|
yes it would be pretty nice if you could make the observations, formulate the hyopothesis(es?), conduct the experiments and write the every theory ever instead of having to trust peer reviewed articles and accepted theories.
too bad you would probably die of old age before you made any significant progress, somewhere you just have to trust that the scientific community will present the most up to date model of the universe (or go forth and bravely do science yourself, find a more fitting theory). there will always be holes, but you do not scoff at the best because it isn't perfection.
|
On May 21 2009 06:38 CrimsonLotus wrote:
God guided evolution is a reasonable thing.
But creationism?, come on, no smart and educated adult could posibly believe we just appeared from thin air 6.000 years ago.
The theory of evolution has some holes, while creationism has none, basically because there is nothing that can have holes about it, there is no logic, reason or evidence behind creationism, just the sheer need to believe something out of tradition.
First. God guiding evolution isn't a "reasonable" thing to say because we have no EVIDENCE AT ALL of such a thing occurring. You can't apply something like that to science. Evolution is science. That is just fairytale fantasizing....
I'm not sitting here arguing for or against the existence of god. I'm simply stating the obviousness of the situation. God is irrelevant because we have no evidence for or against. The burden of proof on the existence of something which cannot be proven or disproven lies on those that believe. Just like if i believed that gravity was purple i would need some evidence or be told to STFU. The same should follow.
and to say that creationism doesn't have holes because there is no logic, reason, or evidence is like saying that black hole isn't there because we don't see it. Those are the holes. but you know this. I'm just rambling at this point.
|
On May 21 2009 06:38 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 05:43 Aegraen wrote:
You accept on faith that everything scientists do is infallible as referenced with your first rebuttal. This is the same as religion. Chromosomes come in pairs yo. Show nested quote +
The mutation has to have a purpose for it to proliferate throughout the species changing the previous DNA throughout the entirety of the population.
All of one species does not magically turn into another species, one mutation happens in one organism, who then passes his mutation on to multiple offspring who then pass on etc. Plus many mutations serve absolutely no purpose and get passed on regardless, till eventually they add up to finally provoke change in that organism. Show nested quote +
What function does the fused chromosome serve that created the need to change what was previously usable?
It doesn't have to. Mutations are random. Show nested quote +
That is to say; if mutations that serve no beneficial use, or indiscernable, then how does the genome, DNA, species and evolution in general pick and choose what to keep and what not to.
It doesn't. Show nested quote +
Yes, all mutations are random, the context within the sentence, meant it was a random (That meaning, directly serving no purpose) mutation, just so happened to be incorporated throughout the entirety of the species. How come, the previous gene was useless and facilitated the need for the new DNA?
I don't know what you mean by "entirety of the species" but mutations happen in one organism. Show nested quote +
You once again prove my 'religious zealotry of science' by saying how evolution is a fact, despite its many holes and unanswered questions. In fact evolution is a theory.
I know its cliché but "like the theory of gravity" Show nested quote +
I guess you don't get what religious science is; that is the blind faith in science akin to religion. It just means people use science as their religion. Blind faith in something with no philosophy is worse than blind faith in recognized religions that at least teach you morals, way of life, meaning, etc.
It isn't blind faith, its very much visible. Show nested quote +
Edit: Yes, I'm quite knowledgable in Biology, astrophysics, and quantum string theory etc. I do enjoy the occasional Dr. Michao Kaku (I know I butchered his name) reading. Continue on however, ad hominem attacks progress the conversation immensely.
Sick name drop yo.
For evolution to completely differentiate between species the less equipped have to die off. Genes are generally skipped a generation, therefore you will never have 100% speciation without some form of environmental isolation because sooner or later, the dominant gene will come out ahead. It's not just a, mate fuck fest, and the mutation is automatically passed to every successive generation. Thats not how the process works.
|
Norway28812 Posts
okay like
you have a bunch of random mutations that happen occasionally
some mutations are beneficial and improve the chance of procreation
these are more likely to result in permanent change
some mutations are negative and decrease the chance of procreation
these are less likely to result in permanent change..
|
Where did you learn biology? Where are you comming up with these things?
