evolution

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Arachnoid chill out, My point is that it has never been observed nor has an experiment yield that mutations add new genes, (and an experiment is possible you don't need to add genes to mutate an organisms by the way) so if there's no "PROOF" then it's only speculation. this is the biggest downfall for this theory and this is what will keep it theory.

My bad for the double post.

Tell me what you consider new genes or a new trait.

Because there are genetic mutations of animals with two heads, cows with 6 legs, fish with three eyes, cats with two faces on the same head...

All of which are considered 'new traits' by science, because the genetic information is different from the normal.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
"Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."

1. If the answer is wrong, then it's necessary to find the right one. Dispute that and you're a fool.

2. Don't complicate the answer further than it has to be.

You just don't get it. And you never will because you don't want to concede to my point.

Basically exactly what you're doing right now is complicating things just to complicate them. You're the one who has no clue what you're talking about.

Give me a reason to overcomplicate the simplest correct answer.

And if I had an agenda, I wouldn't be wasting my time on a forum.

Wow, sweet, you are still wrong.

Look at it from a Evolution point of view, evolution explains most things quite sweet, therefore it is a workable theory. It is also an easier theory than God created everything using the Big Bang and Evolution, because we don't have to assume God. Does that mean that God can't exist? No, we just use it cause we don't necessarily need god. But he could still exist. That is Occam's Razor.

Another Analogy, assume there was a Storm yesterday and you take a walk today encountering a fallen tree, now there are millions of theories why this tree could have fallen, an Elephant might have hit it, it might have just decided to fall down or the storm might have made it fall.
Now Occam's Razor would look at it and say the Storm would be the cause cause it needs the least assumptions, but just because that seems obvious it doesn't mean that it wasn't the Elephant.

Occam's Razor is just a way to decide between different Theories (working theories) by picking the one with the least assumptions....that doesn't make it right.

I advise you to read up on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) and then shut the hell up.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Tell me what you consider new genes or a new trait.

Because there are genetic mutations of animals with two heads, cows with 6 legs, fish with three eyes, cats with two faces on the same head...

All of which are considered 'new traits' by science, because the genetic information is different from the normal.

A new trait is a trait that did not exist in the gene pool and was introduce via mutation, Genetic variation or micro evolution is the combination of pre existing traits, Take dogs for example there are 150 different variates but the characteristics of all dogs already exist in the gene pool, regardless of how different they are they are still dogs with different combinations of pre existing traits, The proof is in the DNA of a wolf. the traits of all dogs exist in wolves there are no traits inside a dog that a wolf does not have.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Wow, sweet, you are still wrong.

Look at it from a Evolution point of view, evolution explains most things quite sweet, therefore it is a workable theory. It is also an easier theory than God created everything using the Big Bang and Evolution, because we don't have to assume God. Does that mean that God can't exist? No, we just use it cause we don't necessarily need god. But he could still exist. That is Occam's Razor.

Evolution is a theory, No matter how much you love it unless some proof proves that new traits (Meaning traits that did not exsit) can be added to gene pool and etc then it will remain so, and I've looked at the evolutionist point of view since I used to be one.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
A new trait is a trait that did not exist in the gene pool and was introduce via mutation, Genetic variation or micro evolution is the combination of pre existing traits, Take dogs for example there are 150 different variates but the characteristics of all dogs already exist in the gene pool, regardless of how different they are they are still dogs with different combinations of pre existing traits, The proof is in the DNA of a wolf. the traits of all dogs exist in wolves there are no traits inside a dog that a wolf does not have.

New traits come from old traits that diverge and combine over a very long time.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
New traits come from old traits that diverge and combine over a very long time.

Evolutionist claim new traits are added as a result of mutations and new species emerge from this, And I don't disagree with what you posted because it's and example of genetic variation traits that exist within the gene pool combine in different ways and from different variations EX:Blue eyes, blond hair,etc.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Evolutionist claim new traits are added as a result of mutations and new species emerge from this, And I don't disagree with what you posted because it's and example of genetic variation traits that exist within the gene pool combine in different ways and from different variations EX:Blue eyes, blond hair,etc.

