Evolution happening before our very eyes? Awesome.

[Nik]

Good, we both agree that I can believe whatever I want.

Yet, while you agree that I can believe what I want, what I believe appears to be very upsetting to you.

It's not upsetting to me at all. You make the mistake of assuming that I care about you in any way.

You can believe anything you want. You're still wrong.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

It's not upsetting to me at all. You make the mistake of assuming that I care about you in any way.

You can believe anything you want. You're still wrong.

I thought the cursing and name calling meant you were upset. My mistake. I hate to see you when you're really upset.

Anyway, I think we've reached an understanding.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

You know, there were a lot of famous theories that were ultimately proved wrong.

Don't be so sure that you know everything.

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

 

[Nik]

You know, there were a lot of famous theories that were ultimately proved wrong.

Don't be so sure that you know everything.

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

Evolution continues to gain strength with all kinds of evidence, tons of which is posted in this very thread.

If you don't believe it, you're blind.

Nobody said you aren't allowed to believe it. That's why I said "willful ignorance" pages and pages ago, but you're just not smart enough to pick up on that are you.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Evolution continues to gain strength with all kinds of evidence, tons of which is posted in this very thread.

If you don't believe it, you're blind.

Nobody said you aren't allowed to believe it. That's why I said "willful ignorance" pages and pages ago, but you're just not smart enough to pick up on that are you.

And I'm sure that was "all kinds of evidence" for scientfic theories that were ultimately disproved.

Succinctly summarize the strongest evidence (please don't point me to any links), and I'll thoughtfully consider it. There will probably be quite a few things we agree on.

 

[Nik]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

(please don't point me to any links)

I think you missed this part.

 

[Nik]

Just like you're ignoring the mountain of evidence that flies in the face of what you believe, I choose to ignore your ridiculous demands. You are posting in MY thread, bitch!

There's absolutely no reason you cannot click that and educate yourself.

Since you're new here, I'll clue you in to something. I'm one of the strongest willed people you will ever meet. I will never give in to your bullshit. You will get tired of trolling long before I tire of piling this mountain of evidence upon you.

 

[Iron Woode]

And I'm sure that was "all kinds of evidence" for scientfic theories that were ultimately disproved.

Succinctly summarize the strongest evidence (please don't point me to any links), and I'll thoughtfully consider it. There will probably be quite a few things we agree on.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

(please don't point me to any links)

I think you missed this part.

This is precisely why nobody believes you are genuine. The information is there if you want it. The fact that you do not go to gather the information tells us that you are not interested in the truth. Why should any of us re-invent the wheel? You know where your answers are. If you want them, go get them.

But you don't get them, so you obviously don't want them.

This is precisely why anyone can confidently state that evolution-deniers are wantonly ignorant, and moreover precisely why everyone has such a low opinion of your type of religionist.

 

[Nik]

:thumbsup:

Well said!

 

[zinfamous]

How to spot a Bible Thumper

Mention Evolution, Gays, or Abortion. They'll stick out like a sore thumb.

exactly.

it's not that they let you know who they are or what they believe; it's that they reject reason and fundamental knowledge to let you know that you are wrong and going to hell because of your acceptance of reality.

 

[zinfamous]

Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.
Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.

Yes, I'm now I'm seeing the pattern.

Wow. Evidence right in front of your face and you still refuse to see it. Evidence that you, yourself, are responsible for providing.

Are you saying, indirectly, that you don't exist?

Only for religious TROLLS like yourself.

did you guys click on the links?

i'm getting the same return as PhineasJWHoopee.

tell me how I fucked up, too. otherwise, his clever retort = +2 internets.

 

[zinfamous]

You know, there were a lot of famous theories that were ultimately proved wrong.

Don't be so sure that you know everything.

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

the funny thing is how Einstein's Static Universe is used in that list (a scientist that you claimed in another thread to be a diest--when he most certainly is not), and that the article of course mentions how Einstein eventually rejected the theory.

seriously.

try to point to your discipline, and other examples of living theorists that survive to reject their own improper ideas, or simply look at the evidence before them and are capable of accepting it.

that kind of list, advertised as a treatise of "How science Theories are failures" is a perfect example of why you don't understand science.



You are not a scientist. You have no patents.

 

[zinfamous]

I think you missed this part.

use your forefinger to mash the button on your mouse.






...or perhaps your top 3 fingers if you're using one of them "superior" magic mice thingies

 

[chuckywang]

They say it has to be broken open. Sounds more like a shell than a film.

The skinks are moving AWAY from that towards live birth. The "film" is part of the transition.

