Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[buffalo]

Very good. He is free to become Catholic?

 

[buffalo]

More bad news for evolution: New paper Bottom line - 1189 Novel Groups of new genes were required

Reconstruction of the ancestral metazoan genome reveals an increase in genomic novelty

Recent studies show that many genes typically associated with metazoan functions actually pre-date animals themselves, supporting functional co-option of ‘unicellular genes’ during the genesis of metazoans. 

However, the role of genome novelty in animal origins has not been fully evaluated. We hypothesize that genomic novelty had a major impact in this transition, particularly involving biological functions which are hallmarks of animal multicellularity (gene regulation, signalling, cell adhesion, and cell cycle). Here we apply a comparative genomics approach using sophisticated methods, newly developed programs, and a comprehensive taxon sampling. The reconstruction of the ancestral genome of the last common ancestor of animals shows a set of biological functions similar to other eukaryote ancestors, while revealing an unexpected expansion of gene diversity. These analyses also highlight 25 groups of genes only found in animals that are highly retained in all their genomes, with essential functions linked to animal multicellularity.

Thus, the first animal genome was not only showing a higher proportion of Novel HG [homology groups], but these also perform major multicellular functions in the modern fruit fly genome. The implication is that the transition was accompanied by an increase of genomic innovation, including many new, divergent, and subsequently ubiquitous genes encoding regulatory functions associated with animal multicellularity.

We discovered the first animal had an exceptional number of novel genes, four times more than other ancestors. This means the evolution of animals was driven by a burst of new genes not seen in the evolution of their unicellular ancestors.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04136-5.pdf

 

[Glark]

Once upon a time folks used to think it weird that humans could have evolved from monkey-men, but now we all know it’s an established scientific fact. Likewise, I believe that one day the world will accept whale-submarine evolution as fact.

In fact, the first evolutionary step from whale to submarine occurred when Jonah was swallowed by a whale. This was the first one-man submarine - which gave rise to a whole bunch of Ninevah Class submarines.

 

[Glark]

It is taught. My son learned about it in Comparative Religion. The teacher said if they wanted to know more about how we got here from a scientific point of view then it would be covered in their biology class at some point.

He went to a Catholic school by the way.

Welcome to the greatest hoax in history. The deception knows no bounds - even the leaders of the Church have swallowed it.

 

[Glark]

I would support your campaign if I lived in the USA.

My favourite philosopher is Hulk Hogan. Who is yours?

 

[Glark]

The title says it all - “Heretic”. The cult doesn’t tolerate dissenters. I think it would be a good read. Thanks for the link.

 

[Glark]

My tip is, it will be genetics that eventually proves that microbe-man evolution is impossible.

 

[rossum]

We discovered the first animal had an exceptional number of novel genes, four times more than other ancestors. This means the evolution of animals was driven by a burst of new genes not seen in the evolution of their unicellular ancestors.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04136-5.pdf

Isn’t it wonderful. When convenient, buffalo accepts verbatim the words of atheist anti-God evolutionary biologists, except when he rejects the word of those scientists. If I quote an article in Nature that man evolved from earlier Hominids, will you accept it as true?

All you are doing here, buffalo, if fitting your God into a gap in scientific knowledge: “where did those extra genes come from?” That is a recipe for shrinking your God smaller and smaller. Thor used to fit into the gap: “what causes thunder?” Do you want your God to end up like Thor, with no gap left to fit into?

“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we do not know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved.”

– Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “Letters and Papers from Prison”

rossum

 

[rossum]

My tip is, it will be genetics that eventually proves that microbe-man evolution is impossible.

So, you are telling us that your God is not omnipotent. Your God is incapable of setting up the universe in such a way that man would evolve. That makes your God non-omnipotent.

rossum

 

[IWantGod]

Glarkonian Genetics? That will be the day.

 

[Bradskii]

Very good. He is free to become Catholic?

Both he and his sister (who also went to a Catholic school). If nothing else they learned to treat people with religious views with the respect they deserve.

Whereas people with views like yours…not so much. They, and as far as I can tell, all their friends, think Creationists are on a par with trailer dwelling alien abductees and members of the Flat Earth Society.

It must be depressing to have to cut and paste chunks of DI waffle as the basis for your ‘arguments’. Even more depressing to realise that you are generally ignored. But, and you probably aren’t really aware of this as you seem to live in some kind of hermetic logic-free bubble, most people tend to treat your views, when they are pointed out (because nobody is interested in seeking them out), as good for nothing more than a bit of a laugh. You’re on par with all the tin-foil-hat-wearing end-of-the-world placard toting sad personalities you find on street corners handing out self printed leaflets with bad grammar.

