Evolution-ation

Author: Yassine
evolution
pseudoscience
fantasy
myth

Posts

Total: 130
#121
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
-->
@Yassine
Just out of curiosity, what issue would you take with evolution being compatible with creationism?
- Regardless of the truth of Creationism, Evolution is nonsense. I have no doctrinal issue with Evolution as a concept, I have a rational issue with Evolution as a farcical theory. It's a bogus theory which relies on infinite monkey fallacy, give it enough time & every possible thing will happen; which makes it the most god-of-the-gaps theory ever imagined. If we don't know how, evolution did it.
You are mistaken. Evolution is a process, not an agent. It therefore does not qualify as a god. Moreover, the theory of evolution is more limited in its application.

Since we know nothing is poofed into existence, God must have a process to take nothing but energy and element and create form out of those materials. If you shun the idea that God uses evolution to generate species on earth, how do you propose that God manifests creatures into existence including the physical body we call humanoid to become what they are?
This is a false dilemma. Because we don't have alternative explanations, therefore evolutionary theory is true! The simple answer is we don't know. In fact, we can't know. To understand transformation in matter, one must understand its parts & its whole. Without our understanding of electrons' & photons' behavior, we can never know what happens in chemical reactions & why it happens, no matter how many theories we cook up. Analogically, to understand Life, one must understand its parts & its whole. We do not yet understand the basic building blocks of Life, such as amino acids & lipids & proteins. We do not yet know how they do what they do & why they do it. Any exercise of understanding Life without this knowledge is effectively futile.
We don't know is not an answer. It is an admission of ignorance.
No, it is not futile. Understanding, studying or applying a field does not necessarily require to have more fundamental knowledge. Although quantum physics has a big impact on ship building, people have been building ships long before anyone had a clue about quantum physics. People have been using herbal medicine long before anyone had a clue about genetics.

If evolution isn't scientific fact, what's the alternative explanation for the variants over time of the Covid 19 virus?
First of all, that's a false dilemma. The lack of alternative explanation does not make evolution a good explanation![16] Second of all, viruses are literally the least understood organisms in biology. Nobody knows what they do & why they do it.[17] If they did, there won't be a Covid19.[18] Third of all, they love to stick their evolutionary mythology into everything. The spike protein in Covid19 is derived from a 3800-base long gene. That's 2 to the power of 3800 possible mutations (or 10 to the power of 968). You think these are random mutations?! Far more complex things happen constantly in every cell in every organism. Viruses are the worst possible example to give for evolution, for they are not even self-sustainable.[19] Finally, what does any of this have to do with the theory of evolution anyways?![20] Absolutely nothing. It explains absolutely nothing of significance. If you've ever taken a biology class, you would know that all mutations in coding-DNA are bad, for they crash the function of proteins.[21]
[16] “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
[17] Virusses don't have motives. Virusses are even used to fight infections and for gene therapy. How could people do that without understanding what they do ?
[18] Why is that ?
[19] Why is that relevant ?
[20] Virusses evolve.
[21] They are usually, not always, bad for individuals, but not necessarily for the species. They can help the species to evolve.

seems like exactly how science says evolution works.
Just like everything else in this evolutionary failed narrative, this too is a fallacy. They use 'evolution' to mean anything & everything that moves or changes. That's an equivocation fallacy. Evolution as intended is the evolutionary theory that postulates that different species originate  from a common ancestor via undirected processes, such as natural selection & random mutations. Literally nothing that has ever been observed fit this postulate.[22] Calling any hereditary change or genetic variation or population shift 'evolution' is equivocation nonsense.
[22] So, no one has ever observed a common ancestor evolve into different species. Given biological evolution, is there an expectation that such be observed ?
The marbled crayfish comes close to fitting your requirement : www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/aquarium-accident-may-have-given-crayfish-dna-take-over-world

and a dude who doesn't understand what a species is.
- Do tell, what are species? Or do you mean this definition that you posted: "A new species is one in which the individuals cannot mate and produce viable descendants with individuals of a preexisting species."
The living world was not designed to be classifyable into species and it can not always unambiguously be done, unlike the biblical narrative suggests. Of different species are kinds of animals that cannot interbreed. That usually allows to identify clearly delineated species, but not always.

