The Scientific Method Applied To Evolution...

[LUClEN]

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers – the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) – were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren’t sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species – the classic definition of a new species.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

DNA is universal in life. The same components that make up a human's DNA appear in a rodents or even a bacteria. Further the codons that code for a certain amino acid in a human will code for the same amino acid in other organisms.

DNA absolutely changes over time. Ageing is a breakdown of DNA in an individual while evolution involves the change of DNA within a population over time. DNA is simply not stable or static, or it is only very rarely in such a state.

This universality and malleability of DNA leads to basic fact of evolution, descent with modification. If you have a population that can take a single step down this evolutionary path like maltose-eating fruit flies, nylon consuming bacteria, or banana eating moths, all representing species that have undergone an evolutionary change, while continuing to thrive then what is stopping that 2nd or 3rd step of genetic change?

Your offer is sterility?

We would then need to see populations of organisms that are running into sterility and we would need to see it pretty often. Yet this does not happen. Endangered populations are under mostly environmental pressures they are not having sterility issues due to DNA changes.

Who wrote the code for your computer?

Computer code is mans attempt to mimic nature. Everything that man creates is an attempt to exploit natural boundaries. It all falls under the laws of the Universe.

 

[bambu]

Put the bible down and take a couple courses in Biology. They would be happy to show you all the receipts you want.

The only individual who needs to take a biology class is you......

Your whole understanding of DNA is way off......

Wolves and dogs are the same species......

The fruit fly experiment produced the same species......

Broccoli and Kale are the same species......

Genetic codes from some organisms will not code in humans......

The only evidence you have for a species changing into another is in your thought experiment imagination........

I happily admit I have only an interested layman understanding of DNA, but still argue it exceeds yours.

"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles" - James Watson

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. " - Francis Crick

Those are the guys that unlocked the secrets of DNA by discovering its structure.

DNA is not a good subject to try and refute evolution.

DNA is the best subject to refute evolution.......

Crick & Watson simply discovered the structure.......

Dr. Craig Venter sequenced the human genome and denies common ancestry in front of Richard Dawkins......


Since you think that your understanding is better than mine......

Elaborate on how Kale and Cabbage are different species.......

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers – the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) – were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren’t sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species – the classic definition of a new species.

TalkOrigins says that Goatsbeard evolved into a new species within the last hundred years. What massive numbers of mutations and natural selection events were required for this "evolution." It turns out none, since this was merely a chromosome duplication event. Why didn't they tells us that?

 

[whar]

"Biological evolution has taken 3.5 or 4 billion years to get us where we are." - Craig Venter

"Well, it's the changes that have taken place over these billions of years, but I think our studies have shown they're very different than what a lot of people thought of just minute changes leading to new properties and species. We've shown, in our ability to actually transplant chromosomes and transfer thousands of traits and genes at one time, we find evidence of that happening throughout evolution.

So evolution was much more punctate in my view with real big steps due to the addition of major gene sets. So I think it helps explain some of the mysteries of how we got such dramatic changes." - Craig Venter

So you are citing yet another person that believes evolution is true to show that evolution false. Venter argues that life could have had multiple occurrences rather than one and that gene flows horizontally as well as vertically. Vertical flow is a parent passing genes to a child while horizontal flow would be someone shaking your hand and your eye color changing from brown to green.

"Artificial Selection does give interesting result particularly in agriculture. Cabbage is a simple plant that is a popular crop in Russia and elsewhere. In fact its origins are from that region northern Asia basically. Through selective breeding cabbage has been changed into Broccoli, Brussel Sprouts, Cauliflower, and Kale." -Whar

I never state these are separate species but rather variation from cabbage. My next post in that thread continues this and echos my current argument in this thread.

"Bambu the mechanism the farmers use is the same one natural selection uses. Certain desirable traits are breed for in each generation which results in massively different organisms such as cauliflower and brussel sprouts. The difference from evolution by natural selection is the farmer is artificially selecting desirable traits but the end result is the same. The population of plants change over time.

If you accept that cauliflower can result from cabbage in a thousand years or so what is to stop it from drifting further away from cabbage over the next 10,000? We can track that genetic drift in any two isolated population of organism on a generation to generation basis. We have not found anything that suggest there is a limit to this change. If you isolate population for 10 generations or 20 the amount of genetic change is proportional with variance due to alteration in the environment.

Your side seem to acknowledge that change does occur but there is a limiting factor. Something that will keep the fruit fly a fruit fly. Studies on the subject only go back several decades since the discovery of DNA so they are limited by this time horizon. However if changes do occur what stops a population of fruit flies from evolving into a new form over long periods of time?

