Evolution VS Creation - Page 2 - Talk About Marriage
Politics and Religion This is the place to discuss politics, morality, religion, and anything controversial.

User Tag List

 160Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #16 of 385 (permalink) Old 02-04-2017, 02:49 AM Thread Starter
Member
 
As'laDain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,155
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomDude View Post
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...etic-life-form

Dangerous though, people are saying it could escape and cause havoc / be used as biological weapons. Can also cure cancer. Or herald the beginning of a zombie apocalypse, or turn this planet into a planet of the apes.
personally, i dont see how designing a life form actually proves either side, unless abiogenesis can be shown to be a common natural phenomenon. if it is not common and not natural, then creating a life form only shows that life can be intelligently designed. i don't think such a feat would be useful evidence for either side of the argument.


i remember reading about that story a while ago... the article makes it seem as though they wrote the code for its whole genome. they didn't, they modified an existing one.


"The ecologist is continually having to look at the aspects of nature with which he is unfamiliar and perforce must be an amateur for much of his working time.... professionals may carp at omissions, misconstructions, or even downright errors in these pages. perhaps ultimately they may forgive them for the sake of the overall vision that only the amateur, or the ecologist, blithely sets out to experience."G. Evelyn Hutchinson
As'laDain is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #17 of 385 (permalink) Old 02-04-2017, 03:15 AM Thread Starter
Member
 
As'laDain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,155
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by uhtred View Post
The fossil record shows a broad, if fragmentary record of changes in species over time that are consistent with what evolution would predict. Isolated eco systems like Australia, New Zealand and famously the Galopogos also show species that are consistent with evolution. Changes in bacteria culture under stress are consistent with evolution.

I'm not aware of significant evidence against evolution. An example of such evidence would, for example, be a species that changed in a way to adapt to an environmental change before that change happened.

Evolution also is consistent with what we know about genetics, mathematics and the physical universe.

Of course it is impossible to rule out a god who has caused slow changes in species in a way that is consistent with evolution. It is just as impossible to rule out the possibility that God created the world 6000 years ago (or 1 second ago) designed to look old. If an omnipotent omniscient god wants to fool me, he will succeed.
one monkey wrench that i can see in the theory of evolution is the cambrian explosion. with the way we understand how genes mutate from generation to generation, we should see gradual changes, assuming that we start with simple, short genomes. that is also assuming that these mutations can produce new genetic functions, which as far as i know, has not been observed yet. if, however, the first genomes were incredibly huge, then any mutation that would cause a loss of genetic function could potentially generate entirely new phenotypes very quickly. for instance, a dinosaur losing function of a suppressor gene, which causes the genes that code for the palate to be over expressed, resulting in a beak instead of a mouth with teeth.

since every mutation we have documented so far seems to be loss of function mutations, then having a very large genome for the first life forms would explain the Cambrian explosion pretty well. kinda like starting with a wolf and producing every breed of dog through minor mutations, but on a much greater scale.

the cave fish is another example of how it seems to work. a very minor mutation causes the fish to not develop an eye at all, and as a result, it develops its other senses stronger. the mutation is on a simple protein that is only produced in the embryo. artificially add that protein back in during its development and it develops the entire eye. a very simple loss of function mutation causes the fish to be better suited for cave life.

but if all the mutations we find are either loss of function mutations or at best, do nothing, then it begs the question: why was the genome large enough at the beginning to create all the phyla on earth? why have no new phyla been created since then?

"The ecologist is continually having to look at the aspects of nature with which he is unfamiliar and perforce must be an amateur for much of his working time.... professionals may carp at omissions, misconstructions, or even downright errors in these pages. perhaps ultimately they may forgive them for the sake of the overall vision that only the amateur, or the ecologist, blithely sets out to experience."G. Evelyn Hutchinson
As'laDain is online now  
post #18 of 385 (permalink) Old 02-04-2017, 10:36 AM
Member
 
VladDracul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 851
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by As'laDain View Post
only shows that life can be intelligently designed.
Why are intelligent designed lifeforms considered unscientific in respect to evolution?

If you don't embody controversy, what you say will become just another part of the media driven culture of stifling thought and debate about issues.
VladDracul is offline  
 
post #19 of 385 (permalink) Old 02-04-2017, 11:01 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,126
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Distant history looks small. The Cambrian explosion was fast - on the timescale of hundreds of millions of years, but still took a long time. Creatures were soft bodied and didn't preserve well so we have a very limited record of what happened.

Evolution has been seen to develop new traits like antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Large creatures evolve more slowly so seeing new traits appear in front of our eyes is difficult. We do see them in the fossil record with wings.

What I consider an example in action are the flying snakes in Borneo. They don't really fly but they can flatten their bodies to form an airfoil shape and glide a little, letting them jump from trees to escape predators. I wouldn't be surprised to see this develop into something more like flying squirrels, then eventually birds. (I've seen them glide - its pretty cool).