Yassine 69 to Reece101
- . A postulate is the claim of a scientific theory, which may prove to be more or less accurate, or outright false. In the aforementioned case, all previous postulates of natural selection, starting from survival of the fittest, through selection from adaptive traits, to gene selection theory, have been discarded, after having been professed to be the truth, to be replace by gene selection through reproductive potency.
Can you provide your source for that information ?

Did you only read the title? Why should I bother to respond?
You're projecting again. I know exactly what the study is about, it's nothing new. Natural selection within a population has nothing to do with the theory of Evolution.[23] The claim of the evolutionary theory goes far beyond just natural selection. "natural selection happens, therefore evolution happens" is a composition fallacy. Seriously, how hard can this be?!
[23] Why is that ? (After that you are merely arguing that natural selection alone is not enough.)

You’re saying all apes are the same species so they can all create hybrids with another? What you’re saying is blatantly wrong on so many levels.
False. If you define a distinct species as a taxon whose individuals cannot interbreed with existing species -which is the actual definition of speciation-, then all apes are, by definition, the same species, for they can all interbreed. All apes have the same DNA, thus their offspring -being half of each parental DNA, is the same DNA.
Mammals cannot interbreed with reptiles, fish, plants, insects, etcetara. Hence, according to you, mammals are a distinct species, correct ?
What did you mean with all apes being inter-fertile ?

How closely related organisms are to one another doesn’t always translate to being interfertile. Take hares and rabbits as a classic example.
This is BS. "Two organisms from the same genus  may  produce fertile offsprings. But two organisms from two different genera  cannot  produce offsprings that are capable of reproduction.  " is factually false, there is interbreeding on the order level, & the class level, let alone on the genera level -such as the case for moths & butterflies.[24] You shocked? Yeah, there is actually no objective definition for any taxon. As the evolutionary biologist (aka mythologist) Prof Roger Butlin said: "We tend not to argue about what defines a species anymore, because that doesn't get you anywhere". Isn't that convenient.
[24] Can you provide a source for that information ?
You are calling evolution by natural selection a farce, a myth and nonsense, but are mainly focussing on terminology or classification, i.e. the definition of species is poor or what one calls different species aren't really. Poor terminology or classification don't undermine the existence of the process, let alone to the level you pretend it does.

You can pretty much say the same thing about star and planet formations. That gas and dust  spontaneously compounds/collapses and creates chemical reactions, etc. But do you have any conjecture for them?
My bachelor essay was on a similar topic. About how gravitation induces revolution of matter around a massive core, which compresses under gravitation force & transforms into heat, which -by energy conservation principals- forms spheroids. You can do all this with maths, to very accurate degrees. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is in its entirety ad hoc after the fact stories.
One can also simulate biological evolution. Daisy world for example.

If evolution is false, what's the explanation with observable evidence, a condition you demand of evolutionary theory, that explains the mutation and propagation of the various variants of the Covid 19 virus?
- Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with variants in Covid19, or any other virus. In fact, a virus is a good example of anti-evolution! A virus is not self-sufficient, it cannot exist without a cell. Evolution on a virus is -literally & conceptually- a non-starter. Indeed, the barrage of evolutionary vomit daubed on everything that moves unavoidably confuses people as to the prominence of this mythology. Particularly, the Evolutionary Theory rests wholly on the premise of self-sustainable self-reproducing cells capable of darwinian evolution (descent of new species from common ancestor via natural selection & random mutations). <= If you don't see this, then it is not evolution.
Virusses evolve, even though they may not be considered alive and even though they cannot self-replicate. Natural selection also applies to molecules and a virus is a packet of a few giant molecules. Molecules that more prone to be copied by the environment tend to be more plentiful than those that don't. Prions are another example. Since virus can also mutate, variants can rise that favour multiplication or persistence of the virus.
Excluding virusses from evolution because their evolution does not fit a narrow definition is committing the no true Scottsman fallacy.


34 days later

#122
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
-->
@Yassine
@Reece101
Are you a Young Earth Creationist?
- Look what we have here. You had to say that from loss of confidence in your arguments. Guess what, evolutionationsts are far more delusional than youngEarthcreationists.
So what ? Who cares about evolutionationists ?

