Evolution is a Joke PT VII (back by popular demand)

That process I described is one of the ways complexity arises. Does the addition of a new physical trait not count as increased complexity to you?

EDIT: By the way, are you just going to ignore the other 90% of that post? Are you conceding my other points there?

 

Perhaps you could elaborate on why you think that the ToE has not passed the scientific method and why it should not be considered a theory. Why should we accept the your premise- that evolution is not a theory- when the National Academy of Sciences explicitly considers Evolution to be a scientific theory?

Personally, I have not seen any scientific evidence that is not congruent with the ToE. If anybody knows of scientific evidence which explicitly contradicts common descent I would be interested in seeing it.

In my view, some of the most convincing evidence which strongly suggests that all life on earth shares a common ancestor is the commonality of genes and genetic codes and the ribosome.

If all life did not share a common ancestor why is DNA the basic genetic unit of all prokaryotic & eukaryotic life? A three-nucleotide system of codons is used by all known life to dictate amino acid incorporation during protein synthesis. These codons are highly conserved among all life and with only a few variations, each triplett code of RNA bases codes for the same amino acid in every organism. Furthermore, all known life uses highly conserved catalytic RNA molecules- ribosomes- to manufacture proteins. If all life did not descend for a common ancestor why is the genetic code and proteins synthesis conserved and shared among all known life forms?

 

NEVER THAT?!?!

I will, as you know, will address it all... I apologize, but I am busy....

 

Evolution is not a theory!!!! ToE is a theory that explains the observable fact of changes in life over Time , also called Evolution. To be precise Darwin explains the change over time within a species. It's not that hard to understand. You could come up with another explanation why and how live changed over time, if this explanation would fit better with the existing evidence it would be adopted as the new theory that explains Evolution. But this is highly unlikely because all the existing evidence supports Evolution through Natural Selection.

There is not controversy or discussion if Evolution happens or not. The only thing we can discuss is why and how it happens, so please enlighten us with a theory that explains it better.

 

I’m embarrassed for you that you don’t understand what my sources say then post this stuff and get it totally wrong yet again. Do we need to recap all the stuff you’ve gotten wrong thus far? It’s been everything we’ve talked about actually. The only mutations that matter are “in the critical stages of fertilization” (as I have already posted umpteen times during meiosis)

On this? You’re wrong yet twice in one paragraph because again most mutations are not neutral (per the biology website). Besides we are not talking about “mutations in general”…

This is ridiculous and now you are spinning out of control like someone I know (or used to since he/she was banned) by the name of Grasping for Peace.

Please identify how “mutations in general” have anything to do with evolution…

Then we can’t discuss anything more until you go back and read the frameshift with nylonase… and after you read the “frame-shift” mutation part, tell me how can that be determined, or was those sequences already there and were activated…

Duplication isn’t point mutation… my memory failed me… But, regardless, of the insignificance of what duplication and point mutation is – the question still remains that you failed to answer. Mutations have no significance to where basically nothing happens or it ends horribly for the lifeform. Either there is no appearance of a mutation or there is death and destruction.

Because I obviously typed it in the wrong place above (behind the wrong word) and got you oh-so confused… Again, I am not perfect… I don’t have a Jesus complex…

Since you seem not to follow your own mad scientist examples, I will do this for you.

You state:

Gene duplicates – then duplicated gene mutates (it makes tree bark softer) – this softer tree bark becomes inactive – other mutations occur over the course of generation (adding to the softer tree back and changing it into fur) – duplication becomes active – PRESTO CHANGO – new physical trait appears and the trees have fur…

You said it not me. Because there is no reason genetically through your description of mutation that trees should NOT have fur or feathers since it’s, as you say, only a buildup of mutations over several generations…

 

Yep, made a mistake… At least I can admit it. Now, want to recap all your incorrectness over the past couple pages that you’ve ignored? I will – no worries on the recap….

You can then express to the readers how you failed to acknowledge basic concepts repeatedly. I made one mistake, and recognized it as you keep your ignorance flowing like Mississippi…

So, in your last post you stated this

Then explain to us what “NEW physical traits” are… What is a physical trait… It sure sounds like your defining going from hair to feathers or bark to fur… Because if you wanted to say the correct definition – that isn’t it and you’ve messed this up since the beginning…

So, show us all the biology you can muster and either get it right per definition, or explain what physical trait is…. Oh – a link would be FABULOUS!!!

Per your assessment to what “you think” happens can suggest that! How do you think a fish (because that’s what insects came from) went from scales to exoskeletons? How did seaweed get bark? How did we lose flippers and gain arms with fingers and toes…? How did we get a brain? How did we get a nervous system?

Question: Which came first with our ancestry, did blood come first? Or did the bones that make blood? Or the organs that need blood? Or the heart that pumps the blood? Or the veins that carry the blood? OR – do you think they all came at one time like my Presto Chango scenario…

 

So it does then... You believe that there is some process that produces complexity… like trees mutating their bark into fur…

Unless you have another definition (outside of biology and the study of evolution) which falls under complexity. You've already stated that mutations (dealing with evolution) are something different...