First of all, no one has to die off for evolution to occur. If the "lesser equiped" has to die off for the new species to exist, we would only have one species now.
and genes are skipped a generation? lol you are thinking of sex linked recessive traits. It doesnt matter for somatic chromosomes.
|
On May 21 2009 06:47 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 06:38 seppolevne wrote:On May 21 2009 05:43 Aegraen wrote:
You accept on faith that everything scientists do is infallible as referenced with your first rebuttal. This is the same as religion. Chromosomes come in pairs yo.
The mutation has to have a purpose for it to proliferate throughout the species changing the previous DNA throughout the entirety of the population.
All of one species does not magically turn into another species, one mutation happens in one organism, who then passes his mutation on to multiple offspring who then pass on etc. Plus many mutations serve absolutely no purpose and get passed on regardless, till eventually they add up to finally provoke change in that organism.
What function does the fused chromosome serve that created the need to change what was previously usable?
It doesn't have to. Mutations are random.
That is to say; if mutations that serve no beneficial use, or indiscernable, then how does the genome, DNA, species and evolution in general pick and choose what to keep and what not to.
It doesn't.
Yes, all mutations are random, the context within the sentence, meant it was a random (That meaning, directly serving no purpose) mutation, just so happened to be incorporated throughout the entirety of the species. How come, the previous gene was useless and facilitated the need for the new DNA?
I don't know what you mean by "entirety of the species" but mutations happen in one organism.
You once again prove my 'religious zealotry of science' by saying how evolution is a fact, despite its many holes and unanswered questions. In fact evolution is a theory.
I know its cliché but "like the theory of gravity"
I guess you don't get what religious science is; that is the blind faith in science akin to religion. It just means people use science as their religion. Blind faith in something with no philosophy is worse than blind faith in recognized religions that at least teach you morals, way of life, meaning, etc.
It isn't blind faith, its very much visible.
Edit: Yes, I'm quite knowledgable in Biology, astrophysics, and quantum string theory etc. I do enjoy the occasional Dr. Michao Kaku (I know I butchered his name) reading. Continue on however, ad hominem attacks progress the conversation immensely.
Sick name drop yo. For evolution to completely differentiate between species the less equipped have to die off. Genes are generally skipped a generation, therefore you will never have 100% speciation without some form of environmental isolation because sooner or later, the dominant gene will come out ahead. It's not just a, mate fuck fest, and the mutation is automatically passed to every successive generation. Thats not how the process works.
..............................................
For one. 50% of the genes from each parent are passed on. The % of each parent's genes and the total genes displayed is not 100% Yes. That genes "generally" skip a generation is almost a comical statement in my opinion. Genes can't "SKIP" generations.. They can get passed on and remain dormant. Totally different things.
And At many points in history numerous types of homo X species has lived simultaneously. It's not even about single genes coming out ahead, it's about the overall system coming out ahead. There is such a ridiculously large number of genes and evolution has occured over such a ridulously long amount of time. You are simply oversimplifying and ignoring the obvious massive scope of the situation.
+ Show Spoiler +
...
|
On May 21 2009 06:47 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 06:38 seppolevne wrote:On May 21 2009 05:43 Aegraen wrote:
You accept on faith that everything scientists do is infallible as referenced with your first rebuttal. This is the same as religion. Chromosomes come in pairs yo.
The mutation has to have a purpose for it to proliferate throughout the species changing the previous DNA throughout the entirety of the population.
All of one species does not magically turn into another species, one mutation happens in one organism, who then passes his mutation on to multiple offspring who then pass on etc. Plus many mutations serve absolutely no purpose and get passed on regardless, till eventually they add up to finally provoke change in that organism.
