Researchers Trace Evolution to Relatively Simple Genetic Changes

Howard Hughes Medical Institute ^ | 25 Narcg 2005 | Staff

[bobdsmith]

hmm a bit of spew on the end of that which I forgot to remove

[dartuser]

Any legible sentence with the same number of letters would have the same probability ... geeze.

[dartuser]

My new tagline ... thanks ... that is so funny.

[dartuser]

My new tagline ... thanks ... that is so funny.

[dartuser]

Your point was that if one sentence was impossible to create then the entire works of Shakespeare would be even more difficult. Actually, in this instance, you are incorrect; the more possibilities of correct phrases the more likely the desired outcome. I doubt that Huxley was claiming that by chance a random monkey from the bunch will type the complete works of Shakespeare, but that many of the monkeys will contribute to the full set of works.

I believe I answered that assertion by requiring that the a monkey be placed on every square foot of the surface of the Earth. Perhaphs more monkeys ...

If we have one particular phrase in mind then your logic is correct, but if we have thousands of letter combinations that make up the many phrases of Shakespeare works available, the likelihood of any one phrase of the bunch being typed, goes up.

You need to work the numbers ... thousands of phrases possible does not appreciably effect the results. Do the math ... you will see.

[Dark Knight]

Science Daily is a creationist screed?

Do you want to define your self as less than a moron?

I respect boddsmith, for his posts.

But I disagree with his conclusions. Mergers will be a an absolute disgrace for Darwinists.

I know what I need to know, and I thank you for being the opposition. A vigorous discussion led to my discovery of what ToE biologists fear. To cool. It is not creationist, but it is biological.

I'm willing to wait for more, renegade biologists to have fun with real science. You want to pound people heads with the bones of an ass.

Creationist.

DK

[Dark Knight]

This is better explained by speciation than merging. Even if there is some merging Anyway hybridisations are the exception and not the rule as it cannot explain the rise of diversity of life over time. Sure hybridisation can explain new species emerging that lie between two existing species, but it cannot explain the emergance of higher taxon over time. For example merging cannot account for the origin of modern horses given the lack of horse-like species around 60 million years ago for example. Some mechanism other that merging gave rise to horse-like creatures. <<

Horses happen to be one of the few modern examples of cross species breeding. Isn't that an interesting fact?

On your species trees, with mergers, where are the species designations? Crappy logic, crappy definitions.

If your claim is of a rigorous fossil record...that would

be quite frankly, bizarre.

The second assertion, that you have some kind of knowledge at the beginning of life is an argument you would run from. Is a non creationist, I really don't care.

But those trees have a third example you did not pose. Mergers and branches. As I stated before. I don't know the mechanism, for ToE. You assert speciation, and ignore its warts. But you deny hybridization, on convenience.

That is not science.

The article I cited was pretty clear. Hybridization may be a competing mechanism for evolution. It is dismissed without investigation by ToE biologists.

That is a SIN against science. I liked your tree, but as I said, there are both mergers and divergences. It would be a MAJOR scientific embarassment to acknowledge that a those trees, inviolate for decades, to be wrong.

As with any scandal, follow the money (or the prestige)

Evolution is still overall a tree structure, even if there are merges (and they wouldn. <<

With more than three current examples of problems of definition, and an experiment to the contrary,,,

Denial.

Real time, now, replicable, testible, current.

DENIAL.

What has science become.

DK

[bobdsmith]

You are beginning to get it.

Speciation is far more relevant to explain the fossil record than hybridisation. Speciation increases diversity. Hybridisation does not. Hybridisation cannot explain the overall pattern.

Overall the fossil record is a tree with low diversity at its root and higher diversity as time passes. Speciation creates trees. Hybridisation does not (in fact it tends to produce what look like upside down trees - ie a reduction in variety).

And if you think the authors of that news article you posted are claiming that hybridisation would seriously change the evolutionary tree you better read it again.

*it has to be noted that all examples of hybrids today - wolphins, ligers, tigons, mules, etc have never founded stable populations even if these offspring are fertile. They will therefore be unlikely to leave any fossil trace..

[Sopater]

I was simply paraphrasing what I read in the article. If I said something that could be construed as a "strawman arguement(sic), weak rhetoric and outright misinformation", please be more specific.

One of the first lessons that I have learned in being an effective listener is to try and repeat back what I heard. Perhaps I misunderstood something in the original post, but I don't believe that I have. I was simply pointing out the far-reaching, weak rhetoric and outright misinformation that is perpetuated by the pro-evolutionists who feel that the promotion of their belief system somehow trumps the necessity of legitimate science.

[SunkenCiv]

This topic was posted 5/31/2005, thanks PatrickHenry.

[DennisR]

How does evolution explain things such as the plethora of vegetation? Trees, flowers, fruits, vegetables, ... Did these also evolve over billions of years after their supposed origin in the primordial ooze?

Survival of the fittest is a reality. Something from nothing??? Yeah, right.

[BenLurkin]

I have - yet another - dumb question:

Aren’t “simple genetic changes” what these Covid “vaccines” result in?

[Varda]

LOL