 

[DanDaManJC]

here we go, ill quote one:

Prediction 4.1: Protein functional redundancy

The support for common descent given by studies of molecular sequences can be phrased as a deductive argument. This argument is unique within this FAQ, as it is the only instance we can directly conclude that similarity implies relatedness. This conclusion depends upon the similarity of biological structures within a specific context: the similarity observed between ubiquitous genes from different species.

The following discussion is somewhat technical, so it is first presented in the outline of a deductive argument, which makes the logical thread easy to follow. Here are listed the premises of the argument followed by the conclusion and further discussion.
The gist of the argument:

(P1) Ubiquitous genes: There are certain genes that all living organisms have because they perform very basic life functions; these genes are called ubiquitous genes.

(P2) Ubiquitous genes are uncorrelated with species-specific phenotypes: Ubiquitous genes have no relationship with the specific functions of different species. For example, it doesn't matter whether you are a bacterium, a human, a frog, a whale, a hummingbird, a slug, a fungus, or a sea anemone - you have these ubiquitous genes, and they all perform the same basic biological function no matter what you are.

(P3) Molecular sequences of ubiquitous genes are functionally redundant: Any given ubiquitous protein has an extremely large number of different functionally equivalent forms (i.e. protein sequences which can perform the same biochemical function).

(P4) Specific ubiquitous genes are unnecessary in any given species: Obviously, there is no a priori reason why every organism should have the same sequence or even similar sequences. No specific sequence is functionally necessary in any organism - all that is necessary is one of the large number of functionally equivalent forms of a given ubiquitous gene or protein.

(P5) Heredity correlates sequences, even in the absence of functional necessity: There is one, and only one, observed mechanism which causes two different organisms to have ubiquitous proteins with similar sequences (aside from the extreme improbability of pure chance, of course). That mechanism is heredity.

(C) Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship: It follows that organisms which have similar sequences for ubiquitous proteins are genealogically related. Roughly, the more similar the sequences, the closer the genealogical relationship.

Discussion:

The amino acid sequences of proteins are often used to establish the phylogenetic relationships of species. Sequence studies with functional genes have centered on genes of proteins (or RNAs) that are ubiquitous (i.e. all organisms have them). This is done to insure that the comparisons are independent of the overall species phenotype.

For example, suppose we are comparing the protein sequence of a chimpanzee and that of a human. Both of these animals have many similar anatomical characters and functions, so we might expect their proteins to be similar too, regardless of whether they are genealogically related or not. However, we can compare the sequences of very basic genes that are used by all living organisms, such as the cytochrome c gene, which have no influence over specific chimpanzee or human characteristics.

Cytochrome c is an essential and ubiquitous protein found in all organisms, including eukaryotes and bacteria (Voet and Voet 1995, p. 24). The mitochondria of cells contain cytochrome c, where it transports electrons in the fundamental metabolic process of oxidative phosphorylation. The oxygen we breathe is used to generate energy in this process (Voet and Voet 1995, pp. 577-582).

Using a ubiquitous gene such as cytochrome c, there is no reason to assume that two different organisms should have the same protein sequence or even similar protein sequences, unless the two organisms are genealogically related. This is due in part to the functional redundancy of protein sequences and structures. Here, "functional redundancy" indicates that many different protein sequences form the same general structure and perform the same general biological role. Cytochrome c is an extremely functionally redundant protein, because many dissimilar sequences all form cytochrome c electron transport proteins. Functional redundancy need not be exact in terms of performance; some functional cytochrome c sequences may be slightly better at electron transport than others.

Decades of biochemical evidence have shown that many amino acid mutations, especially of surface residues, have only small effects on protein function and on protein structure (Branden and Tooze 1999, Ch. 3; Harris et al. 1956; Lesk 2001, Chs. 5 and 6, pp. 165-228; Li 1997, p. 2; Matthews 1996). A striking example is that of the c-type cytochromes from various bacteria, which have virtually no sequence similarity. Nevertheless, they all fold into the same three-dimensional structure, and they all perform the same biological role (Moore and Pettigrew 1990, pp. 161-223; Ptitsyn 1998).

Even within species, most amino acid mutations are functionally silent. For example, there are at least 250 different amino acid mutations known in human hemoglobin, carried by more than 3% of the world's population, that have no clinical manifestation in either heterozygotic or homozygotic individuals (Bunn and Forget 1986; Voet and Voet 1995, p. 235). The phenomenon of protein functional redundancy is very general, and is observed in all known proteins and genes.

