Prove Evolution...win money

Hey, Blue nocturne, I answered your question ages ago with lots of information on the corruption of DNA, but you refused to read it because it was several links (about SEVEN different links stating the same thing actually)

When DNA replicates, it's not always 100% perfect, and error occurs during this point and it creates a mutation. This mutation can be small, like having an extra thumb, or it can be large, like having extra immunities or an extra arm or super-dense muscles.

Now, through this error, can you put 2+2 together and understand that a new trait can be created completely by accident, from the corruption of the DNA?

Wow, hot debate.

Microevolution - the gradual change of traits over time due to variation (mutation) and natural selection.

Macroevolution - The change of one species into another (ie it can't breed with the species it came from) due to multiple instances of variation and natural selection. Some sort of isolation is also usually required.

Evil Dead has it mostly right. The only place I would disagree is that I think that 2 is still microevolution. For it to be macroevolution significant changes have to occur. Where's the line? I'd guess closer to 1000 or so. So 1+1+1+....+1=Macroevolution, if the changes isolate the new guy from the parent species and some bottlenecks of some sort occur (otherwise it would just provide more variation in the same species)

It's simple. They don't want to be proven wrong so they make stuff up to look smart. No creationist, is a TRUE scientist. And thats a fact.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Change-undergo a change; become different in essence; losing one's or its original nature; "She changed completely as she grew older"; "The weather changed last night"

Originally posted by Captain Falcon
I'm still waiting for a reply.

Macro-evolution -- produces new species.
Micro-evolution -- produces new breed.

They're both caused by the same laws. How can only one be true? Don't say, "We can't see it therefore it's false." You use the exact opposite arguement to prove the bible!

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Hey, Blue nocturne, I answered your question ages ago with lots of information on the corruption of DNA, but you refused to read it because it was several links (about SEVEN different links stating the same thing actually)

When DNA replicates, it's not always 100% perfect, and error occurs during this point and it creates a mutation. This mutation can be small, like having an extra thumb, or it can be large, like having extra immunities or an extra arm or super-dense muscles.

Now, through this error, can you put 2+2 together and understand that a new trait can be created completely by accident, from the corruption of the DNA?

Arachnoid freak an accident doesn't create new foreign elements within an organisms, it can bring forth traits that are regularly recessive but never new traits that never exist in the first place can't just appear.This is exactly what I'm talking about.

EDIT:

Originally posted by lord xyz
Macro-evolution -- produces new species.
Micro-evolution -- produces new breed.

They're both caused by the same laws. How can only one be true? Don't say, "We can't see it therefore it's false." You use the exact opposite arguement to prove the bible!

Falcon, what is similar about a change of traits that already exsit within the species; and brings forth variation amongst organisms in the same species (Microevolution). and something that explains the origin of species results from traits that appear from mutations?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Arachnoid freak an accident doesn't create new foreign elements within an organisms, it can bring forth traits that are regularly recessive but never new traits that never exist in the first place can't just appear.This is exactly what I'm talking about.

That is were you are wrong. New traits can arise.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is were you are wrong. New traits can arise.

You keep saying this , yet when I ask for proof you respond "Well it takes a long time" I need evidence; otherwise it is mere speculation.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
You keep saying this , yet when I ask for proof you respond "Well it takes a long time" I need evidence; otherwise it is mere speculation.

You have to give proof.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You have to give proof.

I did the fruit fly experiment, your rebuttal was that since the fly wasn't in it's niche the fly wouldn't change. Despite the fact that mutations are random and artificial selection creates more variety then natural selection (Since natural selection is random).

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I did the fruit fly experiment, your rebuttal was that since the fly wasn't in it's niche the fly wouldn't change. Despite the fact that mutations are random and artificial selection creates more variety then natural selection (Since natural selection is random).

I think the environment is very important in that case. However, for the sake of the argument, let's say you are correct. If there is a problem with evolution and it is not correct, then another theory must take its place. If there is not other theory that is more perfect then evolution then evolution stays as the leading theory until something better comes along. To through out evolution because it has a flaw, would be scientifically irresponsible.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think the environment is very important in that case. However, for the sake of the argument, let's say you are correct. If there is a problem with evolution and it is not correct, then another theory must take its place. If there is not other theory that is more perfect then evolution then evolution stays as the leading theory until something better comes along. To through out evolution because it has a flaw, would be scientifically irresponsible.

Environment can cause mutation, I'm not debating that but it does select mutation. The type of mutation is completely random regardless of the cause. What makes evolution such a good theory,When it rely's completely on chance.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Environment can cause mutation, I'm not debating that but it does select mutation. The type of mutation is completely random regardless of the cause. What makes evolution such a good theory,When it rely's completely on chance.

I'm glad you finally see the light. 😆

Originally posted by Evil Dead
bullshit mules are steril, number one. Most are.......but Mules have successfully mated with both horses and with donkeys.........

When has this happened, That sounds like bs to me.

http://www.yourart.com/research/encyclopedia.cgi?subject=/mule

Several female mules have produced offspring when mated to a purebred horse or ass. Since 1527 there have been more than 60 documented cases of foals born to female mules around the world

and that's just for the technical definition of mule.....male donkey/female horse offspring. For the offspring of a female donkey/male horse.....a "hinny", there are far more instances of reproduction.

I don't see how you could have ever missed this. Every time it happens it's on Headline news for a week........

PS. there are many other species that mate to produce hybrids......including Zebra/horse, zebra/donkey, lion/tiger, lion/leopard, tiger/leopard.....etc.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
http://www.yourart.com/research/encyclopedia.cgi?subject=/mule

PS. there are many other species that mate to produce hybrids......including Zebra/horse, zebra/donkey, lion/tiger, lion/leopard, tiger/leopard.....etc.

Yeah I know that, ligers, tigons,etc...

Edit: I thought you meant male mules made hinny's.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Arachnoid freak an accident doesn't create new foreign elements within an organisms, it can bring forth traits that are regularly recessive but never new traits that never exist in the first place can't just appear.This is exactly what I'm talking about.

EDIT:

Falcon, what is similar about a change of traits that already exsit within the species; and brings forth variation amongst organisms in the same species (Microevolution). and something that explains the origin of species results from traits that appear from mutations?

do understand how macro-evolution works?

I have to say, it's obnoxious when you take up that much space just to scroll down and post a poorly typed up sentence which you know will receive an unsatisfactory answer.

Originally posted by lord xyz
evolution is a rate of change. If change happens, evolution happens. Simple. 😉

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is my brilliant ANALOGY!!!

Every cell on a human is different. E.g. Skin cells, Brain cells, Muscle cells, all different. Now, scientists say they all came from one cell in a womb, but Creationism says that can't happen. God made our cells and systems all at once and they didn't start off as one then reproduced over a period of 9 months. Things like that can't happen.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

any questions?

Originally posted by Janus Marius
I have to say, it's obnoxious when you take up that much space just to scroll down and post a poorly typed up sentence which you know will receive an unsatisfactory answer.