Researchers Trace Evolution to Relatively Simple Genetic Changes

Howard Hughes Medical Institute ^ | 25 Narcg 2005 | Staff

[blueblazes]

You are exemplifying the very arrogance of which I wrote. Stop talking down to me. There is no "science" on your side as you can PROVE nothing. You have no proof. You have a theory. It may be a good one, but others have theories too and frankly they have as much proof, or lack of proof as you do.

The scientific method is quite clear and is the same one that has been used for hundreds of years. A scientific fact is something that is observable, or that can be proven with consistent results by experiement or which has a consistently predictable result. Gravity for example. We know SCIENTIFICALLY that gravity exists because we are able to experiment upon it consistently and see consistent physical results. We know that the apple always falls down from the tree and not up. These are all FACTS. There are NO FACTS behind evolution - only suppositions and assumptions. That's what makes it a THEORY. You folks don't seem to understand what the difference between a scientific fact and a theory is.

[VadeRetro]

I missed this earlier.

The problem getting answers from bigoted blowhards is that one never gets a concrete, non-metaphysical, demonstrable answer.

Click on the links, you ignorant bleep. Now I mean it. Gone.

[blueblazes]

A plant is a plant is a plant. Send me a flare when it turns into a frog, or some distinctly unplant like thing. Mutations are not news nor are they remotely startling or unusual.

[mysterio]

I won't call you names. I'm here to debate, not to fight.

The study of the origin of life is abiogenesis. The theory of evolution seeks to explain what happened after that. i believe God created life, whether on this planet or another or both. But life did evolve.

Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation.

[mysterio]

You asked for an human observed example of speciation. I provided that.

Of course no human has been able to observe a lizard turn into a bird because it happens in many, many steps. Even speciation can take thousands of years. No animal has turned into a completely different animal in one generation. And no proponent of evolution has ever argued that it happens instantly. You have placed that false argument in the mouths of your opponents to further your own lack of argument.

[mysterio]

Additionally, I apologize if I came across like I was talking down to you.

[blueblazes]

And so you have no PROOF. You cannot create an experiment to prove evolution - real evolution, not some mutation within a plant or animal - but a genuine change to a creature that would be recognizable as a totally different species. You cannot predict such a thing. You don't understand how it happens. You cannot explain the mechanics of it. You have no direct observation of it. You have none of these things that go into making a scientific fact. What you have is a theory. That's all. The problem with enshrining a theory is that it actually prevents the progression of science because it prohibits the possibility of being wrong, or of radically revising the theory. It becomes an article of FAITH.

Incidentally, what you're saying about observation is not true. Certainly no human may have witnessed the metamorphosis of a specific species into another species within a given time span as (if evolution is correct) it might take millennia. However, the larger point is that if evolution is a general and on-going process SOME species SOMEWHERE would have mutated into another species at some point within recorded human history. Someone would have noticed a grasshopper turning into something resembling a bird. I know of NO observations by anyone within recorded history of any species transforming into anything other than some variation of what the original species was. A plant is a plant is a plant. A fish is a fish is a fish, etc. Thus, this cannot be an on-going process as some species SOMEWHERE even right NOW would be evolving. Or are you saying that evolution only occurred a convenient several million years ago and no longer occurs?

[blueblazes]

Lol, apologies accepted. This topic gets overheated unfortunately and it's easy for every one to get arrogant, probably even me. Hopefully I am not too obnoxious either :) I am not necessarily totally against evolution (although I don't believe in gradual evolution in general), however I am very much against the enshrinement of theories that have no proof or that cannot be proven, for whatever reason.

[mysterio]

Small beneficial mutations are proof of macroevolution. Millions of these mutations over many years cause speciation. Speciation means that the descendents of the same species can no longer interbreed and produce offspring.

And a human did observe speciation in the example I gave you.

And geneticists have explained exactly how genetic recombination occurs. And how errors in genetic recombination occur.

[darbymcgill]

I love it when you scientists turn into 2 year olds talking street jive when you don't have a cogent response. nanny nanny boo boo, you're a doo doo head. I'll tell you the way I told my 2 year olds. Saying it louder don't make it right.

quack quack.

