Evidence for theory of Evolution V2

[trac209]

If evolution is real then why are bananas so perfectly designed for our consumption? Do you think having a wrapper, fitting our hand, and being perfectly sized for a snack are quality evolutionary traits?

Didn’t Kirk Cameron come up with that one?

 

[hillelslovak87]

Didn’t Kirk Cameron come up with that one?

Someone needed to tell these people about bananas and selective breeding.

 

[ShadBo]

@TheComebackKid is doing his best Michael Behe.

 

[hillelslovak87]

@TheComebackKid is doing his best Michael Behe.

I remember the transcript (which I have been unable to find yet) from the court case. Good god. The judge SAVAGED Behe.

 

[ShadBo]

I remember the transcript (which I have been unable to find yet) from the court case. Good god. The judge SAVAGED Behe.

Behe was a legitimate scientist before he shed his last ounce of integrity and started peddling what he absolutely 100% knows is bullshit.

It's amazing how quickly people can give up on their principles when you throw religion into the mix.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

A good evidence sometimes not so really easy to get not to many people educated in subjects I am for evolution but that is not mean I am expert on matter but others just say no because evolution is bad and darwin is a consort of evil leader but people of those class don't know expert either so for any questions about evolution better ask the real experts.

If we came from fish then what did reptilians come from?

 

[Grenz]

@jgarner @Fawlty there is absolutely no point in discussing evolution with @TheComebackKid

Last time I went down that rabbit hole, I went so far as to get my wife involved. She holds a PHD in human genetics from one of Canada's Ivy League school equivalents. He found her argumentation "unconvincing" and later told me "to step up my game".

All you're going to get is a bunch of pseudo scientific concepts like "macro evolution" and "kinds".

 

[ShadBo]

@jgarner @Fawlty there is absolutely no point in discussing evolution with @TheComebackKid

Last time I went down that rabbit hole, I went so far as to get my wife involved. She holds a PHD in human genetics from one of Canada's Ivy League school equivalents. He found her argumentation "unconvincing" and later told me "to step up my game".

All you're going to get is a bunch of pseudo scientific concepts like "macro evolution" and "kinds".

TCK has been playing this game for years. The best we can hope for is that a handful of lurkers have read these threads and had a chance to see what the argument looks like.

It would be amazing to have your wife share a little more with us.

 

[Grenz]

TCK has been playing this game for years. The best we can hope for is that a handful of lurkers have read these threads and had a chance to see what the argument looks like.

It would be amazing to have your wife give us a little more insight.

Here's one of the replies she wrote. This was in response to the assertion that the first living organism had to contain all the genetic information present today:

The reason the first living organism didn't have to contain all of the information to code for all organisms ever created is somewhat similar (but not completely analogous) to the reason the first computer code didn't have to contain all of the information for all programs ever created. The first code just exerted a certain function. Over time, humans added more code, took some out, changed certain sequences, and evolved the code into the many different programs that we have today. So today we have vastly different 'organisms' like Windwos, iOS, or Linux, but they all had the same beginning. The difference is that living organisms all had to be able to replicate themselves onto the next generation, and evolution occurred through natural selection from each organism fighting to survive and pass its DNA code onto the next generation. In the case of computer code, humans evolve the code, and just like with living organisms, the bad code dies out and people stop using it, whereas code that is really useful will get used in more and more programs while acquiring different changes to suit the different programs it's running.

So the only thing the first living organism (and all of it's subsequent progeny) had to be able to do is propagate itself. This means that it had to replicate its DNA code for synthesis of the organism and pass it onto the next generation, and so on. but the replication machinery is not a perfect mechanism and mistakes in the code can arise, which is how evolution occurs. These mistakes in the code can be tiny, of just a single or few DNA molecules, or they can be very large where big segments of DNA are added in or taken out. DNA from infectious organisms, such as viruses, can also get incorporated. Some of these changes are of no consequence and the organism just keeps on living and the changes in the DNA get carried to the next generation, but they serve no function. Sometimes the changes have huge consequences and prevent the organism from producing the next generation. And other times the changes are advantageous and the progeny of the organism get to survive for longer, or have some sort of advantage over other organisms in their environment. because of natural selection these organisms are more likely to survive and pass on their mutated code to the next generation, while the ones that don't have the advantage die out.

It's really important to understand that the DNA change has to occur in the cells that are producing the next generation. For example in a multicelled, sexually reproducing organism like humans, the DNA change has to occur in the sperm or the egg, because that's the only way the change in the code will get passed onto the next generation. So if, for example, somehow a male gets a DNA mutation in his body that allows his muscles to grow really big when he eats spinach (and he didn't inherit this ability from his parents), unless this DNA mutation is also in his sperm, his children will not have the same ability, and this code for growing big muscles by eating spinach will die with him.