With this in mind, consider again the molecular sequences of cytochrome c. Cytochrome c is absolutely essential for life - organisms that lack it cannot live. It has been shown that the human cytochrome c protein works in yeast (a unicellular organism) that has had its own native cytochrome c gene deleted, even though yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c over 40% of the protein (Tanaka et. al 1988a; Tanaka et al. 1988b; Wallace and Tanaka 1994). In fact, the cytochrome c genes from tuna (fish), pigeon (bird), horse (mammal), Drosophila fly (insect), and rat (mammal) all function in yeast that lack their own native yeast cytochrome c (Clements et al. 1989; Hickey et al. 1991; Koshy et al. 1992; Scarpulla and Nye 1986). Furthermore, extensive genetic analysis of cytochrome c has demonstrated that the majority of the protein sequence is unnecessary for its function in vivo (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988). Only about a third of the 100 amino acids in cytochrome c are necessary to specify its function. Most of the amino acids in cytochrome c are hypervariable (i.e. they can be replaced by a large number of functionally similar amino acids) (Dickerson and Timkovich 1975). Importantly, Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 1093 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, based on these genetic mutational analyses (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988; Yockey 1992, Ch. 6, p. 254). For perspective, the number 1093 is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional cytochrome c sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no a priori reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, cytochrome c protein sequences.

In terms of a scientific statistical analysis, the "null hypothesis" is that the identity of non-essential amino acids in the cytochrome c proteins from human and chimpanzee should be random with respect to one another. However, from the theory of common descent and our standard phylogenetic tree we know that humans and chimpanzees are quite closely related. We therefore predict, in spite of the odds, that human and chimpanzee cytochrome c sequences should be much more similar than, say, human and yeast cytochrome c - simply due to inheritance.
Confirmation:

Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. The "null hypothesis" given above is false. In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 10-93 (1 out of 1093). Thus, the high degree of similarity in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration of the theory of common descent. Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 10-29. The yeast Candida krusei is one of the most distantly related eukaryotic organisms from humans. Candida has 51 amino acid differences from the human sequence. A conservative estimate of this probability is less than 10-25.
Criticisms:

One possible, yet unlikely, objection is that the slight differences in functional performance between the various cytochromes could be responsible for this sequence similarity. This objection is unlikely because of the incredibly high number of nearly equivalent sequences that would be phenotypically indistinguishable for any required level of performance. Additionally, nearly similar sequences do not necessarily give nearly similar levels of performance.

Nonetheless, for the sake of argument, let us assume that a cytochrome c that transports electrons faster is required in organisms with active metabolisms or with high rates of muscle contraction. If this were true, we might expect to observe a pattern of sequence similarity that correlates with similarity of environment or with physiological requirement. However, this is not observed. For example, bat cytochrome c is much more similar to human cytochrome c than to hummingbird cytochrome c; porpoise cytochrome c is much more similar to human cytochrome c than to shark cytochrome c. As stated earlier in prediction 1.3, the phylogenetic tree constructed from the cytochrome c data exactly recapitulates the relationships of major taxa as determined by the completely independent morphological data (McLaughlin and Dayhoff 1973). These facts only further support the idea that cytochrome c sequences are independent of phenotypic function (other than the obvious requirement for a functional cytochrome c that transports electrons).
Recap:

The point of this prediction is subtly different from prediction 1.3, "Convergence of independent phylogenies". The evidence given above demonstrates that for many ubiquitous functional proteins (such as cytochrome c), there is an enormous number of equivalent sequences which could form that protein in any given organism. Whenever we find that two organisms have the same or very similar sequences for a ubiquitous protein, we know that something fishy is going on. Why would these two organisms have such similar ubiquitous proteins when the odds are astronomically against it? We know of only one reason for why two organisms would have two similar protein sequences in the absence of functional necessity: heredity. Thus, in such cases we can confidently deduce that the two organisms are genealogically related. In this sense, sequence similarity is not only a test of the theory of common descent; common descent is also a deduction from the principle of heredity and the observation of sequence similarity. Finally, the similarity observed for cytochrome c is not confined to this single ubiquitous protein; all ubiquitous proteins that have been compared between chimpanzees and humans are highly similar, and there have been many comparisons.
Potential Falsification:

Without assuming the theory common descent, the most probable result is that the cytochrome c protein sequences in all these different organisms would be very different from each other. If this were the case, a phylogenetic analysis would be impossible, and this would provide very strong evidence for a genealogically unrelated, perhaps simultaneous, origin of species (Dickerson 1972; Yockey 1992; Li 1997).

Furthermore, the very basis of this argument could be undermined easily if it could be demonstrated (1) that species specific cytochrome c proteins were functional exclusively in their respective organisms, or (2) that no other cytochrome c sequence could function in an organism other than its own native cytochrome c, or (3) that an observed mechanism besides heredity can causally correlate the sequence of a ubiquitous protein with a specific organismic morphology.

rough cliffs
the same genetic material is found in several organisms... implies common ancestor

from

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

Another example.