If you agree natural selection occurs, why do you have a problem with speciation?
Yassine  89
- One is fact, the other is fiction. The most famous story of speciation that they taught us & still teach all over the world, is the tale of Darwin's finches & their "speciation". As it turns out, Darwin's finches are actually interfertile. No speciation ever occurred. Yet, the mythologists insist to telling this lie because frankly they got nothing!
What evidence can you present that speciation is a myth ?
What, according to you, is or would be the effect of natural selection over hundreds of thousands of generations ?
You seem to think it doesn't produce any change. So, according to you, all natural selection does is weed out mutatins, that are always harmful.

Depending on the organism, let’s say 100,000 generations, you think they’ll still be the same species from where their ancestors started?
Yassine  89
Dude. Your own DNA is copied & split in your own body into 100 trillion cells, each cell copying DNA & making some 50 million proteins, that's 5 billion trillion times (not just 100,000), & still the same effing DNA. Cyanobacteria has been going on since 3.5 billion years, that's more than 100 trillion generations. It's still cyanobacteria.
A cell making a protein is a different process than a cell copying DNA. Protein production is less likely to modify DNA than DNA copying.

Apart from habitat and behavioural differences of not seeing each other as potential mates, there’s also chromosome and enzyme differences. Though i would agree a chimpanzee and a bonobo could create a hybrid, a gorilla and chimpanzee on the other hand, not so much.
When you say  ALL  apes are interfertile with each other, you’re simply wrong.
Yassine  89
Interfertile =/= interbreed. Amazon tribal people are interfertile with Inuit people even though they don't interbreed. If you're talking about the human-gorilla clad vs. human-chimpanzee clad theories, then nothing is conclusive as of yet. Studies have been done on gorilla "hybrids". But I will grant you this, whoever side of the argument wins, those flimsy trees will change yet again. lol! Regardless, if in the case of gorillas not being interfertile with other apes, then they are their own species, as is the case for gibbons. All this is entirely besides the point, which is morphology =/= descent. Wolves, coyotes, dogs... are all interfertile, yet they look so different. In effect, these are all the same kind, the same species, in different races.
You are raving against the theory of evolution, but you are only arguing that some kinds that are called species should in stead be called races in stead.

Do you understand that gene mutations occur? 
Yassine  89
Lmao! Have you ever taken a class in biology! All mutations are bad news. Have you heard of cancer? The abusively called snips or variants are not actually mutations in the evolutionary sense. All these discussions show a deep lack of knowledge in molecular biology & the function of the cell.
What evidence can you present that all mutations are harmful to a species ?

Yassine  89 to Reece101
- Two, the *actual* similarity between human DNA & chimp DNA is around 70%, at best. Using the aforementioned programs, they determined that 75% of human DNA code is most congruent with 82% of chimp DNA code; so they discarded the rest (basically 30%), then discarded any insertion or deletion (some 3%), to claim a 1-2% difference in DNA... Isn't his the most hilariously pathetic story!? It's so cringe I know! [25]

- Three, & this is really funny, the cosmic stupidity that we just witnessed can, in fact, be applied to absolutely any computer binary code & will give similar results. Take any two computer codes (0s & 1s), of a book or a program or an image. Then compare them with the assumption that they descent from the same parent code. Then eliminate the incongruent parts, you will inevitably end up with a very tiny difference -around 1%. In fact, this is -probabilistically speaking- a necessity, for the average 0-1 ratio in any uncompressed code is about 50-50%. I've done this myself btw.  Here is an exercise, take any two -fairly large- texts of similar size, one in Chinese & the other in English, convert them to binary, then compare them. You'll get something around 70% similarity.[26]

– Four, & this one is interesting. In retrospect, other camps among these evolutionationists are estimating similar ranges for other animals instead, namely gorillas & rats, away from chimpanzees. In truth, you can do the same for any mammal, for their genome size are around the 3 gigabases. You just need to tweak the algorithm a little bit, & boom the elephant is 99% human.[27]