What function does the fused chromosome serve that created the need to change what was previously usable?
It doesn't have to. Mutations are random.
That is to say; if mutations that serve no beneficial use, or indiscernable, then how does the genome, DNA, species and evolution in general pick and choose what to keep and what not to.
It doesn't.
Yes, all mutations are random, the context within the sentence, meant it was a random (That meaning, directly serving no purpose) mutation, just so happened to be incorporated throughout the entirety of the species. How come, the previous gene was useless and facilitated the need for the new DNA?
I don't know what you mean by "entirety of the species" but mutations happen in one organism.
You once again prove my 'religious zealotry of science' by saying how evolution is a fact, despite its many holes and unanswered questions. In fact evolution is a theory.
I know its cliché but "like the theory of gravity"
I guess you don't get what religious science is; that is the blind faith in science akin to religion. It just means people use science as their religion. Blind faith in something with no philosophy is worse than blind faith in recognized religions that at least teach you morals, way of life, meaning, etc.
It isn't blind faith, its very much visible.
Edit: Yes, I'm quite knowledgable in Biology, astrophysics, and quantum string theory etc. I do enjoy the occasional Dr. Michao Kaku (I know I butchered his name) reading. Continue on however, ad hominem attacks progress the conversation immensely.
Sick name drop yo. For evolution to completely differentiate between species the less equipped have to die off. Genes are generally skipped a generation, therefore you will never have 100% speciation without some form of environmental isolation because sooner or later, the dominant gene will come out ahead. It's not just a, mate fuck fest, and the mutation is automatically passed to every successive generation. Thats not how the process works.
Holy shit duh. But with a 25%(lol Mendellian genetics - it's a good approximation.) transfer chance x number of kids, shit's gonna get it. Then they fuck amongst themselves and increase transfer chance etc. etc.
And the "less equipped" don't have to die off, they just fuck each other and make "less equipped" babies who become a different species from the "better off" crew.
|
United States2916 Posts
I can not stand how poorly worded and often inaccurate popular science articles are. Its really ridiculous how much dis-information and retardation is passed on.
edit: oh dear, then i read this thread. back to my work...
|
a breakthrough that could finally confirm Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
I found this amusing. It's impossible to "confirm" a scientific theory, even a straightforward one like universal gravitation, without having complete and accurate data for everything, everywhere, at all times. Scientific theories are true until data surfaces that conflicts with the theory and/or a theory that better explains phenomena becomes widely accepted. Evolution is just the current theory, much like universal gravitation was from its acceptance until ~100 years ago. I don't say this to discredit evolution, just to point out that this fossil doesn't prove or confirm evolution any more than a high school physics experiment confirms gravitation.
|
On May 21 2009 04:38 Diomedes wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 01:12 irishash wrote:
sorry, wrong.
edit: just so i don't look a COMPLETE asshole, the reason i say it's not confirmed is the simple fact that two of our chromosomes from chimps are fused together (2 + 3), which is theoretically impossible (in science as "we" currently understand) for that to happen in the small time period it happened to us in, for evolution itself to do so, it would need much much more time. so now the question is... what fused the chromosomes? or what caused a change in something that evolution was sped up millionfold and then almost halted after humans come about The fact that we have 46 chromosomes while all the other great apes have 48 that means one pair has fused. And it can happen in one generation while we had like 5 million years to do it. Then we looked and compared and tried to find which pair of chromosomes was fused. If we couldn't figure out which chromosome it was, evolution would be wrong. We know that with telomeres we can figure out which chromosome has fused. Our chromosome no.2 is the fused one. We know it fused at base pair 114,450,823 to 114,455,838. It has both centromere no.2 and the centromere no.13 in chimps/bonobos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly.
|
On May 21 2009 07:11 irishash wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 04:38 Diomedes wrote:On May 21 2009 01:12 irishash wrote:
sorry, wrong.