Lets look at what is needed for evolution to be true

1. An organism's makeup is defined by DNA

2. Variation can be introduced to DNA at time of reproduction

3. Population of organism able to interbreed or reproduce

4. DNA changes accumulate in that population over time.

All of that is easily observable in experiment. The only difference from micro or macro changes is the amount of time being examined. What process or limiting factor exists that allows cabbage to be breed into cauliflower but even if we observed it for a million years it would still remain cabbage and cauliflower?" - Whar
http://community.allhiphop.com/discussion/474161/anti-creationists-time-to-speak-your-clout/p13

 

[bambu]

Seems like you are attempting to move the goal posts.....

Again....

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related......

This is the debate at hand.....

Not variation.......

I posted the video of Dr. Venter because it illustrates that your best evolutionary biologist denies the idea that all life has a common ancestor......

So... none of your points addresses the reality that you have no evidence that all life on Earth originated through common descent from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago.......

That is the basis for this thread.....

A video was posted that illustrated that even evolutionary biology students and their professors could not provide this evidence......

And neither have you........

 

[LUClEN]

Evolution by natural selection does not state that life started at the same point, just highlight the mechanism for change.

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

DNA is universal in life. The same components that make up a human's DNA appear in a rodents or even a bacteria. Further the codons that code for a certain amino acid in a human will code for the same amino acid in other organisms.

DNA absolutely changes over time. Ageing is a breakdown of DNA in an individual while evolution involves the change of DNA within a population over time. DNA is simply not stable or static, or it is only very rarely in such a state.

This universality and malleability of DNA leads to basic fact of evolution, descent with modification. If you have a population that can take a single step down this evolutionary path like maltose-eating fruit flies, nylon consuming bacteria, or banana eating moths, all representing species that have undergone an evolutionary change, while continuing to thrive then what is stopping that 2nd or 3rd step of genetic change?

Your offer is sterility?

We would then need to see populations of organisms that are running into sterility and we would need to see it pretty often. Yet this does not happen. Endangered populations are under mostly environmental pressures they are not having sterility issues due to DNA changes.

Who wrote the code for your computer?

Computer code is mans attempt to mimic nature. Everything that man creates is an attempt to exploit natural boundaries. It all falls under the laws of the Universe.

So if computer coding needs intelligence in order for it's language/function/memory to be written thus mimicking "nature"; why would DNA, which is infinitely more complex than computer code, not need intelligence for it's code?

Where is the logical rationale?

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

Evolution by natural selection does not state that life started at the same point, just highlight the mechanism for change.

 

[LUClEN]

That's not Darwin's theory

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

That's not Darwin's theory

It goes hand in hand. stop playing semantics.

 

[whar]

Venter does not dispute common descent of living organisms from the perspective of Humans sharing a common ancestor with Chimps rather does all of life spring of one seed or from several sources. He is in the several sources camp.

Here is his quote from your video...

"Well, I think the tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren’t really holding up so the tree, you know—there may be a bush of life…[laugher, joking]…So there is not a tree of life. In fact from our deep sequencing of organisms in the ocean, out of now, we have about 60 million unique gene sets, we’ve found 12 that look like a very, very deep branching, perhaps fourth domain of life that obviously is extremely rare that it only shows up out of those few sequences. But it’s still DNA-based…we’re going to find the same molecules and the same base systems wherever we look."

You are misrepresenting this man's views.

 

[whar]

BTW if the debate is now about single common ancestor versus multiple ancestors then you are conceding that humans and chimp share a common ancestor? Since the argument Dawkins and Venter are having has to do with how life arose on the planet 3.5 billion years ago.

 

[bambu]

Venter does not dispute common descent of living organisms from the perspective of Humans sharing a common ancestor with Chimps rather does all of life spring of one seed or from several sources. He is in the several sources camp.

Here is his quote from your video...

"Well, I think the tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren’t really holding up so the tree, you know—there may be a bush of life…[laugher, joking]…So there is not a tree of life. In fact from our deep sequencing of organisms in the ocean, out of now, we have about 60 million unique gene sets, we’ve found 12 that look like a very, very deep branching, perhaps fourth domain of life that obviously is extremely rare that it only shows up out of those few sequences. But it’s still DNA-based…we’re going to find the same molecules and the same base systems wherever we look."

You are misrepresenting this man's views.

No you are.......

You cherry-picked the ass-end of the conversation.......