- Finally, similarity in DNA code means absolutely nothing, the same way similarity between two binary codes mean nothing. It's not about the binary sequence, it's about the meaning of that sequence, aka words & sentences. In DNA case, these are instructions, aka genes, to make proteins. Proteins are basically workers with specific tasks in the cell;  billions of types of proteins are produced by the human body, making on average  trillions of each. Proteins are constructed from gene instructions; some genes can engender thousands of different proteins. Comparing chimp proteins with human proteins we can infer the information in the genes, that 80% of proteins are different between these two species. This is analogous to comparing two source codes, not based on some binary code similarity, but rather based on the actual instructions in the codes.[28]
[25] To make a useful comparison of sequences one should do a charitable comparison.
Consider the sequences :
0, 1, 2, 3, …, 99, 100  and
1, 2, 3, 4, …, 99, 100

Starting from the left, you notice there is 0% correspondence between the sequences, as in each position there is a different number. Starting from the right, there is a 99% correspondence between the sequences, as the first one merely has an added 0. Which of those two figures is most representative for the similarity of those sequences ?

Can you present an authoritative source explaining how the genetic comparisons between humans and other species are done from which we can deduce that a 95% or higher correspondence with chimpansees is not representative ?

[26] How exactly did you meddle with you binary sequences to compare them, such that we can compare it to how geneticists meddle with DNA sequences to compare them ?
Assuming they are of the same length, two random binary codes with have a similarity of 50%. However, the genome has 4 letters (A, G, T and C), such that two completely unrelated sequences only have 25% similarity.

[27] In order to compare the genetic similarities of humans with different species, one must use the same method of comparison. I suspect that if one remains unbiased and consistent, chimpansee genome is always more similar to human genome than elephant genome.

[28] Can you provide a source supporting that the human body produces billions of types of proteins ?
Why is the (lack of) similarity in proteins between humans and chimpansees more relevant ? The point is to find the distance in time (or number of generations) of a common ancestor. How would comparing proteins be more suitable for that ?

I agree it’s complicated and there are many grey areas. that’s the rough outline. I wouldn’t say it’s perfect by any stretch.
- It's BS. Myth. Nonsense.   I will tell you why "it's complicated".[29] In this particular case the answer is pretty straight forward. Strict definitions of taxonomies prevent evolutionationists from taking advantage of equivocations & ambiguities to further expand their fantasies.[30] If speciation & species was strictly defined based on interfertility (which they profess when it suits them but ignore when it doesn't), then Darwin's finches would be strictly one species, which means no speciation happened within the Galapagos finches, thus no evolution.[31] Instead, they claim these are different species, because they are non-interfertile, due to  long isolation & evolution from a common type; BUT the the fact that they are in fact interfertile shouldn't diminish from this, because they are not interbreeding as same species, rather as hybrids, & we will call this hybridization. Genius isn't it! You gotta give it to them, they finally achieved squaring the circle.  
[29] No, you won't, but I will. The ecosystem constitutes of quintillions of organisms, quadrillions of them being unique, each of them being very complicated by themselves. That system was not designed to be simply described. Therefore any description of it is a simplification. The line between species is not always clear-cut. Moreover, behavioural obstacles may also be considered valid division for speciation. Maybe you could technically breed with a gorilla, but don't because you find each other unattractive.
The taxonomical tree is a classification of something that can inherently not be classified. That you disapprove of the way that classification has been done does not undermine the validity of the theory of evolution.
[30] What sort of strict definitions would you propose ?
[31] That is a non-sequitur. Speciation ≠ evolution

I would love to debate it, but yassine and I would have to agree on what evolution is, because I say that abiogenesis should not be included in the definition of evolution.
The evolutionary theory necessarily entails descent by natural selection and abiogenesis, wether you think it should be included in the definition or not. If A then B, means if not-B then not-A. No abiogenesis necessarily entails no evolutionary theory.
Why would the theory of evolution necessarily entail abiogenesis ?

- You have yet to show what you claimed. That the theory of evolution has been useful in something. Give me ONE thing.
Understanding how we came to be. Pretty simple.
You are missing the point. The idea is that applications of a theory constitute evidence of its validity. “It works, so it must be true.” Although providing understanding could be considered useful, it does not constitute evidence for a theory. In fact, it assumes the theory to be valid. The story of Genesis also provides understanding of our origins.


#123
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
The meaning of the word ( theroy ) thats used in science is brilliant. 
 
#124
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Hey Deb.

I couldn't find the scientific meaning of the word "theroy"

Brilliant word though.
#125
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
Theory.
sorry. 
I'm dislexic as and spell at a grade 5 level.
When i see theroy it looks spot on.    

