Evil-ution

[wickedwitt 10+ year member]

You are giving evolution too much credit, like it is its own entity. Evolution is the process forced by "the environment" or "nature", which ever you wish to use, but its sole purpose is advancement of life. I don't know why you are in disagreement with 80% of the science community where you state it is all random and without purpose. If you are going to jump on your high horse here and scream that it is nothing more than bad amino acid transcriptions during replication, at least state that your idea of evolution is not that everyone is going to assume you are speaking of. eCrack and I both were going with the science community's "generally accepted" rule that the process is for betterment of survival.

Quite ironic, how you started this thread making fun of other's "mass community" beliefs about the Divine, when you yourself aren't subscribed to the general "mass community" theory of evolution. You would think someone in the minority would know better than to lob everyone into a group just because they profess to have similar beliefs or theories as a large group of people. Its quite sad, actually that you are here wanting us to give you the benefit of the doubt to hear you out completely before putting judgement on your ideas, when you just did the very same in the OP to those who may have similar but not identical beliefs about an almighty creator guiding these everyday processes we can observe via science.

 

[wickedwitt 10+ year member]

Simply, Adaptation is the result of evolution.

somehow missed this gem. Adaptation is the precursor to evolution, not the other way around. Adaptation is a short lived change in an individual that is not genetically passed on to the next generation. Evolution is supposedly long term changes passed on genetically to the next generation. Maybe you should catch up on your definitions before you start trying to prove people wrong.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Let's do a little math.

Noting the 6 billion base pairs in human DNA and the 60 mutations resulting from every polymerase transcription each new generation will have on average 60 differences from this single source of mutation. Meaning that in over 100,000,000 generations there is the potential for the genome to have changed 100% Meaning over the course of 100,000,000 generations a human phenotype could be anything. from a dog, to a gerbil, to a tree.

 

[jco1385 5,000+ posts]

i approve this thread

 

[ahole-ic]

I joined the mix of saying you think you know everything and that no matter what happens you will never accept to be proven wrong. I 100% stand by that and there is nothing you can say or do to prove me wrong... See where this is going?

The difference is, I actually provided substance that cannot be refuted. You didn't/don't. I realize that is above your head, and that makes it very funny to me.

Anyway please keep it up, I need the lulz as this is a very long drive home.

ditto

Also according to your last post you just called yourself a hypocrite.

No, I didn't. LOL. You are too much.

 

[pro-rabbit 5,000+ posts]

As I stated, you only prove my point further.

lulz are strong with you good sir.

You should reread what you typed and you will see you actually did call yourself a hypocrite. I know it is over your head, but please make the attempt. It will be worth it. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

You are giving evolution too much credit, like it is its own entity. Evolution is the process forced by "the environment" or "nature", which ever you wish to use, but its sole purpose is advancement of life. I don't know why you are in disagreement with 80% of the science community where you state it is all random and without purpose. If you are going to jump on your high horse here and scream that it is nothing more than bad amino acid transcriptions during replication, at least state that your idea of evolution is not that everyone is going to assume you are speaking of. eCrack and I both were going with the science community's "generally accepted" rule that the process is for betterment of survival.

NO. the problem is you think you understand but you do not. I am half a semester from a BS in Biology after which i'll be going on to med school. NEVER I repeat NEVER have any of my professors or ANY of the articles I've researched posited that the goal of evolution is to make things more complex. You illustrate perfectly where your errors are. 80% huh, where'd ya get that stat? The exact same place you got your definition of evolution. (your ***) Perphaps you got this theory from your high school Bio teacher who obviously didn't understand the concepts enough to teach anything higher that HIGH SCHOOL. Reguardless, you don't understand the theories of evolution, that is blatantly obvious. Go research.

Quite ironic, how you started this thread making fun of other's "mass community" beliefs about the Divine, when you yourself aren't subscribed to the general "mass community" theory of evolution. You would think someone in the minority would know better than to lob everyone into a group just because they profess to have similar beliefs or theories as a large group of people. Its quite sad, actually that you are here wanting us to give you the benefit of the doubt to hear you out completely before putting judgement on your ideas, when you just did the very same in the OP to those who may have similar but not identical beliefs about an almighty creator guiding these everyday processes we can observe via science.

Again, you don't know what the mass community believes, you assume you do, but you're (from my perspective as a biology student, entirely wrong)

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

somehow missed this gem. Adaptation is the precursor to evolution, not the other way around. Adaptation is a short lived change in an individual that is not genetically passed on to the next generation. Evolution is supposedly long term changes passed on genetically to the next generation. Maybe you should catch up on your definitions before you start trying to prove people wrong.

ORLY? Usure? lets wiki this.

ADAPTATION:

"An adaptation in biology is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection. An adaptation refers to both the current state of being adapted and to the dynamic evolutionary process that leads to the adaptation. Adaptations contribute to the fitness and survival of individuals. Organisms face a succession of environmental challenges as they grow and develop and are equipped with an adaptive plasticity as the phenotype of traits develop in response to the imposed conditions. The developmental norm of reaction for any given trait is essential to the concept of adaptation as it affords a kind of biological insurance or resilience to varying environments."

for the laymen, "The ABILITY TO ADAPT within an member of the population is AN EVOLVED TRAIT."

So yes, you did miss that gem, you missed it in highschool and you miss it now. You are the one who has things backward.

"Acquired characteristics" were at one time the hypothesized vehicle for evolution but we are talking in darwin's days. Long since then has that theory been revised. You are trying to argue with biologists decades ago, not today.

