[[Some bird lineages evolved the structures necessary for flight and others didn’t, using feathers for warmth.]]
Really? Got any evidence showing these evolutionary miracles? Didn’t htink so- just more a priori assumoptions
[[If we get lucky, we’ll one day uncover all the fossils that happened to survive the geological activity.]]
Swell cop out-
[[If you or someone else wants to do real ID science, maybe this is the place to start right now!]]
Sure- ‘real science’ accordign to whom? Those who DON’T follow the evidence and stop when it’s prudent to do so? Those who extrapolate fantastic scenarios from evidences that don’t warrent doing so? Golly- could I become a story-teller too? Thanks- but I’ll stick to just investigating the actual evidences instead of dreaming up scenrios that include ignroing biological, mathematical, chemical and natural llaws.
[[2. No one is making the claim that antibiotic resistance is the same as speciation if that is what you are getting at.]]
You might want ot read FR a bit more carefully if that’s what you htinkj- PLENTY of peopel here have asserted just that.
[[The role of horizontal gene transfer in the possible evolution of obligate bacterial species is hotly debated right now.]]
Swell- but hte point still remains- the ONLY way for a species to achieve new non species specific info that is an absolute MUST in macroevolution, is via lateral gene transference- in ALL species- however, we can’t even discover that it happens outside of bacteria
[[Likewise, there are simple unicellular organisms that are better suited to their environment (their niche) than larger life-forms.]]
Yeah? Aint microevolution neato?
[[Not if their is an outbreak of Malaria. It provides great resistance if only one allele contains the gene.]]
Net loss does not a ‘positive mutation’ make no matter how you slice it- as well, it’s still just that- a mutaiton- Macroevolution is impossible via RS+M
[[Are you trying to say that organisms are genetically programmed to mutate?]]
NO- They are programmed to deal with mutations- big difference
[[Are you trying to say that only the length of a nucleotide sequence affects the amino acid/protein product?]]
No- I said what I said
[[There is a differences between being deliberately deceitful and working with the evidence that we are fortunate enough to possess.]]
That chart is DELIBERATELY deceitful- those skulls are all drawn the same size when the FACT is that they drew a rat sized aquatic species next to a hippo sized animal skull, and made it INTENTIONALLY look like there was a nice neat progression of the jaw bone between very similar species which was NOT the case at all- this isn’t ‘working with hte evidence’ this was blatant deceit!
[[They are totally aware of this fact. If we get lucky, more transitional fossils will be discovered in the future. Or course, that’s assuming that they haven’t been destroyed by the very real geological activity.]]
Nother nice cop out- At least there are some scientsits who study species that are honest enough to admit there whould be reams of evidence IF macroevolution happened and millions of species supposedly gradually changed- the sad fact is htough that ALL we find are fully completed fully functional species in the myriad fossils we do have. Not one single instance of gradual morphological change- just a LOT of assumptions about completed species.
[[Differences of what are in the billions?]]
The remarkable similarity among the genomes of humans and the African great apes could warrant their classification together as a single genus. However, whereas there are many similarities in the biology, life history, and behavior of humans and great apes, there are also many striking differences that need to be explained. The complete sequencing of the human genome creates an opportunity to ask which genes are involved in those differences. A logical approach would be to use the chimpanzee genome for comparison and the other great ape genomes for confirmation. Until such a great ape genome project can become reality, the next best approach must be educated guesses of where the genetic differences may lie and a careful analysis of differences that we do know about. Our group recently discovered a human-specific inactivating mutation in the CMP-sialic acid hydroxylase gene, which results in the loss of expression of a common mammalian cell-surface sugar throughout all cells in the human body. We are currently investigating the implications of this difference for a variety of issues relevant to humans, ranging from pathogen susceptibility to brain development. Evaluating the uniqueness of this finding has also led us to explore the existing literature on the broader issue of genetic differences between humans and great apes. The aim of this brief review is to consider a listing of currently known genetic differences between humans and great apes and to suggest avenues for future research. The differences reported between human and great ape genomes include cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNH-456JS82-3X&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=74c145cd4ff3a5b7e46430e86e9a0ac9
[[For example, the rate of sequence evolution in rodents is two to three times greater than primates.]]
