Evolution question.

[Developereo]

Ever considered the probability that proof readers are not 100% effective? That is, they let some "errors" pass through??

Read my post again.

Enzymes are automatons - they perform functions deterministically according to their constituent molecules. For a proof reader to let an error "pass through" would indicate a malfunction (mutation) within the proofreader, which is the possibility I discussed earlier.

Plus, ever heard of "genetic recombination"? that is, a baby has some features of father and some of mother, none of which is a mutation?

Genetic recombination doesn't introduce new alleles; it merely remixes existing alleles. The alleles have already had their chance to prove their worth in the environment and whether they pass through or not is already factored into natural selection.

The primary engine of evolution is mutation, not genetic recombination.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

So far no evidence of Humans mutating to bird

or Bird mutating to fish

Only thing makes sense , these branches of animal came in wave and got introduced in PACKAGE and released in the sanctuary

Branches

Fish
Insects
Reptiles
Mammals , there are similarities in with in group

By visitation

Hard to see connection of the fish becoming insect , or even fish becoming jelly fish or fish becoming dolphin or whale (mammal)

Someone , collected these groups and released them in the sanctuary called earth

When earth like planets are discovered the visitors, release animals most suitable to that environment and over time other groups also come and drop their samples collected from other parts of galaxies

Other groups observe from above in invisible form on how life thrives on planet and observe silently or invisibly

 

[Sneaker]

Not

Read my post again.

Enzymes are automatons - they perform functions deterministically according to their constituent molecules. For a proof reader to let an error "pass through" would indicate a malfunction (mutation) within the proofreader, which is the possibility I discussed earlier.



Genetic recombination doesn't introduce new alleles; it merely remixes existing alleles. The alleles have already had their chance to prove their worth in the environment and whether they pass through or not is already factored into natural selection.

The primary engine of evolution is mutation, not genetic recombination.

not true on either count. Primary engine for evolution is not mutations, because they are so rare. Primary source of variation is still recombination....

So far no evidence of Humans mutating to bird

or Bird mutating to fish

Only thing makes sense , these branches of animal came in wave and got introduced in PACKAGE and released in the sanctuary

Branches

Fish
Insects
Reptiles
Mammals , there are similarities in with in group

By visitation

Hard to see connection of the fish becoming insect , or even fish becoming jelly fish or fish becoming dolphin or whale (mammal)

Someone , collected these groups and released them in the sanctuary called earth

When earth like planets are discovered the visitors, release animals most suitable to that environment and over time other groups also come and drop their samples collected from other parts of galaxies

Other groups observe from above in invisible form on how life thrives on planet and observe silently or invisibly

lol

As suspected, you didn't provide anything to back up your so-called "fact", just comedic counter questions.

Well you are acting blind and asking me to provide "scientific proof" to proove that white is indeed white in color.... I don't know how to "prove a fact". Nobody does.

 

[jaibi]

Unlikely. Dinosaurian and reptilian design makes our fat loving, high energy brains (mammalian) contrary to evolutionary trajectory.

So basically this is what ive gathered please correct me if im wrong.

Life existed only in the ocean till plants started growing and eventually fish came onto land in the form of amphibians(Synapsids). Small reptiles also started to develop then an extinction event happened because of increased volcanic activity destroying most amphibians.

This lead to smaller reptiles developing into the Dinosaurs which would rule the world for the next 200million years and hold mammals back to small creatures.

Then the asteroid came and struck in the Gulf of Mexico creating a giant shock wave and Tsunami and blocking out the sun killing all large life and so ended the rain of the dinosaurs and the rise of mammals who could now grow because the large dinosaurs were killed and eventually evolved into primates who lived in the trees.Grass then grew and primates took to the ground eventually developing the ability to stand on 2 legs eventually becoming the modern human.

The modern human then spread from Africa through Asia to Australia then into Europe.The world then entered an Ice age due to mountain ranges and placed land masses blocking warm water from reaching the north pole.This then connected modern Day Russia and USA/Alaska by land in which humans crossed it into the Americas then humans Finally went into Madagascar at about 500 AD and New zealand was settled by polynesians at about 1400 AD

My question is this if the asteroid didnt hit earth and nothing else happened could reptiles/dinosaurs of developed into life comparable to the human?

 

[SipahSalar]

Well you are acting blind and asking me to provide "scientific proof" to proove that white is indeed white in color.... I don't know how to "prove a fact". Nobody does.

Wow. That statement can be used in literally every argument in the world. I'll tell you how to prove it. Provide scientific papers and research confirming your statement. This is how the scientific community works, by providing references. Your lack of grasp of such a simple concept shows you are just an average joe trying to act smart.

 

[Sneaker]

Wow. That statement can be used in literally every argument in the world. I'll tell you how to prove it. Provide scientific papers and research confirming your statement. This is how the scientific community works, by providing references. Your lack of grasp of such a simple concept shows you are just an average joe trying to act smart.

How many do you need? one enough? like this- nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF) or this Triassic origin and early radiation of multicellular volvocine algae
Now, before you ask anything further, post similar scientific literature either showing evolution of single celled cells from multi-cellular life or anything contradicting scientific papers about how single celled organisms are not the first form of life on earth.

 

[JonAsad]

mixing scientific facts and biblical faith.

will always lead you astray

Bring on the scientific FACTS of evolution not theories- in the meantime pay my regrads to your monkey ancestors- i guess only a chest thump will do-

 

[Sneaker]

Bring on the scientific FACTS of evolution not theories- in the meantime pay my regrads to your monkey ancestors- i guess only a chest thump will do-

What are "scientific facts"? Are there "non-scientific facts"? what are the difference between "facts" and "scientific facts"? What "scientific facts" do you need to believe "theory of gravity"?