He said that,

"I'm not so sanguine as some of my colleagues here that there is one life form on this planet we have a lot of different types of metabolism different organisms.... I wouldn't call you the same life form as the one we have in lives that lives in ph 12 base that will dissolve your skin "

Interruption "But we have the same genetic code, We have a common ancestor"

Venter: "You don't have the same genetic code..... In fact... the mitoplasm uses a different genetic code that would not work in your cells"

Interruption: "You are not saying it comes from a different tree of life?"

Venter: "There is no tree of life"

Then came what you quoted......

 

[LUClEN]

That's not Darwin's theory

It goes hand in hand. stop playing semantics.

No it doesn't

Darwins origin of species does not rely on theories of abiogenesis

It can be true even if the latter is false

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

That's not Darwin's theory

It goes hand in hand. stop playing semantics.

No it doesn't

Darwins origin of species does not rely on theories of abiogenesis

It can be true even if the latter is false

Both theories go hand in hand my brother. They're both based on lies, speculation, and hot air. Neither can be true because both contradict the word of God.

See Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:26-27.

Amen.

 

[LUClEN]

Gods word is conjecture

we've seen speciation via hybridization and other means

If only one can be correct and evolution has been proven true your holy book is wrong

 

[Jabu_Rule]

DNA is universal in life. The same components that make up a human's DNA appear in a rodents or even a bacteria. Further the codons that code for a certain amino acid in a human will code for the same amino acid in other organisms.

DNA absolutely changes over time. Ageing is a breakdown of DNA in an individual while evolution involves the change of DNA within a population over time. DNA is simply not stable or static, or it is only very rarely in such a state.

This universality and malleability of DNA leads to basic fact of evolution, descent with modification. If you have a population that can take a single step down this evolutionary path like maltose-eating fruit flies, nylon consuming bacteria, or banana eating moths, all representing species that have undergone an evolutionary change, while continuing to thrive then what is stopping that 2nd or 3rd step of genetic change?

Your offer is sterility?

We would then need to see populations of organisms that are running into sterility and we would need to see it pretty often. Yet this does not happen. Endangered populations are under mostly environmental pressures they are not having sterility issues due to DNA changes.

Who wrote the code for your computer?

Computer code is mans attempt to mimic nature. Everything that man creates is an attempt to exploit natural boundaries. It all falls under the laws of the Universe.

So if computer coding needs intelligence in order for it's language/function/memory to be written thus mimicking "nature"; why would DNA, which is infinitely more complex than computer code, not need intelligence for it's code?

Where is the logical rationale?

What i'm saying is, the intelligence was gathered from nature. We mimicked nature and natural events and everything we do no matter how brilliant we think we are falls under the preview of nature. Computer code is barely more complex than DNA, and both are prone to errors. It all still follows the principals of the universe that we live in.

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

Gods word is conjecture

we've seen speciation via hybridization and other means

If only one can be correct and evolution has been proven true your holy book is wrong

The word of God is tried and true my friend! Not one jot or tittle will fail from the law and prophets till all be fulfilled my friend! Yes, the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever! Jesus Christ said that It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law my friend! The only thing filled with conjecture are the thoughts of the lost.



"The wicked shall see it, and be grieved; he shall gnash with his teeth, and melt away: the desire of the wicked shall perish." Psalm 112:10

Amen.

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

DNA is universal in life. The same components that make up a human's DNA appear in a rodents or even a bacteria. Further the codons that code for a certain amino acid in a human will code for the same amino acid in other organisms.

DNA absolutely changes over time. Ageing is a breakdown of DNA in an individual while evolution involves the change of DNA within a population over time. DNA is simply not stable or static, or it is only very rarely in such a state.

This universality and malleability of DNA leads to basic fact of evolution, descent with modification. If you have a population that can take a single step down this evolutionary path like maltose-eating fruit flies, nylon consuming bacteria, or banana eating moths, all representing species that have undergone an evolutionary change, while continuing to thrive then what is stopping that 2nd or 3rd step of genetic change?

Your offer is sterility?

We would then need to see populations of organisms that are running into sterility and we would need to see it pretty often. Yet this does not happen. Endangered populations are under mostly environmental pressures they are not having sterility issues due to DNA changes.

Who wrote the code for your computer?

Computer code is mans attempt to mimic nature. Everything that man creates is an attempt to exploit natural boundaries. It all falls under the laws of the Universe.

So if computer coding needs intelligence in order for it's language/function/memory to be written thus mimicking "nature"; why would DNA, which is infinitely more complex than computer code, not need intelligence for it's code?

Where is the logical rationale?

What i'm saying is, the intelligence was gathered from nature. We mimicked nature and natural events and everything we do no matter how brilliant we think we are falls under the preview of nature. Computer code is , and both are prone to errors. It all still follows the principals of the universe that we live in.

