5 ms·

Given that any mutation might occur, one genome might evolve to a horrifyingly huge number of children genomes over many, many generations. Deletions and copyin

by kirse 17y ago

Given that any mutation might occur, one genome might evolve to a horrifyingly huge number of children genomes over many, many generations. Deletions and copying allow for potentially any change to be made to the organism, and it will be added to the species' pool if the creature survives. Yet again, more conjecture where people are telling me stuff happens without actually ever demonstrating it. This is more pseudo-scientific BSing that produces garbage that sounds reasonable yet can never be tested or validated. Show me the money. Show me the actual process happening where one genome evolves into a horrifyingly huge number of child genomes. Show me the live mutations where a school of guppies eventually produces guppies with legs. Is it really that hard to ask of science to show me the process that supposedly produces all these results??? Results don't logically indicate a process until a process is shown to produce those results. Isn't that how we validate scientific theories? We claim a Higgs boson exists, and then we build the LHC to empirically validate that assumption, right? Evolution is much more gradual than you seem to think we're claiming. I knew people were going to be picky over the word "sprouted", regardless I am well aware that the conjectural claims of Macro-Evolution include an extremely long period of time. Also, I think it's pathetic that this comment was hidden from the public. That's what happens around here. A bit of legitimate skepticism, people get their beliefs challenged and they drive-by down vote without responding.

TheSOB88 17y ago
It's not being picky, it's you writing as if you don't understand what we are talking about. I thought you might not have meant that, but forgot about it when I began writing. Sorry. Please don't complain because I misinterpreted you when you wrote something unclear, though. In terms of experiments, I dunno, man. You're pretty much going to have to let that one go - you can never have experiments with animals over a certain size. If you can manage reading about bacterial experiments, though, that's been done - here (http://www.rasmusen.org/x/2006/11/24/evolution-experiments-with-bacteria/ http://www.rasmusen.org/x/2006/11/24/evolution-experiments-w...) may be a good place to start. Bacteria don't modify limbs, but they can evolve new metabolic mechanisms in experiment time, which I think is comparable. For larger animals, see the fossil record. There really are some incredible examples - I'll show you if you're interested. I still don't see what mechanism you're claiming inhibits parts of the genome from mutation. You accept that mutation occurs and think there are parts where it can't, correct? Though this would make sense if you were assuming a Creator wanted only microevolution to happen, but you can't just assume the things you're trying to prove. With no assumptions, there is no reason for these prohibitions on mutations to exist (other than on crucial DNA where protections have evolved because the functions are so important to life - cell duplication, for example). There are differences all over human DNA, not just in one special spot. What, other than the religious aspect, is convincing you that mutation spares parts of the genome?
- jibiki 17y ago
  > I still don't see what mechanism you're claiming inhibits parts of the genome from mutation. It seems like he's saying that the burden of proof is on you, since you are claiming that macroevolution exists. He doesn't need a specific qualm to do that. For instance, if you had said, "it is possible to build a mountain out of rice, since the total mass of rice in the world is sufficient for that purpose," he would be entirely justified in asking you to actually build the mountain rather than just measuring the amount of rice in the world. After all, who knows what problems rice-mountain-building encounters. Maybe rice piles higher than a hundred meters begin to fall apart. Nobody knows. One could say the same thing about macroevolution, namely, there might indeed be some factor which prevents a large number of minor mutations from sticking around to cause speciation. A skeptic doesn't have to name this factor, the burden is on you to provide proof. ...and, of course, ample proof of macroevolution (and the fact that it is caused by an accumulation of smaller evolutionary changes) has been provided by the fossil record, as you've said many times.
Retric 17y ago
You clearly have no idea what timescales we are talking about. Think of it like compound interest. Say we start with a 1 dollar and the first year you get a penny back aka 1% compounded annually. Now how much money do you have in 1 million years? ~2 with 4,321 zeros. Mankind has used evolution to turn wolves into decorative toy's in a few thousand years by selecting who lived and who died. Plenty of "Dog" DNA is new, but we have only recently started to understand the basic building blocks. The theory of evolution existed long before we could look and DNA, and yet DNA completely validated the theory at every level. It just works. Yet you want more? WHY? What other idea works on every level? Saying "The invisible panda made the world last week" could be true but it gives us no new incite. Yet they theory of evolution is useful when talking about building software, biochemistry, fishing, farming, and buying stock in ways that seem completely unrelated. PS: The math on evolution is complex and I suspect you are far to stupid to understand it. Yet, the fact you don't understand in no way relates to reality.
- TheSOB88 17y ago
  I wish I could downmod this. Though I agree with you on the topic at hand, your attitude is horrific. Abysmal. It's sad to see such insulting discourse come from those who claim to seek to educate others.
  - billswift 17y ago
    Educating others is only possible if the others want to be educated. Anyone denying "macro-"evolution in this manner is beyond help. Shutting up the ignorant aholes is the best anyone can do.
    - TheSOB88 17y ago
      So much hate. No wonder you don't think you can convince anyone - you hate them too much.

