TV Patrol feature on human evolution slammed for not recognizing Adam and Eve

[niky]

Natural Selection

I was wondering whether you were going to bring out the Microevolution versus Macroevolution thing.

It's a silly cop-out invented by Young Earth Creationists... It's the height of intellectual dishonesty to recognize one without admitting the other can occur.

In other words, they understand the mechanisms behind it, they just refuse to believe the results.

-

Species don't destroy old species when they bud off. Both subspecies survive until one doesn't. That's why "fittest" is a misunderstanding. If your super-bunnies due to a lack of food to support their energy-intensive lifestyle... from climate-change induced famine... or overgrazing... then you're left with regular bunnies.

Also, there is no magic point at which a species is first one thing and then another. It happens very, very gradually at times... in spurts at others. Hundreds of millions of years equals millions upon millions of breeding generations and millions upon millions of tiny mutations and gradual change.

[ClaNker]

Species don't destroy old species when they bud off. Both subspecies survive until one doesn't. That's why "fittest" is a misunderstanding. If your super-bunnies due to a lack of food to support their energy-intensive lifestyle... from climate-change induced famine... or overgrazing... then you're left with regular bunnies.

Also, there is no magic point at which a species is first one thing and then another. It happens very, very gradually at times... in spurts at others. Hundreds of millions of years equals millions upon millions of breeding generations and millions upon millions of tiny mutations and gradual change.

You still end up with a bunny.

Black and brown moth is still a moth, stickleback back fish is still a stickleback back, Galapagos finches is still a finch.

stickleback back fish grows faster and loses the scale when in fresh water and once in salt water they grow their scales back.

The same story for the Galapagos finches.

[Vodka]

You still end up with a bunny.

Black and brown moth is still a moth, stickleback back fish is still a stickleback back, Galapagos finches is still a finch.

stickleback back fish grows faster and loses the scale when in fresh water and once in salt water they grow their scales back.

The same story for the Galapagos finches.

ohhhh... so no evolution eh? so you're saying all species popped up at the same time? all 5 BILLION species right there at the beginning

we'd all like to hear what clunker's theory of non-evolution is

[ClaNker]

ohhhh... so no evolution eh? so you're saying all species popped up at the same time? all 5 BILLION species right there at the beginning

we'd all like to hear what clunker's theory of non-evolution is

That is your response to my post? Which part of the "I believe in evolution" you do not understand for the nth time?

Physics laws and theories can be experimented on and observe upon and the result will always be the same.

You can't do that with Natural Selection or Random Mutation. Stop arguing about specie variation or adaptation. A dog no matter how you breed them will always be dog. Black moth when the condition is not ideal will become brown moth, and the list goes on, but there in no evidence that this leads to the creation of an entirely different specie.

We haven't even discussed human cognitive ability. Human and Chimps share 98.8 of their DNA, the oldest evidence of human civilization dates back 20,000 years or so but look at where we are now, look how far we have evolved but the chimps remained the same.

[niky]

You still end up with a bunny.

Black and brown moth is still a moth, stickleback back fish is still a stickleback back, Galapagos finches is still a finch.

stickleback back fish grows faster and loses the scale when in fresh water and once in salt water they grow their scales back.

The same story for the Galapagos finches.

Cute. Misleading but cute.

-

Already told you there is no magic point at which a species becomes another species.

It takes millions of years for speciation to get to the point where two subspecies become mutually exclusive. And even then, they can still, in some instances, interbreed.

Which is why many equines can interbreed... horses and zebras, for example, and horses and donkeys.

Which is why tigers and lions can interbreed, as well as several completely different species of large cats... and why several species of small wild cats can interbreed with housecats.

-

As proof that this isn't a case of one species simply having two different names and appearances, some of these hybrids are infertile, some have limited fertility, some are fully fertile... and many are morphologically distinct enough to be counted as a separate species... see the Wholphin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wholphin)...

In other cases, the genetics are so vastly different, that interbreeding is almost impossible, as it is with African and Asian Elephants. (note the clarifier: Almost: meaning it has been done, just once... and the offspring was not viable).

-

So, no, like does not always beget like, either.

-

And then there's the question of Neandertal DNA in modern humans...

[ClaNker]

Cute. Misleading but cute.

-

Already told you there is no magic point at which a species becomes another species.

It takes millions of years for speciation to get to the point where two subspecies become mutually exclusive. And even then, they can still, in some instances, interbreed.

Which is why many equines can interbreed... horses and zebras, for example, and horses and donkeys.

Which is why tigers and lions can interbreed, as well as several completely different species of large cats... and why several species of small wild cats can interbreed with housecats.

-

As proof that this isn't a case of one species simply having two different names and appearances, some of these hybrids are infertile, some have limited fertility, some are fully fertile... and many are morphologically distinct enough to be counted as a separate species... see the Wholphin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wholphin)...

In other cases, the genetics are so vastly different, that interbreeding is almost impossible, as it is with African and Asian Elephants. (note the clarifier: Almost: meaning it has been done, just once... and the offspring was not viable).

