Originally posted by ArachnoidfreakHowever, 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.
But that is not a natural change, and natural hybrids are rare and usually unsuccessful in nature.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We have been doing this for a very short time. Give it another million years.
Actually artificial selection is faster then natural selection, and yeah until then macro-evolution is just speculation.
EDIT: Genetic homeostasis show's that a creature of different species cannot reproduce ( there are exception but they ar generally unsuccessful) so if we all have a common ancestry different species should be able to breed successfully, like different animal breeds.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
But that is not a natural change, and natural hybrids are rare and usually unsuccessful in nature.
Because species can't interbreed naturally.
Take the evolution from monkey to man. Monkies have skulls, spines, skeletons, nerves, and a brain, with two hands and two feet, with twenty digits. Humans have the exact same thing, except just slightly different. Bigger brains, straighter spine, longer limbs, more rigid digits.
No new traits were added, but it's still evolution.
You're trying to disprove an entire theory with ONE argument, when evolution is just too complex to work that way.
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.
you do not mention that evolution takes thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of years to change enough traits to qualify as a new species. We have been fooling around with human selection over natural selection to strengthen breeds and create new breeds of animals for what, 150 years? You go on about inter-breeding species......but that's not what natural selection is and you know this.....it's the changing of one species, branching out into several other species through a series of small changes over an extended period of time. The very fact that Ligers, Tigons and Mules exist ofcourse means that Lions and Tigers share enough of the same genetic code...as do horses and donkeys respectively to allow for reproduction of entirely new species.......and yes, they are new species as Ligers, Tigons and Mules have all reproduced offspring. They share enough of the same genetic code to reproduce because both Lions and Tigers are sister species branched off from a single progenative species.......as are horses and donkeys.......
You also negate to mention that we humans do not breed any mutations that may be deemed harmful to a breed......limiting human selection verses natural selection. If a mutation occurs in a breed resulting in a weaker spinal structure, say...less dense/malformed vertibrae.....we put these animals down instead of breeding that mutation over and over resulting in an animal with a completely changed skeletal structure to compensate for it's spinal deficiencies. We humans view these sort of changes as being harmful whereas natural selection may simply cast these animals into a new role in their ecosystem, physically unable to fullfill the role of the rest of that breed/species.....allowing for further change from it's progenative species as the traits naturally selected for it over a period of time willl differ from the traits of the progenative species even more as they now have completely different niches in the ecosystem.
Originally posted by ArachnoidfreakTake the evolution from monkey to man. Monkies have skulls, spines, skeletons, nerves, and a brain, with two hands and two feet, with twenty digits. Humans have the exact same thing, except just slightly different. Bigger brains, straighter spine, longer limbs, more rigid digits.
.
Ah, your describing homology, the belief that organisms that have similar organs have same ancestory, the problem with that logic is that certian creatures may have similar organs yet are completely take an octopus and man , two extremely different species, between which no evolutionary relationship is likely even to be proposed, yet the eyes of both are very much alike in terms of their structure and function.
Another striking example is the amazing resemblance and the structural similarity observed in the eyes of different creatures. For example, the octopus and man are two extremely different species, between which no evolutionary relationship is likely even to be proposed, yet the eyes of both are very much alike in terms of their structure and function
Originally posted by ArachnoidfreakYou're trying to disprove an entire theory with ONE argument, when evolution is just too complex to work that way.
Homology is simple, they look a like therefore they are alike are related, but where's the proof.
Evil dead if it has not been observed how does it hold up, evolutionist only speculate macro-evolution happens over millions of years the fossil record doesn't help that fact but it's still incomplete.
Also read this:
In 1904, Walter S. Sutton, an American cytologist, decided there might be some connection between Gregor Mendel's 1860s research and the newly discovered chromosomes with their genes. A major breakthrough came in 1906, when Thomas Hunt Morgan, a Columbia University zoologist, conceived the idea of using fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) for genetic research. This was due to the fact that they breed so very rapidly, require little food, have scores of easily observed characteristics and only a few chromosomes per cell.
"The fly could be bred by the thousands in milk bottles. It cost nothing but a few bananas to feed all the experimental animals; their entire life cycle lasts 10 days and they have only four chromosomes."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 169.
Later still, fruit flies began to be used in mutational research. What that research revealed—settled the question for all time as to whether evolution could successfully result from mutations. And those little creatures should be able to settle the matter, for it takes only days for a fruit fly to reach maturity; after that it steadily reproduces young. Each of its offspring matures in a few days, and the generations multiply rapidly. What it would take mammals tens of thousands of years to accomplish, the humble fruit flies can do within a very short time.