The fossil record. Evolution predicts a common ancestor -- because of that, you shouldn't find the fossils of ancestors of birds with modern birds and so on. Put another way, you shouldn't find modern animal fossils with prehistoric animal fossils because that would prove that the modern bunny and the prehistoric "ancestor" bunny lived at the same time (thus no evolution). Simply put -- no such fossils have been found to disprove evolution.

Now I mean, yeah, you can't hinge your entire argument for macro evolution on that observation alone --- but there's plenty more evidence if you research a bit. Another thing id like to point out is note how simple that evidence is. There's no "faith" involved in trying to "believe" macroevolution. Our assertion is that all the other evidence for macroevolution is just as "simple" --- that is, you can easily test the result for the positive or negative of evolution. Obviously these are all indirect methods of confirmation -- but it's no more indirect than many other experiments conducted in other fields.


Finally, I'd guess you probably are trolling. And iono, this might end up confirming your belief that all these atheists are hell bent on keeping God out of the public or any other sort of similar belief. Instead, I'd encourage you to ask yourself WHY some of these people are getting mad. Believe it or not, we aren't just making this stuff up so we can't be held accountable to God // Jesus. Nor is Satan sitting in our bedrooms and telling us this stuff. On the other hand, atot is pretty vicious and you certainly didn't get any mercy when you reared your head in this thread... but that's still no excuse for blatantly ignoring the facts you asked for.

 

[sandorski]

here we go, ill quote one:



from


Another example.

The fossil record. Evolution predicts a common ancestor -- because of that, you shouldn't find the fossils of ancestors of birds with modern birds and so on. Put another way, you shouldn't find modern animal fossils with prehistoric animal fossils because that would prove that the modern bunny and the prehistoric "ancestor" bunny lived at the same time (thus no evolution). Simply put -- no such fossils have been found to disprove evolution.

Now I mean, yeah, you can't hinge your entire argument for macro evolution on that observation alone --- but there's plenty more evidence if you research a bit. Another thing id like to point out is note how simple that evidence is. There's no "faith" involved in trying to "believe" macroevolution. Our assertion is that all the other evidence for macroevolution is just as "simple" --- that is, you can easily test the result for the positive or negative of evolution. Obviously these are all indirect methods of confirmation -- but it's no more indirect than many other experiments conducted in other fields.


Finally, I'd guess you probably are trolling. And iono, this might end up confirming your belief that all these atheists are hell bent on keeping God out of the public or any other sort of similar belief. Instead, I'd encourage you to ask yourself WHY some of these people are getting mad. Believe it or not, we aren't just making this stuff up so we can't be held accountable to God // Jesus. Nor is Satan sitting in our bedrooms and telling us this stuff. On the other hand, atot is pretty vicious and you certainly didn't get any mercy when you reared your head in this thread... but that's still no excuse for blatantly ignoring the facts you asked for.

Maybe not for you! He and I are good buddies and hang out a lot.

 

[Nik]

What do you mean by "example?"

 

[Nox51]

Oh my, the cytochrome c example is such an elegant series of experiments. Beautiful!

 

[DAPUNISHER]

How to spot a Bible Thumper

Mention Evolution, Gays, or Abortion. They'll stick out like a sore thumb.

He is definitely a bible thumper. It is nearly all he has done since opening this account.

Accusations were made about being upset and insulting . Yet, the worst insult hurled in this thread, was the Nazi card, and who played that one?

When I have seen good religious folk debate, their posts tend to read as being, friendly and warm, and they usually end by saying they will pray for you. Which I think is really sweet and warm; exactly what I would expect of the followers of Christ.

But, unfortunately, others are misguided by their strong feelings, and end up being confrontational, disingenuous, and even spiteful, rude, and overly judgmental. They believe themselves to be doing God's work, spreading his message. However, sadly, in the end, the only message they spread is their own.

 

[Jeff7]

Maybe not for you! He and I are good buddies and hang out a lot.

Fun thought:
The Devil's greatest trick was getting everyone to believe that the Bible was the inspired work of God.

There's no evidence against it, therefore it must be true.

 

[zinfamous]

Here's a list of scientists that support special creation. There are quite a few biologists. A quite survey suggests that many have very strong academic credentials. This isn't an appeal to authority, but it sure appears that there are legitimate scientist that challenge the current ortodoxy in the scientific community.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

Oh.

so a list of scientists that can't get funding.

great.

 

[NinjaTech]

Fun thought:
The Devil's greatest trick was getting everyone to believe that the Bible was the inspired work of God.

There's no evidence against it, therefore it must be true.

Actually, the correct quote is, "The greatest lie the devil ever told was convincing the world he doesn't exist."

 

[Skitzer]

So in the near future, chickens won't come out in eggs no more? :'(

That would suck ..... no more western omelets?