 

[Fawlty]

@jgarner @Fawlty there is absolutely no point in discussing evolution with @TheComebackKid

Last time I went down that rabbit hole, I went so far as to get my wife involved. She holds a PHD in human genetics from one of Canada's Ivy League school equivalents. He found her argumentation "unconvincing" and later told me "to step up my game".

All you're going to get is a bunch of pseudo scientific concepts like "macro evolution" and "kinds".

LOL. He's impervious to expertise. @UpaLoompa (dochter) has good credentials and his arguments w/TCK went the same way. I thought I had him cornered with malaria/sickle cell but he managed to wiggle out of that with some absurd argument about how the mutations are not "beneficial" which means they are not evolution (I am most definitely not an expert though).

 

[Grenz]

LOL. He's impervious to expertise. @UpaLoompa (dochter) has good credentials and his arguments w/TCK went the same way. I thought I had him cornered with malaria/sickle cell but he managed to wiggle out of that with some absurd argument about how the mutations are not "beneficial" which means they are not evolution (I am most definitely not an expert though).

Yep, sounds familiar. Here's what she had to say about that:

Of course it seems like every time we see a change it seems like it's something not desirable. Most changes that occur will not be desirable. The code to generate a human is very complex, and just like when you change a letter in computer code, you will most likely mess something up than improve it, if you change a letter in the DNA code, something is more likely to get messed up than it is to be improved. Luckily, the error rate of DNA during replication is actually extremely small, so these bad changes don't actually occur very frequently. And even more rarely this random change in the code will have an advantageous function in the organism. When humans migrated to Europe at one point a human had a change in their DNA which allowed them to digest lactose from mammals as an adult. This is an example of an advantageous change that had a huge impact in the ability of the humans carrying this mutation to get enough food to survival to their reproductive age and pass the mutation on to the next generation. Whereas the humans that couldn't digest lactose may have survived to their reproductive age in smaller numbers because they didn't have enough food due to the harsh conditions of their environment.

Any change in DNA is not intrinsically desirable or undesirable. It's only the environment that the organism is in that determines whether that change will be advantageous or not. If it is, more of organisms with that change will survive and reproduce, if it isn't there will be no effect, or the organisms with that change will die out. The mutation to digest lactose may have arisen in other areas of the world too, like near the equator let's say, but it might not have made any difference there because there was plenty of all kinds of food for everyone, so there was no selective advantage of having this mutation. So it wouldn't be so prominently noticed, just like some people have blue eyes, others brown, others green. There's no selective advantage for any colour, so it just gets carried along in the population.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Behe was a legitimate scientist before he shed his last ounce of integrity and started peddling what he absolutely 100% knows is bullshit.

It's amazing how quickly people can give up on their principles when you throw religion into the mix.

Behe is a great example of intellectual cowardice and dishonesty. an unbelievable piece of shit who would have America slip back hundreds of years in our understanding of science.

 

[DoomPatrol]

Someone needed to tell these people about bananas and selective breeding.

That video cracks me up. Bananas were intelligently designed.... By humans about about 10,000 years ago.

This is what wild bananas should look like.

Behold! An atheists nightmare!!! The wild banana!

 

[hillelslovak87]

That video cracks me up. Bananas were intelligently designed.... By humans about about 10,000 years ago.

This is what wild bananas should look like.

Behold! An atheists nightmare!!! The wild banana!

Something a 10 second google search could have solved for those idiots. What's next, apples are meant for humans because I can shove one up my butthole? I mean, what dullards.

 

[DoomPatrol]

Something a 10 second google search could have solved for those idiots. What's next, apples are meant for humans because I can shove one up my butthole? I mean, what dullards.

You can shove an apple up there?

 

[hillelslovak87]

You can shove an apple up there?

Well, yeah, didn't you read your bible?

 

[DoomPatrol]

Well, yeah, didn't you read your bible?

I seemed to have forgotten that chapter!

 

[hillelslovak87]

I seemed to have forgotten that chapter!

I believe it's sandwiched between King Solomon wanting to cut a baby in half, and his "games" with his 700 wives.

 

[hillelslovak87]

@jgarner @Fawlty there is absolutely no point in discussing evolution with @TheComebackKid

Last time I went down that rabbit hole, I went so far as to get my wife involved. She holds a PHD in human genetics from one of Canada's Ivy League school equivalents. He found her argumentation "unconvincing" and later told me "to step up my game".

All you're going to get is a bunch of pseudo scientific concepts like "macro evolution" and "kinds".

Yeah yeah yeah. Call me back when you find a transitional fossil. Our side has rabbit foot prints in coal measures!! Yeah!!!

 

[M3t4tr0n]

This thread is full of fishboys imo