the common cold before you take on creation and how God works.. what say you? just so we are not wasting everyone's time on an ego trip!



Yes thanks, I'll keep the search for the Creator going in science for all those who have faith that we are more than a purposeless accident regardless of insults against even the teachings of Prophet Muhammad who said:

And in your creation, and the crawling things He has scattered abroad, there are signs for a people having sure faith; And in the alternation of night and day, and the provision God sends down from heaven, and therewith revives the earth after it is dead, and the turning about of the winds, there are signs for a people who understand. (45:3-5)
http://www.newstatesman.com/200404050019
I don't understand, are you searching for a creator? just a paragraph ago you alleged to know how the creator works, and now you have moved backwards to search for him?

pls think before you hurl out massive logorrhea!

all the best on your quests!
 
Tell me again.

If Adam's creation was a miracle.
And miracles by definition don't conform to normal laws of the universe.
Why are we trying to find scientific evidence of Adam?

We aren't trying to analyze staffs like Moses used to see if they can part the Red Sea are we? Why make an exception for this?

I suspect it is because other religions have problems with it and Muslims start to think the same.
 
Tell me again.

If Adam's creation was a miracle.
And miracles by definition don't conform to normal laws of the universe.
Why are we trying to find scientific evidence of Adam?

We aren't trying to analyze staffs like Moses used to see if they can part the Red Sea are we? Why make an exception for this?

I suspect it is because other religions have problems with it and Muslims start to think the same.

:sl:

I know enough about science wal7mdllilah to fully understand our limitations and crippling short falls. We are along way from curbing the sequella of very common things that send us to the grave and fail to even understand what causes them. Essential HTN for instance, we have fancy terms like 'idiopathic' to brand obscure causes of common every day things to allege to know how God works.

[3:47]--- Allah createth what He willeth: when He hath decreed a Plan, He but saith to it, `Be', and it is!


All the science and knowledge that we know, is innate in us and in and of itself is quite a miracle, not how we cultivate it, but the sense of wonder and love of learning:

2:31 And He taught Adam the names of all things; then He placed them before the angels, and said: "Tell Me the names of these if ye are right."


What we know, if what he willed for us to know. Coming from monkeys or donkeys or platypus or algae, is for the man who ceases the desire to know his creator or to live willing to accept that he isn't but a neglected petri dish.

if Allah swt willed us to come from Apes or to go back to Apes he'd decree it.

[5:60] Say: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped Evil, these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even Path!"


but here you have folks who believe that God transformed them by fusing chromosome number 2.. to which I say, you are entitled to your beliefs. Allah swt didn't let us in to the secret of creation whether he transformed us or made us in our current form, it really wouldn't matter.
What matters however, is that you know that Allah swt created us, and can create us in any form he desires!

:w:
 
Tell me again.

Good questions! I need to have a go at them.

If Adam's creation was a miracle.
And miracles by definition don't conform to normal laws of the universe.
Why are we trying to find scientific evidence of Adam?

In my case I did not look for evidence of Adam and Eve, the evidence came to me instead. I recognized what it meant then wrote it down.

It is also important to consider that without a genome you and I would not be here. And what sense is there for creating Adam and Eve with a miracle if it is then impossible for them to have children without more miracles for each one and their childrens children who would also have to be specially created too? From this problem we can conclude that Adam and Eve needed the human genome or else they could not give birth to descendents.

We aren't trying to analyze staffs like Moses used to see if they can part the Red Sea are we? Why make an exception for this?

How the Red Sea could have been parted is one of the biggest mysteries of them all. The internet has many websites like this one that try to answer these questions:

http://www.geocities.com/athens/parthenon/3021/redsea6.html

I suspect it is because other religions have problems with it and Muslims start to think the same.

Human beings have a need to search for knowledge. It is the way we are and we cannot change that. I found the reason for this to be in how we gauge failure or success:

From: http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/
Note: Videos are very clean and promote peace (not violence).

REQUIREMENT #3 of 4 - FEEDBACK TO GAUGE FAILURE AND SUCCESS
Confidence changing feedback which gauges failure and success is something we can consciously "feel". At our level we are consciously rewarded by "success" and feel punished by "failure". For that reason games and sports are very popular to achieve the euphoria that accompanies success.