edit: just so i don't look a COMPLETE asshole, the reason i say it's not confirmed is the simple fact that two of our chromosomes from chimps are fused together (2 + 3), which is theoretically impossible (in science as "we" currently understand) for that to happen in the small time period it happened to us in, for evolution itself to do so, it would need much much more time. so now the question is... what fused the chromosomes? or what caused a change in something that evolution was sped up millionfold and then almost halted after humans come about The fact that we have 46 chromosomes while all the other great apes have 48 that means one pair has fused. And it can happen in one generation while we had like 5 million years to do it. Then we looked and compared and tried to find which pair of chromosomes was fused. If we couldn't figure out which chromosome it was, evolution would be wrong. We know that with telomeres we can figure out which chromosome has fused. Our chromosome no.2 is the fused one. We know it fused at base pair 114,450,823 to 114,455,838. It has both centromere no.2 and the centromere no.13 in chimps/bonobos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human) i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly.
is there something about two chromosomes fusing together that requires several generations? is the fusion of two chromosones not a singular mutation?
|
On May 21 2009 07:11 irishash wrote:
i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible.
So it's impossible. Or are you implying you think humans evolved 100 miljion years ago rather than 4? I don't get it.
...and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places.
I don't even know what you mean by this but this is very suspect of a very big misunderstanding of genetics.
this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time
It takes the time of one cell division.
I suggest you reread my post and explain to me why you got all this totally backwards. Because either you didn't even read my post or you just ignored it outright. I think this is pretty amazing to use the clearest proof for evolution against it.
Also, you claim scientists think this. Please provide a reference.
jeppew, the guy is almost certainly an unknowing victim of creationist propaganda if you ask me. You are totally right.
|
On May 21 2009 07:11 irishash wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 04:38 Diomedes wrote:On May 21 2009 01:12 irishash wrote:
sorry, wrong.
edit: just so i don't look a COMPLETE asshole, the reason i say it's not confirmed is the simple fact that two of our chromosomes from chimps are fused together (2 + 3), which is theoretically impossible (in science as "we" currently understand) for that to happen in the small time period it happened to us in, for evolution itself to do so, it would need much much more time. so now the question is... what fused the chromosomes? or what caused a change in something that evolution was sped up millionfold and then almost halted after humans come about The fact that we have 46 chromosomes while all the other great apes have 48 that means one pair has fused. And it can happen in one generation while we had like 5 million years to do it. Then we looked and compared and tried to find which pair of chromosomes was fused. If we couldn't figure out which chromosome it was, evolution would be wrong. We know that with telomeres we can figure out which chromosome has fused. Our chromosome no.2 is the fused one. We know it fused at base pair 114,450,823 to 114,455,838. It has both centromere no.2 and the centromere no.13 in chimps/bonobos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human) i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly.
Evolution doesn't NEED anything. And why can't it happen in one generation?
|
United States44074 Posts
On May 20 2009 21:23 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2009 21:12 Mah Buckit! wrote:On May 20 2009 20:49 Aegraen wrote:On May 20 2009 20:16 Meta wrote:On May 20 2009 20:07 Aegraen wrote:On May 20 2009 20:02 404.Nintu wrote:
@OP.