-

So, no, like does not always beget like, either.

-

And then there's the question of Neandertal DNA in modern humans...

Interbreeding. Again you still end up with cats, horses, and humans.

You said so yourself that genetics can be so vastly different that interbreeding is impossible. Therefore a specie can only interbreed with it's own kind thus simply producing a variation of that specie. We are essentially going in circle here. Dog will dogs, cats will be cats, so on and so forth.

Neanderthal our fellow ancient human being. Where's the proverbial sons and daughters of human and chimpanzee then? None, because you can only interbreed with your own kind.

Where is your evidence that leads to the creation of a new specie? Fish became a mammal, reptile became a bird, mammal became a whale.

[ClaNker]

Before we go another circle on interbreeding or specie variation let's think about this two important questions.

1. How the first proteins could have been assembled without the help of genetic instruction?

2. Do the amino acids have the ability to order themselves into any biologically meaningful sequences?

[jut703]

Before we go another circle on interbreeding or specie variation let's think about this two important questions.

1. How the first proteins could have been assembled without the help of genetic instruction?

2. Do the amino acids have the ability to order themselves into any biologically meaningful sequences?

While evidence of evolution from the first life form (LUCA) has been abundant, the big leap from primordial soup to life (abiogenesis) is still a widely debated branch of science.

Many theories are present, but no consensus has been arrived at when it comes to a standard model on how life came to be. At the very least, most theories subscribe to the idea that molecules were synthesized under natural conditions to become the basic biological building block, the cell.

Just because the progress pre-LUCA isn't as conclusive as post-LUCA doesn't make the developments of the latter any less valid.

To answer your questions, I would only go as far as saying that the presence of energy (geothermal, solar, etc) acted on non-living molecules in a favorable manner that allowed the first life form to exist. I don't claim to understand fully the theories behind it, but there's lots of reading material about them.

In place of conclusive scientific evidence, many will say that it's divine providence that allowed life to exist, that the point between no life and life is where God steps in and snaps his finger. While most will stop at that, I'm sure that science will continue to try and make sense of it, to be able to explain conclusively the concept of abiogenesis. And that's the beauty of it - a never ending pursuit for a better understanding of the world.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClaNker]

While evidence of evolution from the first life form (LUCA) has been abundant, the big leap from primordial soup to life (abiogenesis) is still a widely debated branch of science.

Many theories are present, but no consensus has been arrived at when it comes to a standard model on how life came to be. At the very least, most theories subscribe to the idea that molecules were synthesized under natural conditions to become the basic biological building block, the cell.

Just because the progress pre-LUCA isn't as conclusive as post-LUCA doesn't make the developments of the latter any less valid.

To answer your questions, I would only go as far as saying that the presence of energy (geothermal, solar, etc) acted on non-living molecules in a favorable manner that allowed the first life form to exist. I don't claim to understand fully the theories behind it, but there's lots of reading material about them.

Of course you have no understanding of it because even Gary Steinman who co-authored Biochemical Predistination can't answer it when confronted with the question. That's 5 years after that book was written and even Dean H. Kenyon the co-author in 1982 said that he no longer accepted the pro-evolution arguments in Biochemical Predestination.

What did they wrote in that book?

In the book, Kenyon and Steinman conclude that "Life might have been biochemically predestined by the properties of attraction that exist between its chemical parts, especially between amino acids in proteins." They argued that life originated with the chemical properties of amino acids causing them to be attracted to each other, forming long protein chains, most important in every living cell. Kenyon believed that proteins were directly formed by attraction between amino acids without DNA coding, and that these were derivatives from non-living raw chemicals in a conducive environment.

Kenyon began to doubt his theory in the mid-1970s after a student posed the question to him as to how the first proteins could have been assembled without specific genetic instructions.

[jut703]

Interbreeding. Again you still end up with cats, horses, and humans.

You said so yourself that genetics can be so vastly different that interbreeding is impossible. Therefore a specie can only interbreed with it's own kind thus simply producing a variation of that specie. We are essentially going in circle here. Dog will dogs, cats will be cats, so on and so forth.

Neanderthal our fellow ancient human being. Where's the proverbial sons and daughters of human and chimpanzee then? None, because you can only interbreed with your own kind.

Where is your evidence that leads to the creation of a new specie? Fish became a mammal, reptile became a bird, mammal became a whale.

First of all, "specie" is not a word. "Species" can be both singular and plural.

Back to the topic though, the most common example of natural selection in macroevolution is the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, theropods to be specific. Theropods were fast, bipedal, carnivorous dinosaurs (think Velociraptors).

Over millions of years, through millions of generations and countless mutations, these large dinosaurs evolved to be able to better adapt to the Earth's changing ecology. It started with the dinosaurs evolving to be able to climb trees. Afterwards, they learned to glide. And then, sustained flight.

The need to move from the ground to the treetops to avoid predators and increase their range of food sources meant that evolution favored the individuals that were able to mutate to have the aforementioned abilities. This is natural selection.

After 200 million years, you have not just a new species, but a completely new class (Aves), paving the way for today's birds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk