Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Is there proof of Evolution?

124275
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 2:50:02 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I believe that there isn't proof that a gog could evolve to a cat but macro-evolution can occur within a species though it would never produce another species.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 3:43:35 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 2:50:02 PM, 124275 wrote:
I believe that there isn't proof that a gog could evolve to a cat but macro-evolution can occur within a species though it would never produce another species.

What's your definition of macro-evolution? I've only ever seen that term used to mean production of a new species. Also, why don't you think it's possible for many smaller changes to ultimately result in a new species? I mean, thanks for sharing your beliefs, but there isn't much to discuss unless you explain why you hold those beliefs.
124275
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 4:11:41 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Macro-evolution is caused by epigenetics. This means that the way the DNA is expressed is changed but the information in the DNA isn't changed. An example of epygenetics is eye colour. A brown eyed person could have the gene for blue eyes but the blur eye gene is receive so they are more likely to be born with brown eyes. Most scientists agree that all humans are mostly genetically the same but it is epygenetics that causes an African person to appear different to a European person a's the genes areally expressed differently. I don't think that this could create a new species because no new DNA information is added. However, it is true that mutations in DNA occur but they are usually detrimental but even if it is good for the organism it will not make a noticeable difference. No scientist has ever fownd a benificial mutation in DNA rather it is epygenetics that causes positive treats to occur in a species.
srehtiw
Posts: 491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 5:06:12 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 4:11:41 PM, 124275 wrote:
Macro-evolution is caused by epigenetics. This means that the way the DNA is expressed is changed but the information in the DNA isn't changed. An example of epygenetics is eye colour. A brown eyed person could have the gene for blue eyes but the blur eye gene is receive so they are more likely to be born with brown eyes. Most scientists agree that all humans are mostly genetically the same but it is epygenetics that causes an African person to appear different to a European person a's the genes areally expressed differently. I don't think that this could create a new species because no new DNA information is added. However, it is true that mutations in DNA occur but they are usually detrimental but even if it is good for the organism it will not make a noticeable difference. No scientist has ever fownd a benificial mutation in DNA rather it is epygenetics that causes positive treats to occur in a species.

You would be surprised, you are right beneficial mutations are rare but they do occur and while they are rarely visible within humans because we breed so slowly some are extremely evident in micro-organisms. One of the most amazing examples is that due to a random mutation there are actually fungi which can live on the inside of the Chernobyl reactor core, also known as possibly the least hospitable environment on the entire planet.

As for the creation of a new species, that occurs both naturally and artificially with relative frequency in plants due to a process called non-disjunction which is when gametes with the wrong number of chromosomes are produced due to an error in meiosis. These gametes from different species sometimes fertilise each other to make a new plant, and sometimes if the chromosome numbers fit together right these new plants can breed with each other and form a new species. This process does also sometimes happen in animals, though it is rarer.

So in short yeah, it can happen.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 5:19:12 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 2:50:02 PM, 124275 wrote:
I believe that there isn't proof that a gog could evolve to a cat but macro-evolution can occur within a species though it would never produce another species.

Have you heard of polyploidy, specifically autopolyploidy?

This is when two parents, who themselves have two gene sets each, give birth to offspring who themselves have three or four gene sets each.

Thanks to mutation DURING and AFTER that replication process, there is literally new DNA, that wasn't there before, in one generation, and this will reproductively isolate those polyploids birthed of parents with only two gene sets; if reproductively isolated, the polyploids are a new species!

From two gene sets-->mutated four gene sets is new DNA.
Polyploidy...the fact of biology that creationist never learned.
124275
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 5:44:13 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 5:19:12 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
At 5/15/2016 2:50:02 PM, 124275 wrote:
I believe that there isn't proof that a gog could evolve to a cat but macro-evolution can occur within a species though it would never produce another species.

Have you heard of polyploidy, specifically autopolyploidy?

This is when two parents, who themselves have two gene sets each, give birth to offspring who themselves have three or four gene sets each.

Thanks to mutation DURING and AFTER that replication process, there is literally new DNA, that wasn't there before, in one generation, and this will reproductively isolate those polyploids birthed of parents with only two gene sets; if reproductively isolated, the polyploids are a new species!

From two gene sets-->mutated four gene sets is new DNA.
Polyploidy...the fact of biology that creationist never learned.

There being two parent organisms only rearranges the DNA. Benificial DNA mutations have not been found and many benificial trates have been attributed to environment and epigenetics.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 5:53:10 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
There being two parent organisms only rearranges the DNA. Benificial DNA mutations have not been found and many benificial trates have been attributed to environment and epigenetics.

Nope.
The mutations DURING and AFTER replication literally add DNA that was not there before, it's not a re-arrangement, it's an addition...NEW DNA, deal with polyploidy.

Also, your assertion that no beneficial mutations have been found is like saying there are no object subject to gravity. But here is a direct one.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
124275
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 6:05:38 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 5:53:10 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
There being two parent organisms only rearranges the DNA. Benificial DNA mutations have not been found and many benificial trates have been attributed to environment and epigenetics.