According to evolution, man has lived on the earth for a little over a million years. Yet experiments on fruit flies have already exceeded the equivalent of a million years of people living on earth. Here is a clear statement of the problem: "The fruit fly has long been the favorite object of mutational experiments because of its fast gestation period [twelve days]. X rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly by 15,000 percent. All in all, scientists have been able to "catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process, such that what has been seen to occur in Drosophila is the equivalent of the many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution."
"Even with this tremendous speedup of mutations, scientists have not been able to come up with anything other than another fruit fly. Most important, what all these experiments demonstrate is that the fruit fly can vary within certain upper and lower limits but will never go beyond them. For example, Ernst Mayr reported on two experiments performed on the fruit fly back in 1948.
"In the first experiment, the fly was selected for a decrease in bristles and, in the second experiment, for an increase in bristles. Starting with a parent stock averaging 36 bristles, it is possible after thirty generations to lower the average to 25 bristles, "but then the line became sterile and died out." In the second experiment, the average number of bristles were increased from 36 to 56; then sterility set in. Mayr concluded with the following observation: Obviously any drastic improvement under selection must seriously deplete the store of genetic variability . . The most frequent correlated response of one-sided selection is a drop in general fitness. This plagues virtually every breeding experiment."—*Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 134.
exactly what I was going to say Shaky.......
natural selection is determined by environment. If all share the same environment, how is there room for natural selection? There is only one niche to fill...........nevermind the fact that this test was done in a lab with no connection to any of the other multiple cycles that contribute to an ecosystem. Hell, the most obvious would be food chain.
nobody claims there is a relationship between an octopuss and a man today. The claim is that if you go back far enough in the history of the earth.......work backwards and follow the evolutionary chart of each species, there will be an intersecting point where one species....even if only a sincle celled organism was a progenative species that through millions of years of evolution following different paths in different ecosystems resulted in both the human and octopuss.
what's all this typing about "looks like".....speaking of anatomy......it's quite simple. Every generation of animal recieves it's DNA from it's previous generation. Mutations occur which alter that DNA slightly from time to time.........yet even through millions of years of mutations, every animal on this earth still retains between 92-99% of the same DNA that we humans have. It doesn't matter what an animal looks like........what matters is what it's made of.........
wow.....99% of the same DNA......for numerous primates alone.....and more than 92% for even insects...........holy god damn that is the biggest coincidense of all time. I'm not mathmatician but I'm sure the odds on that coincidence existing between a fly and a human alone would be quite large.........not even taking into account the other MILLIONS of other species on the planet. If all those were taken into account, the "coincidence" of our DNA would probably dwarf the odds of our universe even existing at all..........
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
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.
Alright, so you are saying that Occam's Razor is looking for the correct answer...let that sink in.....and then doesn't complicate it anymore. Alright, that's stupid as hell, when can you ever be sure to have found the right answer? ...oh yeah, you can't.
And if that's your view of that principle, which is wrong, yes, you are WRONG, what is the difference between any other way to find the truth if we actually assume they will stop at the correct answer. Oh yeah, none.
My analogies were quite right too, you don't know if the elephant was in that area, you know that there was a storm. So, which theory is it going to be? THe Elephant or the Storm? I personally would go for the storm, but I am not ignorant enough to pretend that it will be the right answer.
But anyways, since you are too ignorant to understand anything, why don'T we wait for a scientist or something that actually knows what they are talking about (not you) to explain it?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Alright, so you are saying that Occam's Razor is looking for the correct answer...let that sink in.....and then doesn't complicate it anymore. Alright, that's stupid as hell, when can you ever be sure to have found the right answer? ...oh yeah, you can't.
Maybe you just don't understand what 'unnecessarily' means. If an answer is wrong, isn't it necessary to find the right one?
Yes, you can be sure to have the right answer, you just find evidence and test theories...you know, basically the entire scientific method.
And if that's your view of that principle, which is wrong, yes, you are WRONG, what is the difference between any other way to find the truth if we actually assume they will stop at the correct answer. Oh yeah, none.My analogies were quite right too, you don't know if the elephant was in that area, you know that there was a storm. So, which theory is it going to be? THe Elephant or the Storm? I personally would go for the storm, but I am not ignorant enough to pretend that it will be the right answer.
But anyways, since you are too ignorant to understand anything, why don'T we wait for a scientist or something that actually knows what they are talking about (not you) to explain it?
Unless you're the last person alive in your neighborhood, there's a way to verify the claim.
Guess what, if the storm did it, then you're right. If the elephant did it, then it's necessary to change your claim to 'the elephant did it'.
Unknowingly prove my point, and then call ME ignorant? Good job douche. I'm done with you.