By being able to "feel for others" we can share in the success or failure of another intelligence simply by watching them. We therefore have heroes who succeed and villains who fail us. In human culture this is well expressed as winning over the 1970's "pinball machine" that preceded home video games and personal computers. The pinball machine had to be fed quarters which in turn kept many teenagers out of spending money, which in turn helped make the impossible dream of being able to control the game for endless replays the ultimate success for many of that generation.

In the musical movie by the Who named "Tommy" is the song/scene "Tommy and the Pinball Machine" where a "deaf dumb and blind kid" that can only do one thing at all (get endless free games) first discovers a pinball machine that was luring him to wander off. After finding his "calling" the world "lights up" around him by that superhuman success of beating a machine that always eventually won having been achieved.

In reality the ability to fully control a pinball machine would not make it function without being plugged into an electrical outlet or can light up the air around them but our human intelligence abstracts things this way because of how the intelligence mechanism inherently seeks to as much as possible control other things and how increased confidence in reward for being able to do so feels good. And after spending much money attempting to control a pinball machine, human intelligence would then spend more money to see a confidence building movie that feels good by showing what that ultimate superhuman control over a controlling machine would look like when abstracted through art. Our intelligence here understands a reality by relating to something that in reality could not possibly happen. What is in human culture is here useful for explaining what is producing human intelligence by these expressions through the images that exist in its art.

Low confidence of repeated failure or being held down by others attempting to control us produces an imprisoning "bad feeling" that we will work very hard to "get free" from. This is expressed by the Tommy movie song "I'm Free" where he breaks through to the other side of the mirror he once endlessly stared into. The running through the world inviting all to join him then through scenes that resemble going back in time to a primordial planet is here an expression of confidence level suddenly greatly increasing.

Humans have such a need to fill memory with knowledge many feel incomplete especially when it comes to the "big questions" like where we came from and in time will go. Some may seek knowledge from history and/or religion. Scientists may try to answer that by searching for new knowledge scientifically, driven to keep taking their intellect and science to new levels. In fact, that powerful need for knowledge is why this theory exists. In human culture the search for knowledge is often expressed as climbing a mountain for the light of knowledge and wisdom as in the movie Tommy (The Who) - See Me, Feel Me - Listening to You (1975) where after following Tommy because of all wanting what he has tragedy forces aside the controlling of a game what once seemed important and Tommy must now run through the flames then on that long journey to the knowledge that all their lives they suffered to discover.
 
Thanks for the informative article, in a nut shell, this is adaptation. It isn't speciation.
Allow me to quote for you from the article mentioned above:

"Although genome duplication is relatively scarce in animals as compared to plants (Otto and Whitton 2000; Mable 2004), it plays a prominent role in speciation of the African clawed frogs of the pipid subfamily Xenopodinae (Xenopus and Silurana)"

"Silurana includes one diploid species with 20 chromosomes and three tetraploid species with 40 chromosomes. In Xenopus, tetraploids appear to have completely replaced diploids; this genus includes 10 tetraploid species with 36 chromosomes, 5 octoploid species with 72 chromosomes, and 2 dodecaploid species with 108 chromosomes (Kobel, Loumont, and Tinsley 1996)"
at the end of the day, the only outcome we see of actualized fusions/breaks/translocations are in fact detrimental!
That is to be expected when any evidence to the contrary is ignored.
Many things that you deem 'remains' or 'rudimentary', prove to either have a purpose later on, misunderstood as to its nature-- some are simply nonfunctional for our current state of understanding.
Let me talk through this and see if I have understood you correctly.

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and the organism which is genetically most similar to humans possesses 24 pairs of chromosomes. There are 2 pairs in that organism which do not have a direct analog in humans and a single pair in humans which does not have an analog in that organism. If you put the 2 pairs of chromosomes end to end, they look nearly identical to the 1 human pair. Where the 2 centromeres are there are two centromere sequences on the human chromosome. Where the ends meet there are two telomeric sequences joined end-to-end on the human chromosome.