by kirse 17y ago

TheSOB88 17y ago

It's not being picky, it's you writing as if you don't understand what we are talking about. I thought you might not have meant that, but forgot about it when I began writing. Sorry. Please don't complain because I misinterpreted you when you wrote something unclear, though. In terms of experiments, I dunno, man. You're pretty much going to have to let that one go - you can never have experiments with animals over a certain size. If you can manage reading about bacterial experiments, though, that's been done - here (http://www.rasmusen.org/x/2006/11/24/evolution-experiments-with-bacteria/ http://www.rasmusen.org/x/2006/11/24/evolution-experiments-w...) may be a good place to start. Bacteria don't modify limbs, but they can evolve new metabolic mechanisms in experiment time, which I think is comparable. For larger animals, see the fossil record. There really are some incredible examples - I'll show you if you're interested. I still don't see what mechanism you're claiming inhibits parts of the genome from mutation. You accept that mutation occurs and think there are parts where it can't, correct? Though this would make sense if you were assuming a Creator wanted only microevolution to happen, but you can't just assume the things you're trying to prove. With no assumptions, there is no reason for these prohibitions on mutations to exist (other than on crucial DNA where protections have evolved because the functions are so important to life - cell duplication, for example). There are differences all over human DNA, not just in one special spot. What, other than the religious aspect, is convincing you that mutation spares parts of the genome?

jibiki 17y ago
> I still don't see what mechanism you're claiming inhibits parts of the genome from mutation. It seems like he's saying that the burden of proof is on you, since you are claiming that macroevolution exists. He doesn't need a specific qualm to do that. For instance, if you had said, "it is possible to build a mountain out of rice, since the total mass of rice in the world is sufficient for that purpose," he would be entirely justified in asking you to actually build the mountain rather than just measuring the amount of rice in the world. After all, who knows what problems rice-mountain-building encounters. Maybe rice piles higher than a hundred meters begin to fall apart. Nobody knows. One could say the same thing about macroevolution, namely, there might indeed be some factor which prevents a large number of minor mutations from sticking around to cause speciation. A skeptic doesn't have to name this factor, the burden is on you to provide proof. ...and, of course, ample proof of macroevolution (and the fact that it is caused by an accumulation of smaller evolutionary changes) has been provided by the fossil record, as you've said many times.

Retric 17y ago

You clearly have no idea what timescales we are talking about. Think of it like compound interest. Say we start with a 1 dollar and the first year you get a penny back aka 1% compounded annually. Now how much money do you have in 1 million years? ~2 with 4,321 zeros. Mankind has used evolution to turn wolves into decorative toy's in a few thousand years by selecting who lived and who died. Plenty of "Dog" DNA is new, but we have only recently started to understand the basic building blocks. The theory of evolution existed long before we could look and DNA, and yet DNA completely validated the theory at every level. It just works. Yet you want more? WHY? What other idea works on every level? Saying "The invisible panda made the world last week" could be true but it gives us no new incite. Yet they theory of evolution is useful when talking about building software, biochemistry, fishing, farming, and buying stock in ways that seem completely unrelated. PS: The math on evolution is complex and I suspect you are far to stupid to understand it. Yet, the fact you don't understand in no way relates to reality.

TheSOB88 17y ago
I wish I could downmod this. Though I agree with you on the topic at hand, your attitude is horrific. Abysmal. It's sad to see such insulting discourse come from those who claim to seek to educate others.
- billswift 17y ago
  Educating others is only possible if the others want to be educated. Anyone denying "macro-"evolution in this manner is beyond help. Shutting up the ignorant aholes is the best anyone can do.
  - TheSOB88 17y ago
    So much hate. No wonder you don't think you can convince anyone - you hate them too much.