OLD

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OLD

OLD=Pre exsiting

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
OLD=Pre exsiting

No, no, no, I mean that you information about evolution is old.

Really, What do they say now a days?
I forget evolution is always evolving LOL.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Really, What do they say now a days?
I forget evolution is always evolving LOL.

I've already told you a dozen time, and you never listen.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I've already told you a dozen time, and you never listen.

You mean what you said about mutations creating Caucasians?
I could always look for your post.

EDIT: NVM I found what you posted

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
http://www.sierrasafarizoo.com/animals/liger.htm

Blue nocturne
Please read this.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

[QUOTE=6275932]Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The fossil record is what is incomplete.

Ok, can two animals that are different mate and make a third type of animal? [/QUOTE]

there is more

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
You mean what you said about mutations creating Caucasians?
I could always look for your post.

Micro-evolution is evolution. The real world dose not stick to the rules that we humans have made. There is no barrier between species for nature to brake, that's something we invented.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Micro-evolution is evolution. The real world dose not stick to the rules that we humans have made. There is no barrier between species for nature to brake, that's something we invented.

Micro evolution is genetic varation or diversifaction of a species and is a fact,George Mendel pretty much explained it.evolutionist support something called "macro-evolution" which is supposed to have expanded on the model, it explains how different species came about and how fish turned into amphibians and so and so.they are not the same here are the definitions

microevolution:
A small-scale evolutionary event such as the formation of a species from a preexisting one or the divergence of reproductively isolated populations into new species.
www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookglossM.html

Macroevolution:
The combination of events associated with the origin, diversification, extinction, and interactions of organisms which produced the species that currently inhabit the Earth. Large scale evolutionary change such as the evolution of new species (or even higher taxa) and extinction of species.
www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookglossM.html

Originally posted by Bardock42
Wow, sweet, you are still wrong.

Look at it from a Evolution point of view, evolution explains most things quite sweet, therefore it is a workable theory. It is also an easier theory than God created everything using the Big Bang and Evolution, because we don't have to assume God. Does that mean that God can't exist? No, we just use it cause we don't necessarily need god. But he could still exist. That is Occam's Razor.

Another Analogy, assume there was a Storm yesterday and you take a walk today encountering a fallen tree, now there are millions of theories why this tree could have fallen, an Elephant might have hit it, it might have just decided to fall down or the storm might have made it fall.
Now Occam's Razor would look at it and say the Storm would be the cause cause it needs the least assumptions, but just because that seems obvious it doesn't mean that it wasn't the Elephant.

Occam's Razor is just a way to decide between different Theories (working theories) by picking the one with the least assumptions....that doesn't make it right.

I advise you to read up on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) and then shut the hell up.

I've read it a thousand times, and no, I'm not wrong.

Your evolution analogy is shit, because evolution doesn't say anything about there being no god. Therefore, there can't be an assumption.

Your elephant analogy is shit. You don't mention whether the elephant was actually in the area or not. If there was a storm, and also an elephant in the area, then you analogy is null, because you can't assume either one was the cause, but you assume both could be the cause. And if there is no elephant in the area, then it's impossible for an elephant to hit it.

Shut the hell up.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
A new trait is a trait that did not exist in the gene pool and was introduce via mutation, Genetic variation or micro evolution is the combination of pre existing traits, Take dogs for example there are 150 different variates but the characteristics of all dogs already exist in the gene pool, regardless of how different they are they are still dogs with different combinations of pre existing traits, The proof is in the DNA of a wolf. the traits of all dogs exist in wolves there are no traits inside a dog that a wolf does not have.

Evolution is a theory, No matter how much you love it unless some proof proves that new traits (Meaning traits that did not exsit) can be added to gene pool and etc then it will remain so, and I've looked at the evolutionist point of view since I used to be one.

What you're looking for has already been found. Do some research, take a college biology class. Pay attention to the microbiology bit.

I'd link you to what mutations may actually do to DNA, but I've already done that and you didn't even bother to look.