For illustration so I can fully grasp this:

C = Centromere, T = Telomere, P = Pre-telomere sequence

Closest primate:
TP--------C--PT . . . TP---C------------PT

Human:
TP--------C--PTTP---C------------PT

So what you're saying is that these structures are... coincidentally in the same place, coincidentally have the same sequences, the structures were designed like that to serve some other purpose of which we are unaware?
Why would a designer create a structure that looks exactly like a fusion event?
You want to believe you have descended from apes.. be my guest, no one is forcing you to change your beliefs! we share 35% of out genes with algae or bananas and 82% are shared with the platypus-- did the Apes result from a fusion on the platypus and before the platypus bananas and before the banana some algae?
I don't believe we descended from apes, we have a common ancestor. That ancestor might have been ape-like, but not the same as the apes of today unless they have undergone no variation in the last million years.

No one is suggesting that platypuses evolved from bananas or any such thing. The platypus and the banana are modern organisms that share ancestry, but their closest mutual relation is further back in time than the platypus and other mammals. An analogy would be the way in which you are more genetically similar to your siblings than your fifth cousin.
 
Not sure if endogenous retroviruses have been mentioned here, yet, but I feel they should be.

An ERV is a virus that integrates its own genome into that of its host. The specific part of the host's genome that the ERV selects is random. Once the ERV has left its genome in the host's, the host copies it along with the host's own genome, through mitosis or meiosis. The ERV becomes a permanent part of the host's genome.

Say this is the ERV's genome:

A-C-A-A-G-T
T-G-T-T-C-A

And this is a part of the the host's genome:

T-T-A-G-C-A-G-C-T-A
A-A-T-C-G-T-C-G-A-T

Once the ERV integrates itself into the host, the host's genome could look like this (I've made the ERV bold):

T-T-A-G-A-C-A-A-G-T-C-A-G-C-T-A
A-A-T-C-T-G-T-T-C-A-G-T-C-G-A-T

But just as easily, it could look like:

T-T-A-G-C-A-G-C-A-C-A-A-G-T-T-A
A-A-T-C-G-T-C-G-T-G-T-T-C-A-A-T

Because these ERV markers (The bold bits) are now a permanent part of the host's genetic material, it will always get passed down to the next generation, which will then be passed onto the next generation. 500 generations later, and there's nothing stopping the ERV markers from being present, still.

Pick 10 numbers between 1 and 2 billion.
Now get a stranger to do the same.

You stand the same chance of picking a number the same as a single ERV stands of picking the same spot in two almost identical genomes.

You stand the same chance of picking the same 10 numbers, in the same order, as an ERV stands of picking the same 10 spots in two separate genomes.

However, if these two genomes share a common ancestor, then the ERVs will get passed down, and be in both genomes, in exactly the same place.

We share lots of ERV markers with chimpanzees.

The only way that could happen, is if us and chimps had a common ancestor, which was the original host of the ERV.

Just to add, Gossamer, as Jaffa so eloquently put it, we didn't evolve from apes. We are still apes. Just as a Doberman is no less a dog than an Irish Wolf Hound, or a lion is no less a cat than a tiger. We share about 95% of our genome with chimpanzees, of all the other great apes, they're our closest relatives.
 
Argh, can't find an edit button. It should be:

"Pick 10 numbers between 1 and 3 billion.
Now get a stranger to do the same."

not

"Pick 10 numbers between 1 and 2 billion.
Now get a stranger to do the same."
 
Allow me to quote for you from the article mentioned above:

"Although genome duplication is relatively scarce in animals as compared to plants (Otto and Whitton 2000; Mable 2004)
I have briefed over the article the term scarce is operative and what it applies to doesn't denote that one should make the same inference about all else!
also, I am still not quite sure why you are so gung ho about unrelated articles from which I am to magically draw some desired conclusions. Viruses by the same token 'speciate', however they are not considered living organisms.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/questions/question/1854/
are we examining the likeness of macrobiotics to labyrinthitis, what is your point?


, it plays a prominent role in speciation of the African clawed frogs of the pipid subfamily Xenopodinae (Xenopus and Silurana)
"
Can we see how the frogs differed before from after? If due to some anomaly, a person ends up with Syndactyly

synd3-1.jpg


HAN018.jpg


can I call it speciation from the centuries when we were aquatic animals or simply what it is as caused by the dysregulation of interdigital apoptosis? quoting me the term 'speciation' as the author favored I fear doesn't have the impact nor the relation you desire for the point you are aiming for!

