Incorrect McStone, I am in every position to lecture you in the breeding process, because you simply do not understand it.
We could do this forever scott, we really could. Lets just concede that "present" reality is in my
favour (you know, things like people not
coming from ribs), because it sure as hell aint in yours.
Of course you know what common design is, and as I have already shown that it totally refutes your argument. I'm not be-littleing the design, because if you knew me, then you'd know complexity, and I sure do see it. Why? It's an attribute for one that builds/ paints cars, and studies the complexity of nature. Did you know that all the animals that you present or could present will have a certain amount of common design?
Scott, if you had shown me any
sort of argument - let alone a convincing one - id stop and listen. As it happens, you couldnt argue your way out of a wet paper bag.
Biologists dont study "complexity" they study "function" and how and why "function" changes. Complexity is an irrelevent side-effect.
Stop endlessly repeated YEC dogma, just for a moment. Common design means that god thought it fitting to make other animals >98% identical to humans; genetics, behaviour, conciousness... Not sure where "adam" fits in? Come to think of it, im not even sure where adam got his DNA from. It shares so much, well, with everything else. Any suggestions?
And you believe that 7 billion people came from only a few or 1, or 2 ape ancestors... yes McStone, evolution demands that these traits come from parent to offspring... So McStone... when did the breeding process contain more than Male and Female to produce an offspring??? By default and as an evolutionist you have to believe an Adam and Eve like story for apes anyways. ( of course it must have been different back then, I mean humans were randomly popping up everywhere).
Oh my god, someone please get this boy a NEW
book. Seriously!!! Scott, with as much respect as one stranger can give to another (and i do respect you) you really, really
dont understand anything about evolution - absolutely nothing. This is going too far, way too far. Im being completely honest with you. Evolution does not stipulate that a given species descended from just two individuals; quite the contrary. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE, and modern biology (except YEC for some reason) understands this
. An isolated population of even 100
individuals will likely face genetic meltdown through increased homozygozity.
Scott, evolution works on POPULATIONS; whole populations. Thousands of individuals. Whilst it is true
that mutation is ultimately an individual process (or at least, in a small number of individuals), a new species is not formed by one
mutation. Two individuals cannot contain enough meaningful variation for their progeny to be a new species or bear some macroevolutionary development. The mutation rate in humans, for example, is around 3 mutations per individual. But not one of these mutations have had enough effect to induce speciation in homo sapiens
Evolution is a cumulative
process; it builds on all prior variation. The alleles (and new genes), involved, say, in the evolution of a wing, are built up over time, from many different sources. The change happens like this:
this community of flightless birds, in this particular woodland, seem to have significantly (not necessarily massively) longer forelimbs than conspecifics. There may not be any particular reason for this lengthening, but its just natural variation - microevolution. If there is a genetic cause, and its not deleterious, then their offspring will also have slightly longer limbs. If there is a clear reproductive benefit to having slightly longer limbs (e.g.
being able to signal more effectively), than we would expect the number of individuals with longer limbs to increase. This is because even minutely perceptible increases in signalling ability are highly attractive (because it is energetically more costly) to females. So, if females are selecting
males with slightly longer limbs, then we would rightly predict the frequency of the responsible alleles to increase in the general population:
Females prefer longer limbs = more s@x with longer-limbed males = more offspring with longer limbs
At the same time, a community of flightless birds, from the same species but in a different patch of woodland down the road, have slightly thicker feathers. Again, this a consequence of small-scale variation (perhaps perpetuating from one individual). This wood is warmer
, and consequently has denser populations of biting invertebrates. If having slightly thicker feathers helps it bearer, for example, in resisting mite infection (the mites find it harder burrowing into skin), then, again, we would predict the frequency of the responsible alleles to increase in the general population:Individuals with slightly thicker feathers = reduced parasite loads = higher fecundity = more offspring with slightly thicker feathers.
So, we have two populations; one with slightly longer limbs, one with slightly thicker feathers. If these populations meet, and reproduce, we would see, through mendielian inheritence, some with with longer limbs and normal feathers, some with normal limbs and thicker feathers, some with both longer limbs and thicker feathers and some with neither longer limbs or thicker feathers.