Quote:
Originally Posted by As'laDain View Post
one monkey wrench that i can see in the theory of evolution is the cambrian explosion. with the way we understand how genes mutate from generation to generation, we should see gradual changes, assuming that we start with simple, short genomes. that is also assuming that these mutations can produce new genetic functions, which as far as i know, has not been observed yet. if, however, the first genomes were incredibly huge, then any mutation that would cause a loss of genetic function could potentially generate entirely new phenotypes very quickly. for instance, a dinosaur losing function of a suppressor gene, which causes the genes that code for the palate to be over expressed, resulting in a beak instead of a mouth with teeth.

since every mutation we have documented so far seems to be loss of function mutations, then having a very large genome for the first life forms would explain the Cambrian explosion pretty well. kinda like starting with a wolf and producing every breed of dog through minor mutations, but on a much greater scale.

the cave fish is another example of how it seems to work. a very minor mutation causes the fish to not develop an eye at all, and as a result, it develops its other senses stronger. the mutation is on a simple protein that is only produced in the embryo. artificially add that protein back in during its development and it develops the entire eye. a very simple loss of function mutation causes the fish to be better suited for cave life.

but if all the mutations we find are either loss of function mutations or at best, do nothing, then it begs the question: why was the genome large enough at the beginning to create all the phyla on earth? why have no new phyla been created since then?
uhtred is online now  
post #20 of 385 (permalink) Old 02-04-2017, 01:26 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
As'laDain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,155
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by VladDracul View Post
Why are intelligent designed lifeforms considered unscientific in respect to evolution?
I never said it was unscientific. Intelligently designed life forms just prove that life can be intelligently designed, because it would be an observation that could be reproduced through controlled experiments. If the conditions under which life forms can be shown to exist in nature, then it would be evidence for abiogenesis as well.

Unless we observe abiogenesis in a natural environment, we will never be able to prove it. If we design life, it proves that it can be done, even if not proving that it was done before us.

"The ecologist is continually having to look at the aspects of nature with which he is unfamiliar and perforce must be an amateur for much of his working time.... professionals may carp at omissions, misconstructions, or even downright errors in these pages. perhaps ultimately they may forgive them for the sake of the overall vision that only the amateur, or the ecologist, blithely sets out to experience."G. Evelyn Hutchinson
As'laDain is online now  
post #21 of 385 (permalink) Old 02-04-2017, 02:49 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
As'laDain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,155
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by uhtred View Post
Distant history looks small. The Cambrian explosion was fast - on the timescale of hundreds of millions of years, but still took a long time. Creatures were soft bodied and didn't preserve well so we have a very limited record of what happened.

Evolution has been seen to develop new traits like antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Large creatures evolve more slowly so seeing new traits appear in front of our eyes is difficult. We do see them in the fossil record with wings.

What I consider an example in action are the flying snakes in Borneo. They don't really fly but they can flatten their bodies to form an airfoil shape and glide a little, letting them jump from trees to escape predators. I wouldn't be surprised to see this develop into something more like flying squirrels, then eventually birds. (I've seen them glide - its pretty cool).
The cambrian explosion didnt last hundreds of missions of years. It lasted between 20 to 25 million years, during which time all existing phyla came into existence. In the past 520 million years since, not a single new phylum has been created through evolution.

Antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria have pretty much all been demonstrated to be caused by loss of function mutations. Here is a paper describing how that works.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3708842/

It kinda off handedly mentions a strain of ecoli that gained the ability to metabolize citrate in the presence of oxygen, but this was later determined to be a loss of function mutation as well: basically, a supressor gene was broken, causing an aerobic promoter to be over expressed.

Now, that isn't to say that they are not evolving... they certainly are. But, they are evolving through loss of function mutations. With bacteria, they exchange DNA all the time. And they mutate fast. In a stable environment, they will continue to mutate and exchange dna, gaining many beneficial loss of function mutations in the process. Eventually you end up with a bacteria that is highly specialized if it's environment is stable. Once it has reached its most efficient form for that particular environment, it has weeded out all the gene functions that do not give it an advantage; any further mutations weaken it. They would have to have mutations that restore genetic function in order to go back to their previous state. If they cannot do that, then what we are left with is pretty much an evolutionary dead end: it will never again be able to exist anywhere else. This doesn't happen with bacteria because they exchange DNA with each other all the time. If a highly specialized strain ends up in a different environment with the same type of bacteria, it just swaps it's DNA amd gains the old forms of those genes that allow it to survive in the new environment. This is why bacteria are unlikely to ever drive themselves into a true dead end. But they are a perfect example of what I am talking about: evolution through loss of function, rather than a gain of function.

Multicellular organisms cannot simply exchange their DNA like bacteria can. A bacterium could swap DNA and still have the biochemical makeup to survive in its environment. Sexual reproduction, on the other hand, requires an organism to lose half it's dna and hope that it's mate provides the correct genes to allow it's offspring to survive. And of course, as you mentioned, it happens much slower. But, as I said before, every beneficial mutation that we have seen so far has been shown to be a loss of function mutation. Eventually, larger animals will run out of genes to null. Especially if they are not able to mix their genes often enough to keep unmutated forms in their gene pools: ie, mate with different breeds with traits that allow them to survive in different environments.