This doesn't fuck over creationists, just sorta gives young-earth creationists a rough time. This doesn't actually do much to dissuade creationists. Evolution is not against Religion. I don't know why some people relate it to that, but I guess that has to do with the hardcore fundamentals. Most christians acknowledge evolution, however, evolution in no way shape or form can disprove 'God', nor can science, because face it, there are things we will never understand, and even by understanding the laws of the universe / nature, it still doesn't mean that god didn't create those laws. Saying this though, I lean more agnostic. Doesn't matter if he exists or not, but you can't disprove or prove it's existence. Sure, it doesn't disprove God, but it does disprove a lot of what those books that tell us God exists also tell us about how we came to be. True, but the bible is not to be taken in a literal sense. Interpretations of events foretold in the bible should be taken metaphorically, or in a scientific perspective (Such as moses 'parting the red sea', he actually didn't, but that event did take place due to natural occuring thing called Tides and with the reeds/sandbar; anyways, with that knowledge he led the jews to safety while the 'ignorant' egyptians were drowned due to the tide coming back in), so while yes, Evolution sets to disprove adam and eve, thats about all it does. Who says the bible is not meant to be taken literally? Maybe it is but of course nowadays we all know it´s the most complete bullshit ever. Metaphorically. hmm... You mean homosexuality and eating oysters is disgusting, for example, has some metaphorical meaning? Dude we are talking about people who lived few thousand years ago. Do you really think they ment things like that to be taken as metaphors? I´m not saying there isn´t any metaphors: thats what most religions are all about, teachings, rules and advice hidden in riddles and stuff. But Christianity has always been a mass religion so the majority was never accustomed to the hidden teachings. So that´s why still even today most people know about Christianitys metaphors the wine and bread thing which isn´t that much afterall. Still the bible has always kept it´s form altough we know much of it´s stuff is wrong or something we today can´t agree with. This is the cause for idiots like creationists and fundamentalists. Too big religious community can´t interpret the stuff in the book whereas religions like the ones Europe used to have had always important knowledge in their riddles and songs. Knowing the true meaning people could always replace old and wrong stuff with new. This is something todays mass religions don´t and can´t have because of the sheer size of religious communities, it takes time to get to know these kind of things. And that´s why todays mass religions have people so anti-change like Christianity has been the last 1800 years. Are you aware that many events that took place in the bible actually happened, though without the 'supernatural' prose that the authors embellished? This is why the bible is not to be taken literally, because the authors at the time did not have the knowledge to adequately explain what they were seeing. Religious scholars tend to agree on this point. Homosexuality during the roman times was lavished by the romans. It's no wonder (the christians who despised the romans) they would hate all that is associated with them (Why Jesus is a pauper, in contrast to lavish romans and their lifestyle). Sure, there are some out there stuff, like god creating the world in 7 days and adam and eve, and jonah, etc., but most is documented events that occured during the times of the romans (you just have to decipher the prose with scientific knowledge and archaelogical proof).
The Bible as it is today was compiled by Roman bishops. It's anything but anti-Roman, it's as pro-establishment as you can get. Even the whole Christ being crucified by the Roman authorities is blamed on Jews (Romans hated the Jews because they refused to merge into the Roman superculture (Jewish belief that there is one God and that they are the chosen people of that God)). A major Jewish rebellion undermined the most successful Roman invasion of the Selucid Persian Empire and led to the retribution in which the Jewish state was destroyed and the Jews spread through Europe. Also Jesus spent most of his life as a craftsman, a solid Roman job.
Maybe the gospels before the first Bible were anti-Roman, maybe they weren't. We don't know though because they've been sealed in the Vatican archives for the past 1700 years. All we know is the what the gospels that were selected to form the Bible say and that was after the Romanisation of the religion.
|
On May 21 2009 07:11 irishash wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 04:38 Diomedes wrote:On May 21 2009 01:12 irishash wrote:
sorry, wrong.
edit: just so i don't look a COMPLETE asshole, the reason i say it's not confirmed is the simple fact that two of our chromosomes from chimps are fused together (2 + 3), which is theoretically impossible (in science as "we" currently understand) for that to happen in the small time period it happened to us in, for evolution itself to do so, it would need much much more time. so now the question is... what fused the chromosomes? or what caused a change in something that evolution was sped up millionfold and then almost halted after humans come about The fact that we have 46 chromosomes while all the other great apes have 48 that means one pair has fused. And it can happen in one generation while we had like 5 million years to do it. Then we looked and compared and tried to find which pair of chromosomes was fused. If we couldn't figure out which chromosome it was, evolution would be wrong. We know that with telomeres we can figure out which chromosome has fused. Our chromosome no.2 is the fused one. We know it fused at base pair 114,450,823 to 114,455,838. It has both centromere no.2 and the centromere no.13 in chimps/bonobos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human) i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly.