I was enjoying the conversation until you de-evolved to your infantile ancestry. Or maybe the devil made you do it. More likely it was way past your bed time.

[orionblamblam]

> Or He could have just snapped His fingers as He did with the Big Bang.

Then you;re suggesting that God is either a liar or a prankster. There's no other way to explain the geological and fossil records.

> Evolutionists will eventually be humbled about their little theories one way or the other.

Indeed. Evolution constantly turns out to be far more elegant, extravagant and universal than previously imagined.

[mysterio]

Yes, I should definitely work on the tone of my posts if I ever want to convince anyone. I believe in evolution because I see random recombination often in my work with bacteria that I use to make large scale DNA preps of plasmids (circular DNA). I can extrapolate that when I multiply it by millions, billions of years. I can also tell that probably the majority of mutations are harmful to the organism. But some aren't. And when you take a small chage and multiply it by billions of years, you get big changes.

But yes, I can totally dig someone not wanting to have something shoved down their throat without asking a lot of questions. That's how I feel about most government policies.

[blueblazes]

Well we will have to agree to disagree. As I say, a plant is a plant is a plant. Perhaps our problem is semantics. When people refer to evolution, they are not generally thinking of the process by which variations within a division of the plant or animal world occur (such as variations or mutations of a flower). What they are really referring to is a change from a lower order of creature to a higher order of creature, particularly man, and the idea that all life descended from increasingly primitive creatures as we go back in time. When I say that there is no proof of evolution, I am not referring to the mutations within a species of flower, or animal such as a dog or cat that all people recognize. I am referring to the process by which primeval ooze produced amoebas that somehow became shrimp that somehow became fish, that somehow became frogs, that somehow became reptiles that somehow became mammals, that somehow became primates, that somehow became man. That is where the proof is lacking and where the argument lies.

[blueblazes]

Perhaps some day then, YOU will provide the proof and that will be what we need to solve the question. Thank you for being so reasonable in terms of recognizing the tone of the argument. Too many pro-evolution people fail to recognize that there are substantial holes in their theory that are very obvious to people who are not committed to the theory and particularly to the religious. Those holes have to be addressed and just insulting people or trying to ignore the holes is not going to win people to the pro-evolution side. I'm sure you'll go far with your work.

[mysterio]

The evidence is in the fossil record that shows the gradual change in morphology. The other proof is that certain enzymes and proteins are conserved almost unchanged from bacteria to mammals. One example of conservation from bacteria to plants is hydroxyisobutyrate dehydrogenase. That's what my old boss was working on. He sequenced the DNA that coded for the enzyme, and he found the code in a chain of organisms from simple to complex. This suggests a common ancestry. Also, in your DNA there are large stretches of genes that don't code for anything any more because they are turned off. They had a purpose when your ancestor was something completely different.

More compelling evidence can be found in embryology. The human starts as one cell, becomes a group of cells, the group of cells becomes a fish-like organism, and then an amphibian like organism, and then it is almost indistinguishable from a mouse embryo, then it grows and loses a tail, and finally starts looking like a human. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Meaning the development of the individual resembles the development of the species.

[mysterio]

Also, I appreciate your kind words. I am willing to agree to disagree for now, if that is the best path.

[blueblazes]

I think it will have to be, lol :) Good night.

[blueblazes]

I think it will have to be, lol :) Good night.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

I am referring to the process by which primeval ooze produced amoebas that somehow became shrimp that somehow became fish, that somehow became frogs, that somehow became reptiles that somehow became mammals, that somehow became primates, that somehow became man. That is where the proof is lacking and where the argument lies.

Indeed! Sometimes when we don't have the answers we are looking for it's best to just take some time out to pay respect to the Creator:

[anguish]

Sorry for butting in, but you seem to be of the conviction that (a) theories can be proven and (b) that theories graduates to 'fact'. I'd recommend that you google around a little and read up on the terminology of science. You see, theories are never proven (they can only be disproven, or falsified), and they don't ever graduate to 'fact' (when an explaination has reached the status of a theory, it cannot climb higher). Of course, scientific terminology can and do conflict with popular uses of some words, and that seems to be the problem in your case.