 

You basically posted this. There are alien abductions by gremlins, but they don’t take people, just all the left socks…

Evolution cannot be falsified and thus is not even a theory. It is not a theory because there is no evidence of common descent and I’ll explain. All the life we have on this green planet right now has been here for a REALLY long time. Per evolution there should be “something” evolving, if not everything. Thus, with that conclusion, there should be offspring – somewhere on this planet to where we can see previous and new species being born within the same ecosystem. That means that on parent – two different species at birth or replication. Because if it takes millions of generations for natural selection to take over a whole species over the whole planet – there has to be something that this is happening to, right?

Where is it….

 

When have you specified which mutations we (you and I) are talking about? I'm talking about mutations in general. That's what I was talking about when I started this offshoot of the thread. Because my point was that you don't know what you're talking about, like how you don't know what the different types of mutations are.

Also, meiosis doesn't happen during fertilization. Mitosis is what happens during fertilization (among other stages of life). Once again, a mistake that no real biologist would make.

Because mutations, in general, are what allow for evolution. If DNA never changed (i.e. mutated), then evolution wouldn't be possible.

I read it. I don't understand your question. How can what be determined? Regardless, your own source says nylonase is the result of a substitution (which is a mutation). So can you accept that it's a beneficial mutation?

Or there is the development of a beneficial trait, like nylonase. One more time: no real biologist would fail to remember what a point mutation is. It would be like a physicist forgetting the definition of momentum.

Yeah, I didn't ever post anything with "PRESTO CHANGO" or anything about "ba[r]k... changing it into fur." Seriously, try arguing against what I actually post instead of making things up.

 

A phenotypic expression of genetic information is a physical trait. E. coli suddenly being able to utilize citrate, for example, is a physical trait. More specifically, the production of the proteins necessary to utilize citrate is the physical trait. It sounds to you like I'm talking about hair to feathers. It sounds that way to you because you don't understand the topic.

I don't have the answers to those questions. I could make an educated guess, but then you'd flip it around and say that I was stating is as fact. Frankly, this is beyond the scope of discussion and amounts to a "god of the gaps" fallacy. We don't have the answers to your specific questions, so evolution is untrue? Please.

 

No, like copying the genetic sequences for lactose utilization enzymes and mutating the duplication to produce citrate utilization enzymes. (I know that's not what happened in the E. coli experiment, but I don't have time to look up the specific details right now.)

No, I didn't. Please try to pay attention.

 

This is why you are not a biologist… Meiosis is used in sexual reproduction of organisms to combine male and female, through the spermazoa and egg, to create a new, singular biological organism. Mitosis is used by single celled organisms to reproduce, or in the organic growth of tissues, fibers, and mibranes.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Meiosis_vs_Mitosis

Mutations in general DO NOT follow evolution whatsoever… Again you are wrong… Sheesh – are you ever going to be right…

Ever?

Regardless of my source… really… Then we all reading just should take your word for it since, as we can see and read, you are just oh-so knowledgeable in biology!!

Okay… that was funny… Let’s see if there are any more jokes…

You didn’t say the specifics, but gave an example that in which it could happen, which it can’t… complexity would be changing bark into fur through mutation. You gave an example of how complexity works, I filled in the blanks…

Do you understand or do I need to post this in a different way?

 

I know what phenotypic is... I told you that you were using NON-BIOLOGY terms...

So, since you are so knowledgeable with biology what is physical traits... That is what I asked and I want a definition - not your made up one please. Go to Biology online or a school (university website) and provide a link.

Your gibberish is getting trite...

I know you don't... But, you also don't have answers then to the scientific method suggesting that those questions happened.

If you can't explain complexity, you cannot explain common descent which is the Theory (or hypothesis) of Evolution...

 

Again... as you always say - pay attention.

No mutation will result in "new" crap... What happens is (as I have provided in several links) DNA becomes active. The sequences become active - they are already there!

There is no evidence of a mutation (even being pushed by science in a lab) that has resulted in new DNA sequences working in a lifeform at any time in this universe.

ever...

Do you understand that?

We cannot, and have never been able to simulate a mutation that provides an advantage that is not already present within the lifeform...

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?!?!

Okay - you think so... provide evidence. That flavobacteria already had the DNA within it's sequence... it became active. My hypothesis is when, since we cannot mutation into nothing more than what we already have within our DNA, a million years ago the Earth was a different place dealing with atmosphere and everything outside of the ocean salinity. Those sequences went dormant. When the bacterium needed a change within it's environment it "adpated" using prior sequences that were dormant.

I have already given links...

It didn't evolve...

Uhhh ---- yes you did... what is "general" mutation... what is a general mutation dealing with evolutionary biology.

Like I said - please pay attention - you have a different defintion! Since there isn't one for "general" mutation within evolutionary biology..

 

Right. Maybe you should read the paragraph immediately preceding that:

Meiosis, on the other hand, is a special process in cellular division where cells are created containing gene patterns of different types and combinations with 50% of the number of chromosomes of the original cell.

Did you see anything in there about meiosis occurring as part of fertilization? No? Good. Meiosis produces cells that are haploid and can be used for fertilization. The cells that result from mitosis are diploid (in animals). Which one of those (haploid or diploid) describes a zygote?