Human beings with tails, extra fingers, fish with lungs and legs.

I don't think you understand that every animal contains the same information in it's DNA, as in we're all in the same 'gene pool'. What happens is that different species have different activated genes in their DNA. If a mutation makes a gene active or changes it, then suddenly there's a new trait.

I'd like you to explain to me how, if what I'm saying is not true, a common housefly's DNA genome is nearly 97% similar to a human being's DNA genome.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Micro evolution is genetic varation or diversifaction of a species and is a fact,...

So, we agree? 😕

I don't believe in macr-evolution, it's not needed.

Micro-evolution is evolution. There is no jump from species to species, just a gradual slow change over a very long time.

This is just my opinion, I don't know, because I wasn't there.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak

I don't think you understand that every animal contains the same information in it's DNA, as in we're all in the same 'gene pool'. What happens is that different species have different activated genes in their DNA. If a mutation makes a gene active or changes it, then suddenly there's a new trait.

I'd like you to explain to me how, if what I'm saying is not true, a common housefly's DNA is nearly 97% similar to a human being's DNA.

Don't worry I get what your saying I've read some of "The origins of species" Darwin believed that since all organisms descend from a common ancestor they share the same gene-pool and therefore share all the same traits , which explained why he believed one species could become another, the problem with this theory was that as good as it seemed experiments and observations did not yield what Darwin said,
For instance according to Darwin's theory's, an animal breeder through artificial selection should be able to create a new species altogether, yet regardless of how many variates of breeds of dogs that have been breed a complete new species has never emerged they are still dogs not a different species. and also the law of "Genetic stability" (I'll post a link if you want with the definition) based on the results of experiments conducted on living things, show that there are strict barriers among species meaning creatures from other species can not reproduce successfully with each other, and even if they can (Tigers and lions being the best example) They are generally sterile and don't survive well in the wild. if we all share the same genetic traits we should be able to reproduce, dogs of different breeds can but a cat and a dog cannot.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, we agree? 😕

I don't believe in macr-evolution, it's not needed.

Micro-evolution is evolution. There is no jump from species to species, just a gradual slow change over a very long time.

This is just my opinion, I don't know, because I wasn't there.

Well I guess we do agree 😆 the belief species can evolve to different species is the core of evolution. micro evolution is just genetic variation and you say I don't listen 😉 but yeah we agree.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Don't worry I get what your saying I've read some of "The origins of species" Darwin believed that since all organisms descend from a common ancestor they share the same gene-pool and therefore share all the same traits , which explained why he believed one species could become another, the problem with this theory was that as good as it seemed experiments and observations did not yield what Darwin said,
For instance according to Darwin's theory's, an animal breeder through artificial selection should be able to create a new species altogether, yet regardless of how many variates of breeds of dogs that have been breed a complete new species has never emerged they are still dogs not a different species. and also the law of "Genetic stability" (I'll post a link if you want with the definition) based on the results of experiments conducted on living things, show that there are strict barriers among species meaning creatures from other species can not reproduce successfully with each other, and even if they can (Tigers and lions being the best example) They are generally sterile and don't survive well in the wild. if we all share the same genetic traits we should be able to reproduce, dogs of different breeds can but a cat and a dog cannot.

Of course, because the DNA's genetic information allows different genes to be active in different species, but which are not compatible. Hell, a human mother's own body sometimes rejects her human child because the DNA is diffeerent, its recognized as a foriegn body.

However, by genetically forcing DNA to come together, we've already made entirely new 'animals'. We've combined jellyfish DNA with pigs to make pigs that have a slight green/yellow color, we've combined horses and zebras, we've combined lions and tigers.

We don't have full knowledge of every gene yet, there are way too many, but we have significant knowledge. Enough to clone animals, make our own genetic mutations, combine species, do whatever we want basically.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Well I guess we do agree 😆 the belief species can evolve to different species is the core of evolution. micro evolution is just genetic variation and you say I don't listen 😉 but yeah we agree.

But genetic variation + enough time can change a fish into a house.