But its a good word. 
And yes. You guessed It. 
The words for  you today is.  
( The Roy ) 
Not theory  
( The Roy ) 
Use it in conversation  with Three people in the next 24hrs
Use it once incorrectly. 
 
Good luck.
Good day. 
#126
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Yassine
Of course that's outright false. By design, literally every theory in the fields of Physics, Astronomy, Chemistry & the likes is better supported, better tested, better validated & more predictive. The best scientific theories are actually Quantum Theory & General Relativity, but I digress. I know the Evolutionary Theory is not validated, predicts nothing & has no accuracy. But you may help me see otherwise. Show me how evolutionary theory is predictive & accurate.

One of the key aspects of evolution - is that we continually and repeatedly observe it. Even today, we are observing the evolution and competition of covid variants. We’ve seen everything from changes in intestinal structure in Italian wall lizards, changes in cane toads in Australia, Nylon eating bacteria, or PCB resistance in Hudson River fish. 

That evolutionary processes are completely observable is one key part of what I mean.

The second is related to the predictive evidence that underpins common descent. Specifically the various nested hierarchies.

Descent with modification produces nested hierarchies. If a group becomes geographically isolated from another, and evolve separately, produce two separate species that share common diagnostic traits. If both groups separate in the same way, all will share the same common diagnostic traits, with each original split group sharing a common diagnostic trait with each other but not the two other split groups. If you repeat this long enough; you produce a nested hierarchy of common traits. All creatures in a group share a set of diagnostic traits, sub groups share all those diagnostic traits, and additional ones.

However, diagnostic traits do not jump branches. (No mammals with feather), unless they were present in a common ancestor. 

As an example, all apes are mammals. We all have hair, produce milk to feed. All mammals are terrestrial tetrapods; following the same body plan, almost all the same key features. All terrestrial tertrapods are jawed craniata chordates - Boney skeleton owners with skulls, jaws, and spinal chords. All chordates are deuterostomes - meaning our butthole forms before our mouth in our development - which is a weird thing to all have in common, dontcha think? 

Evolution and common ancestry specify that this hierarchy is our ancestry. That the commonality between species is a facet of our common ancestry. And this yields a huge set of predictions.

  • Anything found must fit into this pattern.
  • Common ancestors between specifics can be found that have all basal traits of both groups but without traits diagnostic of either.
  • Ancestry is chronology.

The first major prediction was the postulate that as reptiles and birds where morphologically related, there must be a transitional form, that show a mosaic of traits of both: such as wings, feathers; but without fused forearm bones. This was found in archaeopteryx. Since then there are multiple transitional forms of birds that fill these gaps.

Humans are a great example; we’ve gone from only knowing humans and great apes; to being able to show a clear progression of hominids with ever-increasing brain size and adaptation to upright walking. The progression has no large gaps in it; to the point that Creationists can not agree whether late Australopiths are 100% ape or 100% human. That always makes me chuckle.

We actually have broad links on most major changes between major groups - we have a large number of steps in the progression between fish and amphibians, cetaceans, birds, mammals, and others. Not all; but a lot.

Evolution predicts the specific nature of what will be found; where it will be found, as how old it will be. While there is some flexibility in the latter; modern rabbits in the Burgess Shale would blow evolution out of the water.


Evolution also made a substantial number of implicit predictions about genetics: the existence of genetic mutations, and mechanisms of duplication. On top of this, it also allows ancestry to be determined via genetics and genes. We can analyze and compare genomes of organisms and are able to predict broad similarities and patterns: differences in conserved genes matching inferred ancestry, endogenous retroviruses which are viruses that translate themselves into the hosts DNA and can be inserted in the genome, can be traced through different closely related animal groups.

All of it validates the inherent prediction of evolution that the hierarchy is ancestry. 

Moreover - it’s not just an arbitrary prediction - it’s causal ; inferred hierarchies must closely match ancestry in evolved systems because of evolved systems coming about via descent and modification.

That’s why evolution is better supported - it’s predicting the inherent structure of every living being that has ever or will ever be dig up by human; and is predicting the inherent nature of genetic relationships between organisms prior to us even knowing what DNA was. Each gene, species, fossil, etc, is a new potential point of falsification - which invariably ends up being what evolution requires.