That is to be expected when any evidence to the contrary is ignored.
Let me talk through this and see if I have understood you correctly.
Perhaps you need to redefine your terms.
With 'Evidence' one expects the truth investigated judicially and evidence established or disproved.
The same way you need to familiarize yourself with marco vs micro-evolution, you need to likewise familiarize yourself the difference between empiricism vs incontrovertible facts!



Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and the organism which is genetically most similar to humans possesses 24 pairs of chromosomes. There are 2 pairs in that organism which do not have a direct analog in humans and a single pair in humans which does not have an analog in that organism. If you put the 2 pairs of chromosomes end to end, they look nearly identical to the 1 human pair. Where the 2 centromeres are there are two centromere sequences on the human chromosome. Where the ends meet there are two telomeric sequences joined end-to-end on the human chromosome.

For illustration so I can fully grasp this:

C = Centromere, T = Telomere, P = Pre-telomere sequence

Closest primate:
TP--------C--PT . . . TP---C------------PT

Human:
TP--------C--PTTP---C------------PT

So what you're saying is that these structures are... coincidentally in the same place, coincidentally have the same sequences, the structures were designed like that to serve some other purpose of which we are unaware?
Why would a designer create a structure that looks exactly like a fusion event?
I don't believe we descended from apes, we have a common ancestor. That ancestor might have been ape-like, but not the same as the apes of today unless they have undergone no variation in the last million years.

a few points:
1- Coincidentally in the same place ( who says it is a coincident?) I have already asserted that there isn't much variance between any organisms in this planet. We are composed of the same elements, in whatever arrangement.
2- not the same as the apes of today
( perhaps the most important of all, is how you can make such definitive statements about something that is no longer in existence and expect that anyone should subscribe to it as a definitive fact?!
3-Why would a designer create a structure that looks exactly like a fusion event ( I must admit this is the most inane question I have come across and there is no shortage. You can't possibly expect anyone to answer you, how or why the 'designer creates as he does?) If you carry that question further to include the 3-30 million species (Erwin 1983, Wolosz 1988) in existence as well the periodic elements of which some are noble, you'll have more questions than answers, which even your miltonic brains will be at a loss to explain!
http://animals.about.com/b/2007/08/13/how-many-species-on-earth.htm
No one is suggesting that platypuses evolved from bananas or any such thing. The platypus and the banana are modern organisms that share ancestry, but their closest mutual relation is further back in time than the platypus and other mammals. An analogy would be the way in which you are more genetically similar to your siblings than your fifth cousin.

from what did the ancestry originate? how did the early cells assemble, what is the driving force behind the continued evolution, is it an advancing event? how often should we expect to evolve? is it possible to de-evolve at some points such as happens with diamonds back to graphite:

http://prao.aps.org/story/v22/st5

Why is death a part of evolution, seems like a self-defeating event especially when at a crucial point where death could potentially halt the progression to something more favorable! How do we decide what is favorable, in other words what it is the advantage about being human over being an Ape of common ancestry?
only fair questions when you bring frogs and plants and chromosome number II to the picture that we have many unanswered questions!


all the best
 
from what did the ancestry originate? how did the early cells assemble, what is the driving force behind the continued evolution, is it an advancing event? how often should we expect to evolve? is it possible to de-evolve at some points such as happens with diamonds back to graphite:

How far back do you want to go?

The first cells were little more than the self-replicating ribonucleic acid, contained in a fatty acid lipid.

If two of these cells came into contact, then the one that contained the larger amount of RNA would absorb the fatty acids from the other cell's lipid. As the RNA grew, the shell needed to grow too, so the one with more RNA would've absorbed the lipid from the other one, increasing the size of its own shell. As it grows, parts of it break off, forming new cells, with a copy of the genetic material.

Already you've got a "cell" that can replicate itself, genetic material included, and a "cell" that needs smaller cells to absorb, to keep on growing.

It's pretty complicated, and a a lot factors into it, such as what chemicals certain lipids would allow into the shell, whether or not the chemicals, when forming RNA would double over and loop, things liek that that would effect how much the genetic material replicated.

If it's single-celled organisms becoming multi cellular organisms, well, there's two ways it can happen. There are some species of single celled organisms that do it, and single cellular to multi cellular evolution has been witnessed in a lab.