Anyway, sorry to be the bearer of bad news. But I really think you need to know this.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

It must be depressing to have to cut and paste chunks of DI waffle as the basis for your ‘arguments’

Wheeeee! Here comes a Creationist quotebomb! They don’t have to understand it, they don’t even have to read it; its abstract has popped up on some quote-mining Creationist website somewhere so they can use it as cannon-fodder against the evil evolutionists. Hoping to blind the enemy with science, as the Creationists have been blinded themselves. Shame that the front-line grunts don’t realise that their apparent ammunition was researched and written by evolutionists, and read and understood by evolutionists, before it even reached the quote-mine. It’s like throwing doughnuts at a nutritionist hoping the sugar will kill him.

 

[Aloysium]

From the article:

The reconstruction of the ancestral genome of the last common ancestor of animals shows a set of biological functions similar to other eukaryote ancestors, while revealing an unexpected expansion of gene diversity.

The evidence has been demonstrating the random muation of the genome is very much an overly simplified explanation, if it explains anything at all, in regards to the emergence of life in all its diversity, and that natural selection plays a conservative role in the preservation of species, if it is real at all and not simply a shadow of the reality that organisms are integral parts of their environment.

It is interesting to note that the new information continues to be presented within an evolutionary framework. There is no evidence that there exist common ancestors to new and more complex forms of living being. What is described are new genetic components to those that had existed. That the former arose from the latter is an assumption made from observing the world as it exists after creation is done, and a fallen world at that, where different kinds of being give rise to offspring which more or less resemble their parents, but with the accumulation of genetic defects.

 

[buffalo]

So, you are telling us that your God is not omnipotent. Your God is incapable of setting up the universe in such a way that man would evolve. That makes your God non-omnipotent.

rossum

Catholics know God as almighty.

 

[buffalo]

Wheeeee! Here comes a Creationist quotebomb! They don’t have to understand it, they don’t even have to read it; its abstract has popped up on some quote-mining Creationist website somewhere so they can use it as cannon-fodder against the evil evolutionists. Hoping to blind the enemy with science, as the Creationists have been blinded themselves. Shame that the front-line grunts don’t realise that their apparent ammunition was researched and written by evolutionists, and read and understood by evolutionists, before it even reached the quote-mine. It’s like throwing doughnuts at a nutritionist hoping the sugar will kill him.

Read the entire paper that I posted. It can be found in Nature, hardly a creationist site.

 

[rossum]

Catholics know God as almighty.

But Glark-God is obviously not almighty.

rossum

 

[Bradskii]

It’s like throwing doughnuts at a nutritionist hoping the sugar will kill him.

Now that I like.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Read the entire paper that I posted. It can be found in Nature, hardly a creationist site.

I have indeed read it, and understood its interesting evolutionary implications. None of its observations, let alone its conclusions, fit, in any way, a hypothesis that a few dozen species were created spontaneously, from which all subsequent species have evolved. Nevertheless, you saw fit to mention it. Why, I wonder? Did you see it in Nature (which is indeed a very respectable mainstream science journal) yourself, or did you find it in a Creationist quote-mine, and, hoping it would put some sort of cat among our evolutionary pigeons, toss it in to this discussion without really thinking about it at all?

If I misjudge you, and in fact you really think this article supports your version of Creationism, would you care to point out how and where?

 

[buffalo]

I have indeed read it, and understood its interesting evolutionary implications. None of its observations, let alone its conclusions, fit, in any way, a hypothesis that a few dozen species were created spontaneously, from which all subsequent species have evolved. Nevertheless, you saw fit to mention it. Why, I wonder? Did you see it in Nature (which is indeed a very respectable mainstream science journal) yourself, or did you find it in a Creationist quote-mine, and, hoping it would put some sort of cat among our evolutionary pigeons, toss it in to this discussion without really thinking about it at all?

If I misjudge you, and in fact you really think this article supports your version of Creationism, would you care to point out how and where?

More evidence of abrupt appearance of complex sophisticated life.

 

[Glark]

So, you are telling us that your God is not omnipotent. Your God is incapable of setting up the universe in such a way that man would evolve. That makes your God non-omnipotent

But man has evolved. Humans are on average taller than they were a thousand years ago, for example. And from one pair of humans came all the different races on earth - that’s evolution, my friend.