The final nail, though, and something that not one single creationist, or someone with an alternative point of view has ever been able to even really acknowledge - leave alone explain: is why these hierarchical relationships exist. The relationship doesn’t exist with cars, books, bikes, houses or anything that’s been artificially designed.


#127
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine

92 days later

#128
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
-->
@Yassine
@Reece101
By the way, using your same logic, will you admit not all apes are the same species?
What logic that might be? If a species is such that the case of lack of interfertility with existing species, then all -great- apes are indeed the same species. That, contingent of course on wether gorillas are interfertile with the others, as the dispute is still going -which actually shows how confused & ignorant these people are.
When asked for your explanation for the ecosystem, you said you don't know. Does that mean that you are confused and ignorant as well ?

Can you tell me how I’m wrong?
First of all, Evolution = biodiversity by natural selection & random mutation. If it's not that, it's not evolution. Not every thing that changes & moves is "evolving" in evolutionary terms. Second of all, viruses can not evolve in the evolutionary sense, for they are not self-sustaining & self-reproducing. Darwinian evolution on a virus is a spinning wheel. Third of all, no such thing as "speciated" bacteria.[32] If you're talking about the ecoli bacteria, then even the universe isn't large enough to accommodate evolution theory with that. Fourth of all, the oldest living fossil is a bacteria (cyanobacteria) & it has yet to "speciate" after more than 100 trillion generations. Finally, if this myth of a theory has any shred of spec of probability how come it's so utterly absently supported.
[32] What evidence can you present to support the claim that no bacteria have speciated ?

All mutations are harmful? Like becoming lactose tolerant? You can see this in the human genetic/migratory record. This is natural selection.
Another one of their tricks: equivocation. They call variants & snips mutation to give the impression of "randomness". These evolutionationists are really hopeless. Pathetic!
How does treating SNPs as mutation qualify as equivocation ?

It’s reasonable for me to conclude you think animals just pop into existence in the course of 100s of millions of years.
That's a double false dichotomy. First of all, evolutionary theory =/= evolution.[33] It's possible that animals have evolved from one another; in case this is true it still does not entail that the theory of evolution, which is just a claim, is true too.[34] In the same way that the truth of objects falling because of gravity does not entail the truth of any theory attempting to explain it [35], for instance Aristotle's elements-attracts-elements theory -which we know is BS. Regardless of the truth gravitation, Aristotle's theory is BS. Likewise, regardless of the truth of evolution, the evolutionary theory is BS. Second of all, no evolution occurred does not necessarily mean pop-into-ion occurred. The two are equally unlikely occurrences from a natural perspective. In the fossil record, animals appear & disappear as is.[36]
[33] What is the difference between the theory of evolution and biological evolution ?
[34] Do you mean that if different animals have evolved from one another, they did not do so through natural selection or mutations ?
So, though natural selection and mutations occur, they play no role in biological evolution. Is that what you claim ?
[35] It is however evidence for any theory that does explain it.
[36] What would you expect to see in the fossil record if the theory of evolution were true ?

From a quick google search this is the definition google gave me:
A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.
E.g. Darwin's finches.
The (sub)species on the Galapagos Islands also qualify.

Reece101 116 to Yasseen
Cells require energy from outside, whether  it be radiation or various  molecules. 
You can consider them herbivores in a sense. 
Viruses  prey on them for them.
Virusses are fundamentally different from cellular organisms, for they lack a metabolism.


146 days later

#129
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
In 'The Greatest Show on Earth, the Evidence for Evolution” Richard Dawkins explains what is meant with Chimpansee DNA corresponding 98% with human DNA. That correspondence is found with DNA hybridization. I shall summarize.

As I explained in post 122, a missing or added base pair can cause a naïve comparison to result in a big discrepancy. That is where DNA hybridization comes in.
If one heats DNA to about 85°C, the two DNA strands unwind. Call 85°C the melting point of DNA. When cooled again, the indivudual strands reconnect (although not necessarily with the same companion). DNA strands can however also connect to strands of different species. Due to their common origin all species use the same coding mechanism, allowing for that compatibility. So, if one mixes the DNA of two species, e.g. humans an chimpansees, a human strand could pair with a chimpansee strand and vice-versa. In such a mixture in reality they do, although they tend to pair more with strands of their own species. With some clever trickery one can remove the same-species repairings from the mixture.