Here's the one that was most likely the first:

As a cell divides, it's possible for a small part of the new cell to remain attached to the old one. Obviously, this isn't actually a single organism, because there's no communication between the two cells. But because these two cells are now bigger, they would be better adapted to survive, because they're much harder for other cells to "eat", so over time, they'd get more and more advanced at being attached together. They'll grow new cells that won't detach, like the original two, and that'll happen a lot, until you've got a lot of related cells, all with the same genetic code, all attached together. It'd only be a matter of time until communication between the individual cells developed.

And well, that's pretty much the beginning of our ancestry.

The "advancing force" is simply to survive and copy as much genetic material as possible.

It's not possible to de-evolve, either, that'd mean having to lose genetic material in the order you gained it, and considering mutations are random, the chances of that happening are astronomical. Although, our DNA houses most of the traits we've had throughout our entire ancestry, so occasionally you end up with things like atavism, where these genes regress back to an earlier stage in their evolutionary history. Such as dolphins with hind limbs, humans with fully functional tails, snakes with legs or birds with teeth. What you'll never see, though, is an atavism which an animal has never had in its evolutionary history. You'll never see a hippo with feathers, or a komodo dragon with mammary glands or hair follicles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: glo
How far back do you want to go?
The start of how it all began it is really quite a simple query. Can you prove it and account for every finite detail of it, not just to extend from a unicellular organism moving in a uni-direction to give us one complex being, but do it for the millions of species that exist in a logical scientific manner?

The first cells were little more than the self-replicating ribonucleic acid, contained in a fatty acid lipid.
Where did the RNA and fatty acids come from? how did they know how to assemble as they have? and how did they give rise to all else? for instance in the 7000000BC the cell decided to produce cerebroside-sulfatase so that it can break down cerebroside 3-sulfate? and pls carry that for every biochemical reaction and end product as to cement your thoughts with a probable mechanism and plausible reasons if you want to discuss science, not science fiction!
If two of these cells came into contact, then the one that contained the larger amount of RNA would absorb the fatty acids from the other cell's lipid. As the RNA grew, the shell needed to grow too, so the one with more RNA would've absorbed the lipid from the other one, increasing the size of its own shell. As it grows, parts of it break off, forming new cells, with a copy of the genetic material.
This is is no more mindless drivel, you are barely working on the function of one cell and all of a sudden another cell came into existence and grew from what material? how about their chance encounter for agamogenesis or whatever other mechanism for growth again the year 8000000bc the cell decided it needed to sprout wings so it took on a few more base pairs to increase its size from what? what raw material and what is the drive? Not every protein is functional. So there was some cognitive drive to allow for functional proteins and functional enzymes all of them knowing which proteins to code for and which to silent, so that proteins making collagen wouldn't produce urea even though each cell carries the entire genome.
Already you've got a "cell" that can replicate itself, genetic material included, and a "cell" that needs smaller cells to absorb, to keep on growing.
I don't think you quite know how many functions occur in one cell or their very ordered assembly nor have you accounted for where inception of where the genetic material came from as we must assume it ex nihilio given that much of what is in existence today wasn't always in existence.. what you have written here requires little mental effort, I think my 4 year old niece can come up with something more imaginative and yet you expect others to subscribe to this as sound science? .
It's pretty complicated, and a a lot factors into it, such as what chemicals certain lipids would allow into the shell, whether or not the chemicals, when forming RNA would double over and loop, things liek that that would effect how much the genetic material replicated.
Yes, it is indeed pretty complicated, so how about you account for them in lieu of expecting us to subscribe to your beliefs at face value?

If it's single-celled organisms becoming multi cellular organisms, well, there's two ways it can happen. There are some species of single celled organisms that do it, and single cellular to multi cellular evolution has been witnessed in a lab.
Let's see it then!
Let's see how the RNA began life on its own volition with no manipulation or additions or hosts to foster its function!


And well, that's pretty much the beginning of our ancestry.

The "advancing force" is simply to survive and copy as much genetic material as possible.
for what purpose? we'd have been more successful as algae or cockroaches than human beings!