You make statements yet don't provide any supporting evidence other than your word. And since your arguing to prove a point and such information would help your point if it aligned with your view. I can only assume it doesn't, or that you do not know the information.
You say that the fusing of a pair of chromosomes is possible but it couldn't happen in such a short period of time. Yet you do not provide how short of a time you are talking about or any other evidence. Yet we know it did happen, and I'm sure there is a sufficient timeline and knowledge of the subject. If this is really an issue I could dig through a book and cite some information. I however think this is futile and irrelevant to the theory.
However, I think that's all irrelevant and I'm not going to argue it because it's trivial in the theory of evolution, and your further statements provide evidence that your understanding is lacking.
If you knew anything about evolution you would know that it would be impossible for life to "adapt quickly" What would happen would be that most would die and few would be left. This is not adapting quickly this is weeding out. Nothing happens quickly in evolution.
The real question is why do you think it matters that we have 2 less chromosomes? It doesn't. It's just more evidence for evolution. Where is the problem?
|
On May 21 2009 07:31 Motiva wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 07:11 irishash wrote:On May 21 2009 04:38 Diomedes wrote:On May 21 2009 01:12 irishash wrote:
sorry, wrong.
edit: just so i don't look a COMPLETE asshole, the reason i say it's not confirmed is the simple fact that two of our chromosomes from chimps are fused together (2 + 3), which is theoretically impossible (in science as "we" currently understand) for that to happen in the small time period it happened to us in, for evolution itself to do so, it would need much much more time. so now the question is... what fused the chromosomes? or what caused a change in something that evolution was sped up millionfold and then almost halted after humans come about The fact that we have 46 chromosomes while all the other great apes have 48 that means one pair has fused. And it can happen in one generation while we had like 5 million years to do it. Then we looked and compared and tried to find which pair of chromosomes was fused. If we couldn't figure out which chromosome it was, evolution would be wrong. We know that with telomeres we can figure out which chromosome has fused. Our chromosome no.2 is the fused one. We know it fused at base pair 114,450,823 to 114,455,838. It has both centromere no.2 and the centromere no.13 in chimps/bonobos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human) i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly. You make statements yet don't provide any supporting evidence other than your word. And since your arguing to prove a point and such information would help your point if it aligned with your view. I can only assume it doesn't, or that you do not know the information. You say that the fusing of a pair of chromosomes is possible but it couldn't happen in such a short period of time. Yet you do not provide how short of a time you are talking about or any other evidence. Yet we know it did happen, and I'm sure there is a sufficient timeline and knowledge of the subject. If this is really an issue I could dig through a book and cite some information. I however think this is futile and irrelevant to the theory. However, I think that's all irrelevant and I'm not going to argue it because it's trivial in the theory of evolution, and your further statements provide evidence that your understanding is lacking. If you knew anything about evolution you would know that it would be impossible for life to "adapt quickly" What would happen would be that most would die and few would be left. This is not adapting quickly this is weeding out. Nothing happens quickly in evolution. The real question is why do you think it matters that we have 2 less chromosomes? It doesn't. It's just more evidence for evolution. Where is the problem?
lol oh ok. sorry sir.
|
On May 21 2009 07:19 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 07:11 irishash wrote:On May 21 2009 04:38 Diomedes wrote:On May 21 2009 01:12 irishash wrote:
sorry, wrong.