Bardock> "but if someone claims that what science says is right, just that some being made it that way....you can really just say, "well, I suppose it could...leave me alone.""
Or, you could say, "prove that, please". 🙂
Also, Occam's razor doesn't say the EASIEST explanation is the right one.
http://www.skepdic.com/occam.html
The theory of evolution isn't the SIMPLEST or the EASIEST explanation. That would be Creationism. "God created everything, it's just LIKE that. Period." But evolution, scientifically speaking both explains what's observed in nature and is in accordance with other scientific branches. Adding the concept of GOD is not necessary for the ToE to work, so it would be unnecessary posited plurality.
Neither Occam´'s razor nor ToE disproves the existence of God. You cannot, ever, prove a "negative" or the non-existence of something. That's why the burden of proof always rests on the one making the "positive" assertion or claims that something exists.
And why "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".
Chancellor Gav> Einstein was no expert on theology, so what's the point of your post?
And since you didn't see it, I've attached a pic for you...
I agree with most of what you type Omega.......but in regards to Occam's razor, god would not be the simplest answer. Evolution is a theory based on known facts....such as dna, mutations, species and reproduction.
To even put god into this fight would require the existence of god to be proven first. If god was already fact, then you would be very correct...simplest explanation.........but the very effort of proving god's existence before even applying it to the question at hand would be much more complex and difficult than a theory based on known facts.
Originally posted by The Omega
Bardock> "but if someone claims that what science says is right, just that some being made it that way....you can really just say, "well, I suppose it could...leave me alone.""Or, you could say, "prove that, please". 🙂
Also, Occam's razor doesn't say the EASIEST explanation is the right one.
http://www.skepdic.com/occam.htmlThe theory of evolution isn't the SIMPLEST or the EASIEST explanation. That would be Creationism. "God created everything, it's just LIKE that. Period." But evolution, scientifically speaking both explains what's observed in nature and is in accordance with other scientific branches. Adding the concept of GOD is not necessary for the ToE to work, so it would be unnecessary posited plurality.
Neither Occam´'s razor nor ToE disproves the existence of God. You cannot, ever, prove a "negative" or the non-existence of something. That's why the burden of proof always rests on the one making the "positive" assertion or claims that something exists.
And why "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".Chancellor Gav> Einstein was no expert on theology, so what's the point of your post?
And since you didn't see it, I've attached a pic for you...
That's the point I was making, adding something that is unnecessary for a theory makes it more complicated.....
Again, that was also what I was saying, it is not a infallible method, and even in Science the more complicated theory might actually be the right one...so making Occam's Razor a universally accepted method (that is what we are debating about, in case you people forgot) wouldn't be true to nature....you need to stay as objective as possible and just because the theory works and seems very simple (not to many assumptions to make)
Yes, and I am not doubting that scientific decision process work very well, but we should keep in mind that they are just looking for the most probable...not for the correct one.
I am not sure if I made my stance clear, I believe in evolution (well, because it works very well and makes sense...and probably also because of OccaM's Razor....), but just because I believe it I can't claim that Debbie's Bullshit theories are Bullshit...although I'd say it's quite probable that they are....
Originally posted by The Omega
Evil Dead> I understand what you mean, I was not completely clear in my previous post, as I did make the mistake of making the EXTRA assumption that “God exists” was already proven, which it has never been.
Thanks for correcting me 👆
But...well, that's the point, evolution is the simplest, easiest workable theory....
Originally posted by Evil Deadnatural selection is determined by environment. If all share the same environment, how is there room for natural selection? There is only one niche to fill...........nevermind the fact that this test was done in a lab with no connection to any of the other multiple cycles that contribute to an ecosystem. Hell, the most obvious would be food chain.
The point of the experiment was to prove macro-evolution,it was to see if any new traits would emerge overtime, but I get your arguement
Originally posted by Evil Deadnobody claims there is a relationship between an octopuss and a man today. The claim is that if you go back far enough in the history of the earth.......work backwards and follow the evolutionary chart of each species, there will be an intersecting point where one species....even if only a sincle celled organism was a progenative species that through millions of years of evolution following different paths in different ecosystems resulted in both the human and octopuss.
There isn't any proof in the fossil record, but it is incomplete, evolution should focus on proving macro-evolution IMO.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
wow.....99% of the same DNA......for numerous primates alone.....and more than 92% for even insects...........holy god damn that is the biggest coincidense of all time. I'm not mathmatician but I'm sure the odds on that coincidence existing between a fly and a human alone would be quite large.........not even taking into account the other MILLIONS of other species on the planet. If all those were taken into account, the "coincidence" of our DNA would probably dwarf the odds of our universe even existing at all..........
And plants whats the similarity between their dna and humans?