Nope.
The mutations DURING and AFTER replication literally add DNA that was not there before, it's not a re-arrangement, it's an addition...NEW DNA, deal with polyploidy.

Also, your assertion that no beneficial mutations have been found is like saying there are no object subject to gravity. But here is a direct one.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Polyploidy may stop an organism from reproducing as the number of chtomasoms from each parent would be unequal. I do not deny that many organisms do have multiple of the same chromosome. A type of fern for example, has been tested to have over 1200 chromosomes but that don't make it more evolved than humans with 46 chromasoms.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 6:11:10 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Polyploidy may stop an organism from reproducing as the number of chtomasoms from each parent would be unequal. I do not deny that many organisms do have multiple of the same chromosome. A type of fern for example, has been tested to have over 1200 chromosomes but that don't make it more evolved than humans with 46 chromasoms.

Polyploids do not have multiples of the same chromosome ONLY.
They have chromosomes that have mutated DURING and AFTER the replication process that make it qualitatively and quantitatively different.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Read in the study above, polyploidy in some plants increases the literal size of the plants; they're vastly greater in size than their parent species.
Could you see how an increase in physical size could help plants in a particular ecosystem?

Polyploidy is the chasm down which the stupid "No new information is passed on" argument should be thrown.
It's dead.
srehtiw
Posts: 491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 6:28:15 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 6:05:38 PM, 124275 wrote:
At 5/15/2016 5:53:10 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
There being two parent organisms only rearranges the DNA. Benificial DNA mutations have not been found and many benificial trates have been attributed to environment and epigenetics.

Nope.
The mutations DURING and AFTER replication literally add DNA that was not there before, it's not a re-arrangement, it's an addition...NEW DNA, deal with polyploidy.

Also, your assertion that no beneficial mutations have been found is like saying there are no object subject to gravity. But here is a direct one.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Polyploidy may stop an organism from reproducing as the number of chtomasoms from each parent would be unequal. I do not deny that many organisms do have multiple of the same chromosome. A type of fern for example, has been tested to have over 1200 chromosomes but that don't make it more evolved than humans with 46 chromasoms.

It doesn't make it more evolved, it simply makes it differently evolved, or to put it another way a different species. It is the same with the products of polyploidy: they have different physical features to their parents, a slightly different evolutionary ancestry, different biochemistry and an inability to breed with the parent species to produce fertile offspring. They are by every definition of the word a different species to their parents.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 3:32:49 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 2:50:02 PM, 124275 wrote:
I believe that there isn't proof that a gog could evolve to a cat but macro-evolution can occur within a species though it would never produce another species.

We have a lot of evidence for evolution. For example the fossil is highly ordered from less complex to more complex layered with bacteria, simple sea creatures, fish, bony fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, monkeys, apes, and humans. If there was a global flood we would have found some humans washed to the bottom or at least a few large mammals but that isn't what we see.

We also have ordered transitional fossils for land animal evolution, bird evolution, mammal evolution, horse evolution, whale evolution, and human evolution.

We see hundreds of transitional humans and apes with species such as Australopithecus Africanus, Australopithecus Afarensus, Homo Habilis Homo Ergaster, Homo Erectus, Homo Heidelbergensis, and Neanderthals. The newer the fossils the larger the brain size, and the less-ape like the face. The older fossils are apes with the ability to walk like humans.

We have genetic evidence for evolution. 5% of our DNA are retrovirus sequences inserted by viruses and inherited by all humans and 99% of these are shared by chimps as well. How is that possible if we were independently created? These sequences have some mutations after insertion and species that are more genetically similar have more similar ERVs.

Humans can't make vitamin C by themselves and we get it from eating fruits. Almost all mammals can make their own vitamin c. We even found the gene that makes vitamin C. We find the same gene in human as well but it is broken because of some mutations. We find the same broken gene in chimpanzees as well.

Humans have 13 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 14 pairs. This is a problem because if we evolved from apes then did apes lose a pair? This would have been fatal. The only explanation is that there was a chromosome fusion of two pairs of ape chromosomes. Indeed we find that one human chromosome is exactly the same as two ape pairs stacked on top of each other. The ends of a chromosomes are called telomeres and the middle is called a centromere. This human chromosome has telomeres in the center which is what you would expect if it came from a fusion of two apes chromosomes. It also has two centromeres.

There are a lot of vestigial traits as well. For example humans still have some vestigial tail bones that sometimes have to be removed sometimes and people do just fine without them. We also have vestigial wisdom teeth that cause a lot of dental problems and is a vestige of previously larger jaws. Some snakes have vestigial leg bones. Some whale species have tiny vestigial hip bones and leg bones. Some cave species have covered up or broken eyes even though they live in the dark. Whales have multi-chambered stomachs that are only seen in animals like cows because they eat grass which is hard to digest. Whales are genetically related to cows and that is why they share this stomach.

There is a lot more evidence as well. See the source below.
http://www.talkorigins.org...