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

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So if your kid can see better than you or is taller than you

Why is being taller a benefit?

I don’t know. Did someone mention it being a benefit? All I know is that Al said that it would be destructive:

“Random change occurring at and driven by the forces involved at solely a chemical level are destructive to the over-riding order.”

My kid is taller, he is a slower runner and his eyesight is worse than my was at his age. Should I tell him these are destructive?

Or is it that Al hasn’t really thought this through?

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

They were not preprogrammed to do so.

I believe they were.

This was in response to:

Apparently there is something which prevents organisms from changing too far from their designed ‘mean’.

It implies that “monkeys” could turn into men.

I believe that the first man was not conceived within the womb of an animal utilizing matter coming directly from those presumed parents. Mind you it could explain how Eve came from Adam, who would initially been male - doubling up the x-chromosomes and all that. But then it is no less a feat of creation than creating them whole.

I’m not sure what you mean in other words.

 

[rossum]

But not so. If you draw BovB’s family tree,

It’s a retrotransposon. Old news, I’m afraid buffalo. Biology has known about retrotransposons for a long time and evolution is still the standard theory. Transposons in general, and retrotransposons in particular are just one of the many forms of random mutation.

You are also in error in thinking that DNA has been transferred from cows to snakes. Retrotransposons come from RNA viruses. If the same strain of virus infects a snake and a cow, then both snake and cow will have the same DNA sequences, copied into their DNA by the virus.

The transfer is virus → cow or virus → snake. Once in an animal’s DNA it will appear in the DNA of any offspring, unless the mutation is lethal of course.

You are reading far too much into this. Viral transposons and retrotransposons are basically a piece of “copy me” DNA with little other function. Our genomes contain a lot of mutated and no longer functional transposons: “czpy mq”. They form a large proportion of junl DNA and a much smaller proportion of coding DNA.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

Or is it that Al hasn’t really thought this through?

It’s not an either or situation.

If it helps, it’s all a work in progress and I hope to be granted the grace to think it all through before I die. Not that it particularly matters for its own sake, I guess. But, it is one step at a time closer to our Creator.

 

[buffalo]

I’m not sure what you mean in other words.

My mistake.

 

[buffalo]

From the Nat Geo article I cited. (they seem to still be stuck on junk DNA)

“BovB appears to have no function other than its own replication,” says Adelson. In one case, it seems to have been incorporated into a cow gene, but otherwise, these sequences don’t seem to do anything. Nonetheless, they’re often so common that they must have had some influence.

 

[buffalo]

It’s a retrotransposon. Old news, I’m afraid buffalo.

Yup, but still have not totally come to grips with it.

What made Woese the foremost challenger and modifier of Darwinian orthodoxy — as Einstein was to Newtonian orthodoxy — is that his work led to recognition that the tree’s cardinal premise is wrong. Branches do sometimes fuse. Limbs do sometimes converge. The scientific term for this phenomenon is horizontal gene transfer (H.G.T.). DNA itself can indeed move sideways, between limbs, across barriers, from one kind of creature into another.

Loading…

www.nytimes.com

 

[o_mlly]

You’re missing my point. Which was that you used the “we don’t know when or how” to cast doubt on whether something happened. That’s not a valid argument.

Suggest you reflect on the difference between a valid question and a valid argument.

So if you wish to refute the claim: “a common ancestor gave rise to two main groups of life : bacteria and archaea” then do so by presenting something that refutes the evidence of their common ancestry.

If one concludes that the evidence presented is not compelling then one may reject the claims w/o new evidence. However, others have produced such counter evidence if you care to read all the posts.

 

[o_mlly]

It is the data and logical inferences that point to humans having evolved from something non human.

Begs the question.

 

[o_mlly]

Intelligent design as a science stands on the strength of its data, observations and logical inferences.

Indeed it does. I include measurable observations in the data.

 

[buffalo]

What is missing from evolution?

Steps of the Scientific Method

Reliable Observation
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion

 

[FredBloggs]

FredBloggs:

You’re missing my point. Which was that you used the “we don’t know when or how” to cast doubt on whether something happened. That’s not a valid argument.

Suggest you reflect on the difference between a valid question and a valid argument.

I know the difference. Seems you’re not prepared to accept your error.

So if you wish to refute the claim: “a common ancestor gave rise to two main groups of life : bacteria and archaea” then do so by presenting something that refutes the evidence of their common ancestry.

If one concludes that the evidence presented is not compelling then one may reject the claims w/o new evidence. However, others have produced such counter evidence if you care to read all the posts.

Yes, that is your right. You can reject whatever evidence you like, of any scientific theory you care to choose.

 

[FredBloggs]

What is missing from evolution?

Steps of the Scientific Method

Reliable Observation
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion

Nothing. What do you think is missing?

 

[o_mlly]

I know the difference.

Seem you do not know the difference.

How can it be better when it has no supporting evidence, and is not even necessary to the hypothesis?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It is the data and logical inferences that point to humans having evolved from something non human.

Begs the question.

“Begs the question” means advancing an argument by assuming the conclusion of the argument. I am not doing that. I am stating a minimal form of evolution - one that assumes as little as possible and is still supportive of evolution.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

mVitus:

If he does, this Fr. Nicanor Austriaco addresses that and the sadness of ID.

I disagree with the good Fr.

I have challenged this group and they will not reply directly.

Perhaps it is because you repeated refuse to consider seriously those replies. I have seen many such replies directed at you and at some point, when you see that you have lost the debate, you circle back to the beginning and start proclaiming ID again.

 

[buffalo]

I have seen many such replies directed at you and at some point, when you see that you have lost the debate

Huh? Maybe you could reference these…

 

[buffalo]

Nothing. What do you think is missing?

That answer tells me you a “blind faith adherent”

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Or is it that Al hasn’t really thought this through?

It’s not an either or situation.

If it helps, it’s all a work in progress and I hope to be granted the grace to think it all through before I die. Not that it particularly matters for its own sake, I guess. But, it is one step at a time closer to our Creator.

I am afraid you are as wrong as you can be. If we have a choice between:

Either…any change in the genome is detrimental.

Or…Al hasn’t thought it through.

…then it’s just an ‘or’ situation. The ‘either’ case is monstrously, catastrophically wrong so we are left with no other choice than to state quite baldly that you have not thought any of this through. So please, enough with the faux modesty of a poor soul trying to find his way through the murky corridors of scientific explanations.

And as if the above example wasn’t enough, just a few posts ago you exhibited a complete and utter misunderstanding of the very basics of evolution:

‘So we have hairy monkeys arising spontaneously and as a reaction to stresses in the environment which shuffle about genomic material.’

That isn’t even wrong on so many levels.

We seem to have three types posting on this thread trying to push ID (names have been altered to protect the identity if those involved):

Type Buff*lo: Cuts and pastes reams of material which he doesn’t understand but thinks it might help his cause.

Type T*chno: Has no idea what is going on.

Type Aloys*um: Presents page after page of stream-of-consciousness posts, the scientific apects of which have all the appearance of being made up.

 

[Techno2000]

(As opposed to a hairier monkey happened to survive better, hence why they became hairier.)

Why homo sapiens didn’t evolve hair to survive the cold ?