This hybridized DNA mixture can then again be heated. Due to the discrepancies in the DNA from the two species, the hybridized DNA is less stable and thus has a lower melting point. 1% discrepancy corresponds to about 1°C lower meling point.
Thus one reaches the conclusion that 98% is the fraction of base pares that corresponds between humans and chimpansees. More distantly related species have lower correspondance. Can Yassine explain why ?

76 days later

#130
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Yassine
You may be wondering why this topic about Evolution is not in the Science Forum, but here in the Religion Forum. Bare with me.

For the longest time, I was apathetic to Evolutionary Theory. It didn't speak to me. I come from a Physics/Mathematics background. So the whole thing didn't look serious to me. From someone who studied things like Quantum Mechanics, Gravitation & Particle Physics, evolutionary ideas looked too mechanical, too naive, too archaic. No maths. The world we commonly encounter in our daily lives is minimally energetic. That's why it looks as if things are mechanical, as if things affect each-other, as if we understand the parts of a problem, then we can understand the problem. In another highly energetic world the things we think of as common sense would become completely uncommon. That is the quantum realm, the femto-world, where things are highly energetic for their sizes, weird shite happens. The world is not a a large reductionist structure, it's a weird mysterious enigma. Evolutionary postulates, however, are reductionist champions. That's why they never made much sense to me. But they always held some romance to them. Maybe I just don't get it yet, maybe I'm not seeing what all these people are seeing. This, until I read Richard Dawkins book The Blind Watchmaker. This book completely changed my mind about Evolution. I thought I was in for a scientific adventure. What does the icon of Evolution have to say? To my astonishment, this was no book of Science. This was not terrible Science. The few psychiatry papers I read before were terrible. The alien articles I read were terrible. This was simply not Science at all, rather Literature, of the Myth genre. The entire premise of the book is: 'Evolution is true, therefore let's imagine how it happened'. A genesis story of creation with a materialist mythology. Hence the title, Imagination... I mean... Evolutionation.

For a theory which has been systematically & consistently taught for decades across the globe as a core science curriculum, Evolution fails spectacularly in gaining support. Despite all the promotions, the majority of people outside Europe & East Asia do not believe in mainstream Evolution. In the US, only 20% of Americans believe in the mainstream claims of Evolution, whereas 40% deny it, despite the decades long totalitarian tyranny the evolutionary narrative exerts over the country's education & academic arenas. The evolutionationists believe that it's the fault of the Church. In truth, it's the fault of the theory itself. The Church could not thwart antithetical scientific ideas about the cosmos from spreading when it had absolute power over the people. It is of highest absurdity that the Church would be able to thwart sensible scientific ideas when in a time where it is of ultimate powerlessness in state & academic institutions. Very few people insist on denying things they see with their eyes & realize to be true in favor of their dogmas. Certainly, the idea is simply not that compelling. The evolutionary narrative is a failed narrative. It had all the chances in the world & all the powers of the state to gain support, yet it barely managed to. 

For those of you who subscribe to this mythos. Before you get your panties in a wad, this has nothing to do with Creationism. I'm Muslim, the truth of Evolution does not add to or diminishes from my faith. In fact, the earlier theories of evolution emerged from the Muslim world. Ikhwan Safa taught that life progresses from plants to monkeys to humans. Ideas which have been adopted by many among the Mutazilites after them, eventually making it into Europe in early 19th century. Such is an idea which has been circulating in the Muslim world for over a thousand years, yet barely being able garner any serious support. Disgraceful! Maybe in 500 years we'll have a quantum theory of biology. But for now, this evolutionary story may very well be all that we can muster. That said, if you're a Christian, why do you believe in this evolutionary story while you have a more compelling life story in the Bible? If you're a naturalist, what makes you believe in the truth of this story knowing that it's unscientific?
Hard to see why Muslims accept evolution but reject the evolution of women as equal to men.
It must strengthen your faith as a Muslim that you can marry several women after progressing from plants to monkeys to humans.

Christians are struggling to accept women as equal to men as evolution would dictate.  But the Bible reduced women to a rib as in Genesis.
“The Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man” (Genesis 2:21–22).

Muslims might appear to be ahead helped by an illiterate prophet who was obsessed by the other parts of women shaped by evolution.