If one of these combinations has its own benefit (perhaps having both thicker feathers and longer limbs increases reproductive success better than either alone), then the frequency of the responsible alleles will again increase in the general population:Individuals with slightly longer limbs and slightly thicker feathers = reduced parasite loads and greater signalling capability = glossier feathers, higher fecundity and mating chances = more offspring with both traits.
Thus macroevolution - evolution above species level - is in actuality a long series of microevolutionary events. Individual variation
in traits, latched onto the genome of an entire species. A wing is not a new appendage; its is a modified form of an arm. The same modification that is apparent between individuals.
"He has long arms" "She has small arms".
But evolution does not
result from two individuals; it results from the cumulative variation in numberless individuals.
Where as some might have slightly longer arms, others might have slightly looser joints. These things all add up to something
. Only when enough individuals have all this variation (and they will, if its selected for) will macroevolution occur. The change is almost inperceptible at any period in time.
Speciation might occur when a viable future population
is isolated; never at any other time.
Hmmm McStone, you thought you showed me evidence of Macro-evolution, and you quite possibly thought you showed me evidence of Micro-evolution. Point in case, you only showed me a few pictures which prove nothing towards evolution and actually show signs of common design.
Scott, you dont choose to accept evolution, i get it. I just hope your happy with:
Naoh shall take two of every organism (except the ones that we think might have survived in saltwater and resisted osmotic and pressure changes many thousand times greater than today)
"Every organism lord?"
"Yes Noah. Every organism" The lord laughed.
So noah embarked on a round the world cruise, though jungle and desert, through swamps and the poles, from the highest mountain to the lowest cave. From John O' Groats to Antartica.
He started off when he was 300, and he was still at it when he was 900. He trekked, he climbed, he skied, and he caught two of every terrestrial organism; insects and athropods (and lots of other invertebrates), mammals (including other human species and apes), reptiles and dinosaurs, amphibians, birds and samples of every plant too, and of microbial soil communities, fungi and viruses, and they all lived in a big boat.
The lord went absolutely berserk on the earth.
The said thing is, its not even
The mere fact that you claim Macro-evolution and Micro-evolution are the same thing proves that you do not infact know more about evolution than I do, sorry McStone but your posts show this.
No scott, they dont.
Your completely rejecting the empirical observation because it falsifies your assumption of antibiotic resistance being an example of evolution by genetic mutation. Would you like me to produce a list of other empirical sciences one must reject to be an evolutionists - I would be here all day
Sigh, i AM going to have to read for you.
....... Im not doing this all night. Do yourself a favour, go on google scholar, type in mutation antibiotic resistance
You'll find that most, indeed, all, scientific papers these days recognise that:
DNA -> amino acids -> Protein
They dont keep having to repeat it to reassure the general public that antibiotic resistance is an evolved trait (by mutation).
Your wrong estimate of 98% genetic homology is proven wrong, but it must be evolution anyway. What a way to test a theory, falsify the prediction, and keep the theory by simply changing the prediction to fit the data. Evolution is like trying to pin jello to the wall.
Sure McStone. Are you now suggesting "common descent by means of protein substitution"? Charles Darwin must be rolling in his grave. Of coarse it is evidence of common desing because, the more genomes that are mapped and compared, it contradicts common descent.
No, its not. Chimps and humans are >98% genetically identical, it doesnt mean they produce exactly the same proteins.
How does it contradict common descent? Isnt shared genetic components - including non sequencing junk - exactly what common descent predicts?
You are completelly wrong. Selective pressure cannot guide mutations. Mutations happen randomly and Natural Selection choose what will survive. So, if no organism is perfect then it always can have its fitness improved.I can easily guess many changes that would improve the frutfly fitness.
Selective pressure (same thing as natural selection) can actually guide mutations, thats what a selective pressure does. It selects mutations which promote themselves (by increasing reproductive fitness) from the background variation.
Can you? Having another set of wings, another head, these sort of things dont do anything. They dont increase reproductive fitness, if anything, they are a hinderence to it. Also, evolution is limited by what came previously.