 

[JonAsad]

Christian Mullahs said it long before you
and they were defeated and shamed.

Quit following medieval Christian Mullahs please

Deafeated and shamed they might be- Christians mullas did alot of other ti be named and shamed things to bible-

And i don't care tbh-

What are "scientific facts"? Are there "non-scientific facts"? what are the difference between "facts" and "scientific facts"? What "scientific facts" do you need to believe "theory of gravity"?

You completely missed the point didnt you?-
There is a difference between scientific facts and theories- and Gravity its a well researched accumulated law not theory-
The law that is applied even when you throw a stone in the air-

 

[Sneaker]

Deafeated and shamed they might be- Christians mullas did alot of other ti be named and shamed things to bible-

And i don't care tbh-



You completely missed the point didnt you?-
There is a difference between scientific facts and theories- and Gravity its a well researched accumulated fact not theory-
The established fact that is applied even when you throw a stone in the air-

You don't understand scientific method then. We have observed/established "facts" like new species evolve from old ones (ToE) and Objects fall down to earth due to gravity (ToG). These are plain facts, repeatedly observed, different location, different people just to make sure these are facts. Nobody can deny these unless there is some strange phenomenon which proves these observations wrong. The "Theory" explains "why" part. Like "why" new species emerge, and "why" objects fall down due to gravity. ToE explains the "why" part as natural selection. ToG explains it in terms of gravitons and space-time curvature etc.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Deafeated and shamed they might be- Christians mullas did alot of other

and so did Saudi Mullahs.

Keep Mullahs for religion
Keep scientists for science.

 

[JonAsad]

and so did Saudi Mullahs.

Keep Mullahs for religion
Keep scientists for science.

Saudi Mullahs has nothing to do with evolution- Stay in topic-

You don't understand scientific method then. We have observed/established "facts" like new species evolve from old ones (ToE) and Objects fall down to earth due to gravity (ToG). These are plain facts, repeatedly observed, different location, different people just to make sure these are facts. Nobody can deny these unless there is some strange phenomenon which proves these observations wrong. The "Theory" explains "why" part. Like "why" new species emerge, and "why" objects fall down due to gravity. ToE explains the "why" part as natural selection. ToG explains it in terms of gravitons and space-time curvature etc.

There is a law of gravity- a law
then there is theory of evolution- a thoery- with constant additions and changes going on until it reaches a standard and becomes a law-
The difference between Theory and Law my friend- an assumption and a fact-
I rest my case-

 

[Sneaker]

Saudi Mullahs has nothing to do with evolution- Stay in topic-



There is a law of gravity- a law
then there is theory of evolution- a thoery- with constant additions and changes going on until it reaches a standard and becomes a law-
The difference between Theory and Law my friend- an assumption and a fact-
I rest my case-

There is even law of thermodynamics with out any proof (you heard it right). Like there is no "scientific proof" for law of conservation of energy, just that there has been never a confirmed observation to the contrary. We all know law of gravity fails on numerous occasion too. A "law" is inferior to a "theory". Theory of gravity explains everything we know about gravity, including the law of gravity. It then goes further and make "falsifiable" predictions. it is not necessary to have a law for every theory, like atomic theory or germ theory don't have any atomic or germ laws. key here is "falsifiable" predictions. ToE also makes number of "falsifiable predictions". You falsify any one of those predictions and the theory stands invalidated. People have been trying to do that for past 150 years.

 

[Developereo]

Primary engine for evolution is not mutations, because they are so rare. Primary source of variation is still recombination....

The matter is controversial and there are claims on either side.

The difference is irrelevant to this discussion since recombination is also nondeterministic in many cases..

 

[oFFbEAT]

Because there was no need for them to. That is, they evolved to survive to many conditions that exists so perfectly that there is not "natural selection" that is acting on them. Since evolution is all about survival, they don't need to change. Also, evolution doesn't "aim" to make successive species intelligent, so if tomorrow there is another comet strike, "most intelligent" species will be wiped out but cockroaches will survive.. as they did last time...

What are you trying to say, they evolved first and now their evolution stopped because they became perfect??....if you think so then you're contradicting the very theory you're supporting, you're taking science's side but not being scientific/logical in your approach....because Evolution, according to the evolutionists, is a never-ending process.
In the 'comet strike' example of yours, why and how do you think the cockroaches survived the previous strike while the 'more intelligent' life forms perished despite facing similar conditions??.....it just doesn't add up....

...Also, evolution doesn't "aim" to make successive species intelligent...

....evolution doesn't "aim" to do anything, it is not a process designed by someone.......so, the brain, like any other parts of the body should evolve too....and species should become more and more intelligent/adaptive....infact, there is evidence about how the shape and size of the skulls of the primates changed over time, with that, their intelligence......indicating adaptation of the brain(probably depending on its use, just like any other organs).....but the question is, why did that happen to the primates only, that too, only to a sub-group of primates.....astonishingly, other sub-groups remained more or less same......as I said, things just doesn't add up.......unless of-course, you consider the reasons below.

Time period seems to have no effect on a species intelligence, this applies universally, again humans are the exception and not the norm.

How and why did the humans become an exception.....unexplainable, unless you bring in 'God' who created them, or 'Aliens' who mixed their genes with primates of the earth, you can even consider 'Gods' as 'Aliens'.....but the thing is, Humans shouldn't have become exception....