edit: just so i don't look a COMPLETE asshole, the reason i say it's not confirmed is the simple fact that two of our chromosomes from chimps are fused together (2 + 3), which is theoretically impossible (in science as "we" currently understand) for that to happen in the small time period it happened to us in, for evolution itself to do so, it would need much much more time. so now the question is... what fused the chromosomes? or what caused a change in something that evolution was sped up millionfold and then almost halted after humans come about The fact that we have 46 chromosomes while all the other great apes have 48 that means one pair has fused. And it can happen in one generation while we had like 5 million years to do it. Then we looked and compared and tried to find which pair of chromosomes was fused. If we couldn't figure out which chromosome it was, evolution would be wrong. We know that with telomeres we can figure out which chromosome has fused. Our chromosome no.2 is the fused one. We know it fused at base pair 114,450,823 to 114,455,838. It has both centromere no.2 and the centromere no.13 in chimps/bonobos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human) i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly. Evolution doesn't NEED anything. And why can't it happen in one generation?
A mutation can occur in one generation, but evolution can never happen in one generation. Evolution takes a long time to occur.
|
As a christian I am offended and plan to remind these so called Scientists that they will be burn in hell for the arrogance, as well as their worship of such a pagan idea.
|
On May 21 2009 07:34 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 07:19 seppolevne wrote:On May 21 2009 07:11 irishash wrote:On May 21 2009 04:38 Diomedes wrote:On May 21 2009 01:12 irishash wrote:
sorry, wrong.
edit: just so i don't look a COMPLETE asshole, the reason i say it's not confirmed is the simple fact that two of our chromosomes from chimps are fused together (2 + 3), which is theoretically impossible (in science as "we" currently understand) for that to happen in the small time period it happened to us in, for evolution itself to do so, it would need much much more time. so now the question is... what fused the chromosomes? or what caused a change in something that evolution was sped up millionfold and then almost halted after humans come about The fact that we have 46 chromosomes while all the other great apes have 48 that means one pair has fused. And it can happen in one generation while we had like 5 million years to do it. Then we looked and compared and tried to find which pair of chromosomes was fused. If we couldn't figure out which chromosome it was, evolution would be wrong. We know that with telomeres we can figure out which chromosome has fused. Our chromosome no.2 is the fused one. We know it fused at base pair 114,450,823 to 114,455,838. It has both centromere no.2 and the centromere no.13 in chimps/bonobos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human) i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly. Evolution doesn't NEED anything. And why can't it happen in one generation? A mutation can occur in one generation, but evolution can never happen in one generation. Evolution takes a long time to occur.
What do you think evolution is? Evolution is mutation occuring in 1 generation and then getting passed on for many generations. It's cumulative Change. Single Step by Single Step. So you are then arguing that evolution is not cumulative change occurring step by step?
|
On May 21 2009 07:34 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 07:19 seppolevne wrote:On May 21 2009 07:11 irishash wrote:On May 21 2009 04:38 Diomedes wrote:On May 21 2009 01:12 irishash wrote:
sorry, wrong.
edit: just so i don't look a COMPLETE asshole, the reason i say it's not confirmed is the simple fact that two of our chromosomes from chimps are fused together (2 + 3), which is theoretically impossible (in science as "we" currently understand) for that to happen in the small time period it happened to us in, for evolution itself to do so, it would need much much more time. so now the question is... what fused the chromosomes? or what caused a change in something that evolution was sped up millionfold and then almost halted after humans come about The fact that we have 46 chromosomes while all the other great apes have 48 that means one pair has fused. And it can happen in one generation while we had like 5 million years to do it. Then we looked and compared and tried to find which pair of chromosomes was fused. If we couldn't figure out which chromosome it was, evolution would be wrong. We know that with telomeres we can figure out which chromosome has fused. Our chromosome no.2 is the fused one. We know it fused at base pair 114,450,823 to 114,455,838. It has both centromere no.2 and the centromere no.13 in chimps/bonobos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human) i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly. Evolution doesn't NEED anything. And why can't it happen in one generation? A mutation can occur in one generation, but evolution can never happen in one generation. Evolution takes a long time to occur.
Uhhhh..... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/timeline.jpg)