It's not possible to de-evolve, either, that'd mean having to lose genetic material in the order you gained it, and considering mutations are random, the chances of that happening are astronomical. Although, our DNA houses most of the traits we've had throughout our entire ancestry, so occasionally you end up with things like atavism, where these genes regress back to an earlier stage in their evolutionary history. Such as dolphins with hind limbs, humans with fully functional tails, snakes with legs or birds with teeth. What you'll never see, though, is an atavism which an animal has never had in its evolutionary history. You'll never see a hippo with feathers, or a komodo dragon with mammary glands or hair follicles.
So it is astronomical to de-evolve but not astronomical to evolve even though we are using the exact same mechanisms? I mean technically you haven't accounted for how said astronomical functions came about in the first place to speak of their loss and we actually see things that de-evolve after evolving, and I have given the example of diamonds going back to graphite! Why not for humans too?

You should think a little before you write!

I don't want to go far with your opinion and personal beliefs, can we see some peer reviewed articles? something akin to this:

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_PrimitiveCell_112302.pdf

or this
http://arxiv.org/ftp/q-bio/papers/0603/0603005.pdf

just so we are not wasting each others time with faithful impressions!


all the best!
 
Last edited:
a person ends up with Syndactyly
Irrelevant.
the term scarce is operative
Doesn't matter if it happened a trillion times or just once, it's still more than you say is possible.
Why not just stop beating about the bush and say that anyone who claims to have studied something and come to a conclusion which contradicts your beliefs is a liar or incompetent. It's just not truuuuueeee, they're all liars. The evil academic journals publish thousands of fake articles every year to cover up the real truth of creation!
With 'Evidence' one expects the truth investigated judicially and evidence established or disproved.
I'm still waiting for an explanation of your position regarding human chromosome 2 that meets these standards. I've posted links to papers describing what is now an established fact, but your responses tend to be something like "hey, we're all made up of the same stuff". If you know of any studies which cast doubt on the human chromosome 2 fusion event, let's see them.
The same way you need to familiarize yourself with marco vs micro-evolution, you need to likewise familiarize yourself the difference between empiricism vs incontrovertible facts!
Don't presume to preach to others when you are unable to grasp simple concepts or refuse to do so in order that your happy little worldview is not shattered.
a few points:1- Coincidentally in the same place (who says it is a coincident?) I have already asserted that there isn't much variance between any organisms in this planet. We are composed of the same elements, in whatever arrangement.
2- not the same as the apes of today
( perhaps the most important of all, is how you can make such definitive statements about something that is no longer in existence and expect that anyone should subscribe to it as a definitive fact?!
3-Why would a designer create a structure that looks exactly like a fusion event ( I must admit this is the most inane question I have come across and there is no shortage. You can't possibly expect anyone to answer you, how or why the 'designer creates as he does?) If you carry that question further to include the 3-30 million species (Erwin 1983, Wolosz 1988) in existence as well the periodic elements of which some are noble, you'll have more questions than answers, which even your miltonic brains will be at a loss to explain!
1) There's a difference between sharing 50% of your DNA with a plant and having a near identical gene sequence and structure as another organism, complete with visible joined telomeres.
2) I qualified my statement, you ignored that. Surprise, surprise.
3) I'm not expecting you to probe the mind of God, but put yourself in that position. If you were designing an organism, why would you make it look like it happened some other way? Why would you design a human chromosome that looks exactly as if it was the fusion of two primate chromosomes?
only fair questions when you bring frogs and plants and chromosome number II to the picture that we have many unanswered questions!
Interesting questions indeed, but let's deal with the topic at hand. I've been talking about chromosome 2 since my first post in this thread and still haven't heard any sense out of you. I know you'd like to avoid it and move onto something more speculative and therefore easier to brush aside to reinforce your own opinion, but I'd rather stick with it for now.
 
Irrelevant.Doesn't matter if it happened a trillion times or just once, it's still more than you say is possible.
as relevant as frog evolution to human speciation, a million times or zero times still shows no relevance to the topic at hand!