1. Is nature intelligent? Does it have a will? Does nature have emotion?

2. Computer code is not "barely more complex than DNA". Not even by a long shot my fiend. DNA is FAR MORE COMPLEX than computer code.

"In a general sense, a comparison can be drawn between DNA and the computer memory. Functions are stored in DNA similar to the way functions are stored in computer memory. Both DNA and computer memory have “home addresses” for each function. In many respects such an analogy is deficient, for example because DNA plays a role in the production of cells and because DNA, for "real-time" processing, first has to create copies of certain parts of a chain (RNA) which then are used for the real-time processing itself. Another example is the limited number of addresses (65.000) of the computer in the example, compared to the 220.000.000 gene pairs in the first chromosome of the human DNA alone! That means 3300 times as many addresses! And of course those gene pairs are far more complex and diverse than a memory address in a computer; altogether the base pairs in the human genome contain more than 23 billion DNA base pairs!"

See more at:http://www.allaboutcreation.org/dna-code.htm#sthash.kXdUEQd4.dpuf

3. Who made the principals of the universe? Who ordered everything that we see?

 

[Jabu_Rule]

DNA is universal in life. The same components that make up a human's DNA appear in a rodents or even a bacteria. Further the codons that code for a certain amino acid in a human will code for the same amino acid in other organisms.

DNA absolutely changes over time. Ageing is a breakdown of DNA in an individual while evolution involves the change of DNA within a population over time. DNA is simply not stable or static, or it is only very rarely in such a state.

This universality and malleability of DNA leads to basic fact of evolution, descent with modification. If you have a population that can take a single step down this evolutionary path like maltose-eating fruit flies, nylon consuming bacteria, or banana eating moths, all representing species that have undergone an evolutionary change, while continuing to thrive then what is stopping that 2nd or 3rd step of genetic change?

Your offer is sterility?

We would then need to see populations of organisms that are running into sterility and we would need to see it pretty often. Yet this does not happen. Endangered populations are under mostly environmental pressures they are not having sterility issues due to DNA changes.

Who wrote the code for your computer?

Computer code is mans attempt to mimic nature. Everything that man creates is an attempt to exploit natural boundaries. It all falls under the laws of the Universe.

So if computer coding needs intelligence in order for it's language/function/memory to be written thus mimicking "nature"; why would DNA, which is infinitely more complex than computer code, not need intelligence for it's code?

Where is the logical rationale?

What i'm saying is, the intelligence was gathered from nature. We mimicked nature and natural events and everything we do no matter how brilliant we think we are falls under the preview of nature. Computer code is , and both are prone to errors. It all still follows the principals of the universe that we live in.

1. Is nature intelligent? Does it have a will? Does nature have emotion?

2. Computer code is not "barely more complex than DNA". Not even by a long shot my fiend. DNA is FAR MORE COMPLEX than computer code.

"In a general sense, a comparison can be drawn between DNA and the computer memory. Functions are stored in DNA similar to the way functions are stored in computer memory. Both DNA and computer memory have “home addresses” for each function. In many respects such an analogy is deficient, for example because DNA plays a role in the production of cells and because DNA, for "real-time" processing, first has to create copies of certain parts of a chain (RNA) which then are used for the real-time processing itself. Another example is the limited number of addresses (65.000) of the computer in the example, compared to the 220.000.000 gene pairs in the first chromosome of the human DNA alone! That means 3300 times as many addresses! And of course those gene pairs are far more complex and diverse than a memory address in a computer; altogether the base pairs in the human genome contain more than 23 billion DNA base pairs!"

See more at:http://www.allaboutcreation.org/dna-code.htm#sthash.kXdUEQd4.dpuf

3. Who made the principals of the universe? Who ordered everything that we see?

Oh, i didn't mean to imply that the code that we write is more complex then dna. I will say that it is more efficient at many single task. But both as i've said has shown potential for failure that can lead to the failure of individual organisms so even with all it's complexity, it's not perfect. Regardless, measuring mans ability ti mimic what is already there isn't a good tool to measure what can be created from "scratch". Until, i see man create a universe with all of the elements and laws that we require for our science projects, then what you are showing is hubris. Still we actually are able to utilize dna for computer storage and produce new dna sequences, so our code is fairly complex comparative to where we started. It's is minuscule effort compared to the capabilities that it has and we are even looking beyond dna at atoms directly. Does those things existing denote intelligence previously? Well, that's an argument that you have settled on with little evidence while others choose to continue their investigation with the limited tools we have in comparison with the vastness of space time.