You are talking about MICROEvolutionary change NOT macroevolutionary change- there is no evidence for macroevolution- so this ‘rate’ can’t even begin to be measured- even with imaginary scenarios of change.
[[Of course, molecular clocks have very little to do with morphological divergence considering the existence of pleisiomorphic genes.]]
Admission? Nah- could’nt be.
[[Are you asking about the origin of living systems? I don’t know. That is a frontier for modern biology.]]
I’m not askign anyhting- I gave a link that fully explained and exposed the rediculousness of the idea that open systems are any better for living systems than closed ones based on crystal formations.
[[No, it calls for advantageous adaptions to ecosystem niches.]]
No, it calls for ever increasing self assembling complexities of NEW non species specific systems, a process that violates entropy rules as laid out in that link I provided
[[Sometimes simple unicellular life-forms can fare better in environments hostile to larger, more complex organisms.]]
This is absolutely irrelevent to the discussion, and nothign but a rabbirt trail to avoid the problem of macroevolution and hte second law.
[[How did you (or someone else) come to this conclusion? Tiktaalik had a rather robust ribcage and large muscle facets.]]
You’re leavign out the next part... and only had bones structures in it’s lobes that could not support their weight
[[It’s just a hypothesis anyway, no one was around to witness the late Devonian period.]]
JUST a theory? It’s one of the mainstays of claims for macroevolution. The Caelocanth (sp?) was once though to have been transitional because of their unique lobes, however, when one turned up, was observed, it was quickly determined it coudl NOT infact support it’s weight with it’s lobed fins, and was thrown out as the previously insisted upon transitional that science assured us existed in hte fossil records- Turns out Tiktaalik is just another lobe-finned fish with structural innadequacies the same way Caelocanth had.
[[Those are not the “best examples” that I would use. They seem rather irrelevant.]]
Those are just hte begiinning, and are hte oens most brought up here and in science books that our kids are ‘taught’ (Religious propoganda is more like it, but we’ll use ‘taught’ for now)
You don’t care about phylogeny and you demand a complete fossil record even though much of it was lost through time. This is not a “cop out”, this is the geological reality. I COULD refer to many things in religion as a “cop out” but I’m giving it all the benefit of the doubt.
I have ceded to your questions thus far and you have totally ignored the only big question that I posed to you:
Where is your data pointing out the creation of whole lifeforms within days?
I honestly want to see it. That is your position isn’t it?
Until you start coughing up the data, I’m not going to give you any more of mine. These are the terms.
“Really? Got any evidence showing these evolutionary miracles? Didn’t htink so- just more a priori assumoptions”
Do I really have to explain everything?
Burgers, P., and Chiappe, L.M. (1999) The wings of Archaeopteryx as a primary thrust generator. Nature, 399, 60-62.
Chiappe, L.M. (1995) The first 85 million years of avian evolution. Nature, 378, 349-355.
Chinsamy, A., and Elzanowski, A. (2001) Evolution of growth pattern in birds. Nature, 412, 402-403 (26 Jul).
Erickson, G.M., Rogers, K.C., and Yerby, S.A. (2001) Dinosaurian growth patterns and rapid avian growth rates. Nature, 412, 429-432 (26 Jul).
Norell, M.A., and Clarke, J.A. (2001) Fossil that fills a critical gap in avian evolution. Nature, 409, 181-184.
Padian, K., Ricqles, A.J. de, and Horner, J.R (2001) Dinosaurian growth rates and bird origins. Nature, 412, 405-408 (26 Jul).
Speakman, J.R., and Thomson, S.C. (1994) Flight capabilities of Archaeopteryx. Nature, 370, 514.
Unwin, D.M. (1998) Feathers, filaments, and theropod dinosaurs. Nature, 391, 119-120.
Wong, K. (2002) Taking wing. Scientific American, (January), 14-15.