Why not just stop beating about the bush and say that anyone who claims to have studied something and come to a conclusion which contradicts your beliefs is a liar or incompetent. It's just not truuuuueeee, they're all liars. The evil academic journals publish thousands of fake articles every year to cover up the real truth of creation!
Actually the same can be said of you of the two journals which I have presented here in relation to both evolution from a unicellular organism and well the view from statistical physics which you have failed to even acknowledge-- can the same be said, that you are neither familiar with science or like to argue against articles that oppose your personal beliefs?


http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/q-bio/papers/0603/0603005.pdf


I'm still waiting for an explanation of your position regarding human chromosome 2 that meets these standards. I've posted links to papers describing what is now an established fact, but your responses tend to be something like "hey, we're all made up of the same stuff". If you know of any studies which cast doubt on the human chromosome 2 fusion event, let's see them.
I have already stated my opinion on the matter and repeatedly.

first I'll introduce an analogy, perhaps breaking things down to the lowest common denominator would suit you best then I'll leave with my stand on the matter as I have in fact written before:

for simplicity sake, let's take Dr. John Sampson's theory of retrograde menstruation as a cause of endometriosis, seems plausible for all intensive purposes, that blood traveling backwards carrying in its midst endometrial cells, can implant itself in the vicinity, and this endometrial like tissue acts very much like the linning of the uterus, responding to hormones and may shed from where it shouldn't cause various other nuisances to millions of women-- well how does this theory reconcile for women who have retrograde menses but never develop endometriosis? or how does it reconcile it for women who devlop endometriosis in the lung or the nose or the liver, far away from uterine blood? Someone else sits down and challenges the theory, states no it is spread via lymphatics, another says it is iatrogenic due to doctor error, no it is environmental, no cells can naturally morph into others as a result of hormone therapy, no it is auto-immune in origin, no it favors only hispanic women because of genetics.. Do we actually know? we can theorize, and the theories appear very plausible and by folks who have earned their place in the scientific community, but we don't peddle theories as facts and then impugn those who theorize differently...You'd be interested to know that today the theory most people accept is Dr. Sampson's, but the question marks are left in the areas that his theory fails to address!

now for what I have actually written as pertains to your chromosome II, since frankly you don't have the 'Ancestor' for a live comparison, and the apes you have in existence can be just as easily manipulated in the laboratory using vectors, E.coli bacteria or liposomes or a host of other means so that you can turn this into an incontrovertible fact! i.e to make a statement or assertion of verified data not to hypothesize I'd urge you to refine your definitions as to not cry later when someone doesn't agree with you or sweep it under some self-satisfied simple-minded conclusion as only atheists can come up with!

Gossamer skye The article is based on empiricism--terms used in said articles such as 'the putative nature is unknown' and 'suggesting that the telomeres at the extreme end may have been involved' from what you cited are your clue euphemisms for empiricism-- from which at the end you are left to draw your own conclusions. The fact that you already have Apes living side by side us and can use the same suggested means to fuse centromeric or telmoeric ends to yield the same results as theorized to actualize your beliefs should carry this to the next level rather than make it the new toy for a playground of amateurs on some public blog and since the beliefs in said case are indeed ever changing at one point it was rapid bursts of genetic changes causing speciation and now it is a mere a series of jumps and fusions with long static periods perhaps in the future it will be something else all together...... and in the end there is no reason or drive for these successive events to have taken place, in other words we'd probably have been more successful as a species of algae or cockroaches than destructive humans with sentience which evolved from God knows what... but that is not our topic however what is important is that you not subscribe to this as you would a religion lest you end up with a foot in your mouth ten years down the line.. until such a time you reference me to an article with a sort of hard core data, everything you write here about flies and frogs and one large chromosome is an effort in futility.

at the end of the day, the only outcome we see of actualized fusions/breaks/translocations are in fact detrimental!
Thus, if you want to loan your tantrums some credibility at least quote me correctly instead of introducing the same argument a colorful different ways, might it elicit a desired response!


--, but I'd rather stick with it for now.
Until such a time you carry on with some intellectual integrity and proper citation to loan some purpose and credence to what you are controverting, I suggest you stick with the topic with a party enamored by your interests and actually cares!

I don't subscribe to speciation not because it is against religion, but because it isn't scientifically solid. And have already stated repeatedly whether evolution is God's way of doing things, or some other means (as I have quoted directly from the Quran) it wouldn't change things one bit. I'd rather be more concerned if I were still stuck as the which came first the chicken or the egg and then try to drive it forward from that point!

all the best
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top