You read something on a science website and misunderstood it. Because you aren't a real biologist, you just try (poorly) to play one on the internet.

Are you ever going to actually address what I post, instead of making things up? I said mutations allow for evolution.

What? No, regardless of the fact that I don't know what you're referring to in your question, your own source says nylonase is the result of a substitution (which is a mutation). So can you accept that it's a beneficial mutation?

I didn't say "regardless of your source." Seriously, can you read? Are you just in a hurry? Are you making stuff up again?

Answer this for me: is organism #1 more, less, or equally as complex compared to organism #2?

Organism #1: Bacteria that can't utilize citrate.
Organism #2: Identical to organism #1 except that it can utilize citrate.

That's the kind of complexity I'm talking about. Not bark to fur. My previous example was about how complexity arises, not how it works.

Let me rephrase, since you seem to be too lazy to actually read my post:

A physical trait is a phenotypic expression of genetic information. My previous post (using those exact words, but rearranged) was from memory as I didn't have time to provide a linked definition. Here are a few relevant links that basically give the same definition.

Definition of "trait" from Northwestern University.

Definition of trait from Biology Online (one of your own sources).

So a physical trait would be traits (expressions of genetic information) that are non-behavioral.

I explained complexity, you just seem to think that small changes/additions don't count.

Except in the case of duplications, where new DNA is generated. Then that new DNA changes and a new trait can be developed and expressed without loss of the old trait.

Except for all those scientific papers showing evidence of de novo genes that arise from mutations.

We can, we just don't. In a lab we just skip the duplication-divergence part and go straight to inserting new genes when we want. Why would we try to simulate many years of mutations if we can skip right to what we need?

Not a general mutation. Mutations in general. Like mutations that occur at any time, not just specifically during fertilization. Like I might say fruit, in general, instead of just talking about fruit that grows at a specific time of the year. You cannot possibly be this obtuse.

 

Dude, seriously. Evolution is not a conspiracy against the bible.

Your problem is that you think your smarter then .. you know .. biologist in thier own field.

Now bugger off and dedicate your entire life to studying life on Earth. Then come back and tell us your opinions.

 

Can you provide one scientific paper that explicitly concludes that Evolution is incorrect?

 

I am a biologist that works for the US Gov't... and it has nothing to do with the Bible...

 

I can provide all experiments do not conclude with common descent with modification and if they right a paper on it - well... there you go!

 

I will give you a chance to "redo" your "NEW PHYSICAL TRAIT" rant earlier.

From what I will say is you suggested this "new physical trait" comes from (as you described several times now) a build up of mutations. Then told us WHAT a new physical trait is...

I was TOLD YOU that your description suggested that bark turns to fur... Then after two pages if your posts... you agree!

HA!!

It was funny... It truly was...

But, why don't you tell us again how Physical Traits come about... THEN - tell us what a Physical Trait is again? You can just wrap it all up in one neat package if you want and describe a physical trait and tell us how it happened...

I'll give you an example. Tell us what would be the process of trees getting fur!

I know... it's too funny!!!

 

What is your training/eduaction background and what kind of biology do you do for work?

You haven't provided any scientific evidence to support your assertion that the ToE is false. To my knowledge you have never enumerated what aspects of the ToE are false and how/why you have concluded this from the data. If you do not believe in common descent what is your alternative hypothesis?


BTW, you never responded to my post on common descent... If some or all organisms do not share a common ancestor why do you think that all life uses DNA, RNA, Ribosomes and the same triplett genetic code?

 

I stand by what I posted. There is no need for a redo. If you are confused by something I stated, then say so and I'll clarify. I have no reason to restate something otherwise, though.

At no point did I agree with any description of anything saying bark turned into fur. Ever. In fact, I specifically pointed out that I did not describe any such thing.

Are you really going to ignore my previous post? Can you admit that you didn't really know what meiosis was? How about that the nylonase enzyme was the result of a mutation, and therefore means you were wrong when you stated that no beneficial mutation has ever happened? What about where you said that there's no evidence that a mutation has resulted in new DNA that was beneficial to the organism, but there are lots of science papers that detail evidence of de novo genes that arose from mutations?

I don't see much point in continuing this if you're just going to ignore my posts completely.

 

You should answer that man. Good question!

.
.
.
.
I've browsed through every page of this thread (painfully). It's like watching someone who got a "A" in 9th grade algebra trying to debate the theorems of Newton, Euler, Euclid, and Fermat agaist thousands of modern professors.

Oh wait, thats whats happening except the subject is boilogy.

Did you ever wonder if your so right, why does an overwhelming majority of experts disagree with you? And BTW the only "scientists" that argue againts it do it for obvious religious reasons.

You should provide some evidence that actually defeast the theory, instead of saying some bit of evidence isn't enough. No 1 bit is enough, it's the combination of all the data that makes it a proper scientific theory. Fortunately for you 1 bit is enough to disprove.

 

My answer would be that all known life descended from a single universal common ancestor.... I'm a biologist dude

 

I meant for the original poster to answer.

Now you gave away the answer!