The great thing about science it that it follows the most plausible guess until evidence contradicts that guess and requires you to revise it to account for the evidence. The fact is that there is NO truly viable evidence to contradict Evolution. Maybe some individual parts such as the nearest ancestor of a species. But as a whole, the theory and its premises are about as solid as it gets in science, and it's not enough for a theory to be a good explanation. EVERY hypothesis made on the premise of evolution also proves true.

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" -Theodosius Dobzhansky

 

[ahole-ic]

First of all, Wrong. To say something is random is to say the cause is arbitrary. The cause is not bound by a desired outcome.

You just proved my point. You could not know they are purely random. You merely observe no discernable pattern and deem them random. So, you calling them random simply you don't understand why they are doing what they are doing. If they were truly random, that would disprove the theory of evolution altogether, because a random mutation would more times than not, result in a change that was less than ideal for the organism to survive. IE a deep ocean fish developing lungs.

Point mutations come mostly from DNA or RNA transcription errors. Environmental factors such as solar radiation can damage nucleotide chains, but polymerase errors occur about once per 100,000,000 bases. In a Human Zygote there are over 6,000,000,000 base pairs. Meaning that there are no less than 60 completely random mutations from this source alone. The Codons for any amino acid are made of 3 base pairs. You could easily achieve differing phenotypes exclusively by these random mutations. All living things are made of the same stuff. Jumble the stuff up and you get changes.

Exactly why it is ridiculous to assume that because 2 organisms share some of the same stuff, that they have some sort of historical relationship.

And you miss the entire point of evolution. The point of evolution is not to adapt. It's to change Period. It is coincidence that good changes make the species more successful. But there are thousands of mechanisms of speciation.

I missed no points, but it's clear that you did.... and you ignored my question.

 

[ahole-ic]

As I stated, you only prove my point further.
lulz are strong with you good sir.

You should reread what you typed and you will see you actually did call yourself a hypocrite. I know it is over your head, but please make the attempt. It will be worth it. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

I didn't, and your confused, and feeble attempt to say so is absolutely hysterical. How do you take yourself seriously? LMAO!!!!

 

---------- Post added at 12:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 PM ----------

 

Cot, if what you're saying is true, please answer the question. Shouldn't an older family of organisms show more changes than a relatively newer one?

 

[pro-rabbit 5,000+ posts]

I didn't, and your confused, and feeble attempt to say so is absolutely hysterical. How do you take yourself seriously? LMAO!!!! 

---------- Post added at 12:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 PM ----------

 

Cot, if what you're saying is true, please answer the question. Shouldn't an older family of organisms show more changes than a relatively newer one?

Got you mad already that you feel the need to try and degrade me on a public forum because you are insecure. It is ok, I don't mind. Attack away good sir..this is making the trip feel a little more quickly then normal.

 

[ahole-ic]

Got you mad already that you feel the need to try and degrade me on a public forum because you are insecure. It is ok, I don't mind. Attack away good sir..this is making the trip feel a little more quickly then normal.

I am cracking up. FAR from mad. Don't forget who attacked who. I have merely pointed out what you're doing. You are the one who attacked me. So your attempt to spin what you have done into something that I have done will simply not fly here. Nobody here would fall for that drivel. Drive carefully.

 

[pro-rabbit 5,000+ posts]

I'm not driving right now..Amber is so we are all good there.

My attach was not directed at you just the overall idea of how you post and everyone does everything in the power to suggest other wise, but no matter what is posted from your point of view it is all wrong no matter what. Personally I don't care about the views which ever direction at all.

It is only a theory at this time. If they get better results from any of their studies it will be posted and such and then things will change. Similar to if God were be definitively proven to exist.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

You just proved my point. You could not know they are purely random. You merely observe no discernable pattern and deem them random. So, you calling them random simply you don't understand why they are doing what they are doing. If they were truly random, that would disprove the theory of evolution altogether, because a random mutation would more times than not, result in a change that was less than ideal for the organism to survive. IE a deep ocean fish developing lungs.

Now you're in the same boat as the other guy. You don't understand what you speak of. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS!! MOST MUTATIONS ARE NEGATIVE!!! Fortunately, the individuals which these mutations usually die and don't pass on the mutations. Look at cave dwelling species. They "DEVOLVE" eyes because they are no longer selected for in their dark environments. The eyes give them no competitive advantage. However, in the daylight, blindness is a huge disadvantage, so populations maintain eyes.

 

[ahole-ic]

I'm not driving right now..Amber is so we are all good there.
My attach was not directed at you just the overall idea of how you post and everyone does everything in the power to suggest other wise, but no matter what is posted from your point of view it is all wrong no matter what. Personally I don't care about the views which ever direction at all.

You DO care. Cot posted the thread as though it were grail. I have used logic to show that it is far from that. If I can get anyone to answer my question, I will prove that with undeniable facts. This issue is far from proved scientifically. You act like I'm just in here going "nuh uh". I'm not. I'm using solid logic that cannot be refuted. If this were a proven fact, it would be easy to prove me wrong. So your butthurtedness about me not cowering down to this utter lack of evidence or proof shows that you do in fact care. If you didn't, you would be unbiased and you would not share the opinion you currently do.

It is only a theory at this time. If they get better results from any of their studies it will be posted and such and then things will change. Similar to if God were be definitively proven to exist.

All I've said the entire time.