Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[Il Palazzo]

To say one does believe in "microevolution" but doesn't in "macroevoultion"(as if these were somehow different things) is akin to saying one believes in continental drift but doesn't believe one continent could become another.
Or, that languages change, but one can't become another. Or that erosion works, but it can't change one type of terrain into another.

These are the same things, the same mechanisms, only one category is extrapolated over a longer period of time than the other. Asking for short-term observational evidence of a change over long-term interval is oxymoronic.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

And when I said adding/subtracting chromosomes I meant in a way that turns the entire species into something complexly different, i.e. ameboa into a fish or fish into an amphibian or amphibian into mammal etc etc

First google result has an explanation of how the number of chromosomes can change. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/

Also, I suspect you might have an odd understanding of evolution based on the use of the term "entire species".

That link answered a few questions

But it didn't say anything on the creature itself having children that were entirely different from it

I have a basic understanding of that kind of stuff, I've taken biology and biotech and they taught heavily on it.
But I still don't get how something like and ameboa can add more information to itself
That link just said adding chromosomes in that sense was just splitting up the info
But I meant adding chromosomes as in adding entirely new information to the pot and not sitting it up

To say one does believe in "microevolution" but doesn't in "macroevoultion"(as if these were somehow different things) is akin to saying one believes in continental drift but doesn't believe one continent could become another.
Or, that languages change, but one can't become another. Or that erosion works, but it can't change one type of terrain into another.

These are the same things, the same mechanisms, only one category is extrapolated over a longer period of time than the other. Asking for short-term observational evidence of a change over long-term interval is oxymoronic.

I'm just going to say this (and I'm quoting my biology teacher here),"The only way to prove evolution is true is by observing it from the start to the finish, so either A) we would have to build a time machine, go back, and watch it happen. Or B) find a life bearing planet and observe it evolve"

We have observed erosion on both ends of the spectrum

I'm have no opinion on continental drift so I'm not commenting on that


As for evolution
We have observed animals create small changes but we have yet (to my knowledge, and note I wasn't able to look at those links earlier so just keep that in mind) to observe something changing entirely
I'm pretty sure we haven't witnessed a single celled organism evolve and become multicellular
Or a fish evolve the ability to breath and walk on land
Or a lizard evolve into being warm blooded
And the list can go on

[TD1]

Evolution:Believable and supported by empirical evidence, as as thus been found.

Creation:Believable to a believer, no one else.


One is more likely. I know which I'd choose

[Frumple]

But it didn't say anything on the creature itself having children that were entirely different from it

... because evolution doesn't work like that. At all. Physiological/genetic shifts that radical are something that would take divine interference to produce, generally.

As for the single celled into multicellular. Most of that other stuff occurs on time scales we really haven't been around long enough to track, yet. We're fairly close (as in a few centuries, on the outside) to being able to artificially induce that sort of thing, though.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Am I wrong on the fact that evolution does involve new information (DNA) having to be added to the creatures cells?

[Arx]

As I understand it, every time something reproduces (be it a cell by mitosis or an organism by meiosis) there is a chance of something going 'wrong' and the DNA being different in a relatively drastic way, i.e. being mutated. Over however many generations, the original creatures' DNA can be totally changed, including the addition of new information, yes.

[cerapa]

Am I wrong on the fact that evolution does involve new information (DNA) having to be added to the creatures cells?

Yes, you are wrong. There is no need for a longer DNA chain for changes to occur.
Not that it's relevant in any way. DNA length varies a great deal without any ill effects on the organism in question.

Besides, I don't quite understand the "new information" bit there. There's a ton of crap in your DNA, most of it useless. There is no information being added, just stuff that pops up and stays because it offers some advantage or did at some point.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm just going to say this (and I'm quoting my biology teacher here),"The only way to prove evolution is true is by observing it from the start to the finish, so either A) we would have to build a time machine, go back, and watch it happen. Or B) find a life bearing planet and observe it evolve"

Your biology teacher is an idiot. It is entirely possible to infer events that happened in other periods of time from knowledge gained in your period of time. This is possible because the universe functions on reliable and generally consistent laws of physics. Evolution is proven as far as anything can be truly proven. Every biological advancement in knowledge we have made since evolutionary biology became a stable field has fit the mold of evolution perfectly: not just being plausible within it, but actually reinforcing its structure.

As I understand it, every time something reproduces (be it a cell by mitosis or an organism by meiosis) there is a chance of something going 'wrong' and the DNA being different in a relatively drastic way, i.e. being mutated. Over however many generations, the original creatures' DNA can be totally changed, including the addition of new information, yes.

Specifically, mutation in gamete cells is responsible for most geneline changes in sexually reproducing life.

[Il Palazzo]

I'm just going to say this (and I'm quoting my biology teacher here),"The only way to prove evolution is true is by observing it from the start to the finish, so either A) we would have to build a time machine, go back, and watch it happen. Or B) find a life bearing planet and observe it evolve"

That makes no sense on more levels than one. From the concept of proof as applicable to natural science, through the kind of evidence asked for, to the dismissal of available evidence.
Just substitute "erosion" for "evolution" and see for yourself.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Idiot counts as an insult by the way
And I respect that teacher greatly
If I have to say no insults again this thread is locked

There are a billion non insulting things you could have said, even just saying he's completely wrong

You also just called a guy that worked for the FBI for years an idiot


Thanks for that





So are you both saying that complete evolution has been witnessed?

[TD1]

Cryxis, you can't threaten to lock a thread because of a mildly insensitive comment. Very mildly insensitive, and not even about someone here to take offense at it.


And whether he worked for the FBI is irrelevant. He could know next to nothing about Biology, and be a biological idiot.

And no, that wasn't an insult, just me explaining it.

Edit: And no, they're not saying it has been witnessed, just that it doesn't have to be. Much in the same way as you can look at a mountain and attribute the grooves on it to erosion without having to observe it from the very first scratch.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Idiot is an insult where I'm at

And it angered me as much as it would cause most of the people here if I said Toady was and idiot
He isn't but just using that as an example

How's about the college he went to or the degree he has? Does that matter?

[cerapa]

Yep, that does matter.

It means he should know better.

[TD1]

Whether he's an idiot or not doesn't matter: He was wrong. Doesn't necessarily stupid, just mistaken.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

He was saying that you can't prove evolution without observing it

Is that wrong?