Xu, X., Zhou, Z., and Wang, X. (2000) The smallest known theropod dinosaur. Nature, 408, 705-708.
“Swell cop out”
No, the reality. If I was not interested in your religion, I would make the same types of accusations.
“Sure- ‘real science’ accordign to whom?”
According to those who go out into the field and work very hard to gather data for months or even years at a time rather then just sitting in an arm-chair.
“You might want ot read FR a bit more carefully if that’s what you htinkj- PLENTY of peopel here have asserted just that.”
I was refering to those in the field.
“Swell- but hte point still remains- the ONLY way for a species to achieve new non species specific info that is an absolute MUST in macroevolution, is via lateral gene transference- in ALL species- however, we can’t even discover that it happens outside of bacteria”
I have already discussed the different types of mutations. Did you bother to look them up?
“Yeah? Aint microevolution neato?”
There is no difference between the processes that lead to small changes and the processes that lead to enough small changes to eventually amount to big ones.
“Net loss does not a ‘positive mutation’ make no matter how you slice it- as well, it’s still just that- a mutaiton- Macroevolution is impossible via RS+M”
What does that have to do with my comment? Are you deliberately trying to misrepresent my statement? You realize that I can read previous posts don’t you?
“NO- They are programmed to deal with mutations- big difference”
No-the editing and processing nucleases occassionally fail. Of course, you are not even going to bother to look this up.
“No- I said what I said”
What you said continues to make no sense to me.
“That chart is DELIBERATELY deceitful- those skulls are all drawn the same size when the FACT is that they drew a rat sized aquatic species next to a hippo sized animal skull, and made it INTENTIONALLY look like there was a nice neat progression of the jaw bone between very similar species which was NOT the case at all- this isn’t ‘working with hte evidence’ this was blatant deceit!”
You are angry because they didn’t draw comparative structures to scale?
“Nother nice cop out- At least there are some scientsits who study species that are honest enough to admit there whould be reams of evidence IF macroevolution happened and millions of species supposedly gradually changed”
In an alternate universe, all deceased lifeforms are preserved in magical jars rather than being mostly torn to pieces by moving sediment layers. We do not live in that alternate universe.
“Not one single instance of gradual morphological change”
the whole field of phylogenetic systematics. I’ve already discussed the different ways that genes affect morphology.
“The remarkable similarity among the genomes of humans and the African great apes...The differences reported between human and great ape genomes include cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations. “
I agree
“You are talking about MICROEvolutionary change NOT macroevolutionary change- there is no evidence for macroevolution- so this ‘rate’ can’t even begin to be measured- even with imaginary scenarios of change.”
A macroevolutionary change is simply lots and lots of microevolutionary changes involving genes and environment. You demand time travel evidence so there isn’t anything more to say about this.
“Admission? Nah- could’nt be.”
You weren’t even paying attention to what I was writing.
“I’m not askign anyhting- I gave a link that fully explained and exposed the rediculousness of the idea that open systems are any better for living systems than closed ones based on crystal formations.”
The implications of the 2nd law are incredibly complicated. No real need to worry about crystal formations. We are discussing living systems here. A living system needs energy for chemical reactions but not too much energy in the wrong place or that will denature the proteins.
“No, it calls for ever increasing self assembling complexities of NEW non species specific systems, a process that violates entropy rules as laid out in that link I provided”
Why should I argue with a definition that you made up? This is getting silly.
“This is absolutely irrelevent to the discussion, and nothign but a rabbirt trail to avoid the problem of macroevolution and hte second law.”
That’s evidence of simpler organisms that are more advantageous in their environment than many complex organisms.
“You’re leavign out the next part... and only had bones structures in it’s lobes that could not support their weight”
I was asking how you managed to figure that out. So how?
“JUST a theory?”
The sentence I wrote is just one push of the enter key away. I wrote “hypothesis”. Do you know the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory? Hint: they are NOT the same.
“Turns out Tiktaalik is just another lobe-finned fish with structural innadequacies the same way Caelocanth had.”
That would be very enlightening if true so where are you getting this information?