I kind of doubt snakes will ever end up flying, although I concede it is possible. They would have to evolve a lot of traits in order to do so, and those traits would have to be either beneficial enough to make it more fit, or at least not deleterious enough to cause it to die out before it gets the proper mix of mutations for flight. But that begs the question; will it gain genetic function or lose it?

If genetic information can not be shown to be gained, we are still left with the question of where everything came from to begin with. With the current model of the theory of evolution, paired with our observations, the cambrian explosion makes absolutely no sense at all.

"The ecologist is continually having to look at the aspects of nature with which he is unfamiliar and perforce must be an amateur for much of his working time.... professionals may carp at omissions, misconstructions, or even downright errors in these pages. perhaps ultimately they may forgive them for the sake of the overall vision that only the amateur, or the ecologist, blithely sets out to experience."G. Evelyn Hutchinson
As'laDain is online now  
post #22 of 385 (permalink) Old 02-05-2017, 12:29 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,126
Re: Evolution VS Creation

20 million years is a long time if there are rapidly evolving creatures in a large ecosystem. The "explosion" is somewhat distributed over time, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion with a number of plausible explanations for the rapid development.

Large complex animals have a slow life cycle so its not practical to observe evolution in the lab.

The paper you link describes evolution of traits by both the addition and loss of function - that particular paper concentrates on loss of function because that is what they were studying, but in the summary indicates that gain of function is the normal mechanism. It doesn't seem to say that gain of function never happens.

The other side of the question is what is the alternative? The is evidence for increasing complexity over the last 500 million years, with even the bursts lasting tens of millions of years. Is there another explanation that makes more sense, and what testable predictions does it make?





Quote:
Originally Posted by As'laDain View Post
The cambrian explosion didnt last hundreds of missions of years. It lasted between 20 to 25 million years, during which time all existing phyla came into existence. In the past 520 million years since, not a single new phylum has been created through evolution.

Antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria have pretty much all been demonstrated to be caused by loss of function mutations. Here is a paper describing how that works.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3708842/

It kinda off handedly mentions a strain of ecoli that gained the ability to metabolize citrate in the presence of oxygen, but this was later determined to be a loss of function mutation as well: basically, a supressor gene was broken, causing an aerobic promoter to be over expressed.

Now, that isn't to say that they are not evolving... they certainly are. But, they are evolving through loss of function mutations. With bacteria, they exchange DNA all the time. And they mutate fast. In a stable environment, they will continue to mutate and exchange dna, gaining many beneficial loss of function mutations in the process. Eventually you end up with a bacteria that is highly specialized if it's environment is stable. Once it has reached its most efficient form for that particular environment, it has weeded out all the gene functions that do not give it an advantage; any further mutations weaken it. They would have to have mutations that restore genetic function in order to go back to their previous state. If they cannot do that, then what we are left with is pretty much an evolutionary dead end: it will never again be able to exist anywhere else. This doesn't happen with bacteria because they exchange DNA with each other all the time. If a highly specialized strain ends up in a different environment with the same type of bacteria, it just swaps it's DNA amd gains the old forms of those genes that allow it to survive in the new environment. This is why bacteria are unlikely to ever drive themselves into a true dead end. But they are a perfect example of what I am talking about: evolution through loss of function, rather than a gain of function.

Multicellular organisms cannot simply exchange their DNA like bacteria can. A bacterium could swap DNA and still have the biochemical makeup to survive in its environment. Sexual reproduction, on the other hand, requires an organism to lose half it's dna and hope that it's mate provides the correct genes to allow it's offspring to survive. And of course, as you mentioned, it happens much slower. But, as I said before, every beneficial mutation that we have seen so far has been shown to be a loss of function mutation. Eventually, larger animals will run out of genes to null. Especially if they are not able to mix their genes often enough to keep unmutated forms in their gene pools: ie, mate with different breeds with traits that allow them to survive in different environments.


I kind of doubt snakes will ever end up flying, although I concede it is possible. They would have to evolve a lot of traits in order to do so, and those traits would have to be either beneficial enough to make it more fit, or at least not deleterious enough to cause it to die out before it gets the proper mix of mutations for flight. But that begs the question; will it gain genetic function or lose it?

If genetic information can not be shown to be gained, we are still left with the question of where everything came from to begin with. With the current model of the theory of evolution, paired with our observations, the cambrian explosion makes absolutely no sense at all.
uhtred is online now  
post #23 of 385 (permalink) Old 02-05-2017, 10:05 PM
Member
 
VladDracul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 851
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by As'laDain View Post
If we design life, it proves that it can be done, even if not proving that it was done before us.
Depending on how one defines "intellegent design", a simple (well not simple to do) example are various turf grasses at UGA in Tifton Ga. Grasses are designed specifically for certain environments. Hunting tracking and guard,dogs have been "designed" for certain applications for centuries. It really don't take no controlled experiment to design a dog. A buddy of mine designed an all black Beagle with little more than a dog pen.

If you don't embody controversy, what you say will become just another part of the media driven culture of stifling thought and debate about issues.
VladDracul is offline  
post #24 of 385 (permalink) Old 02-05-2017, 10:38 PM
Member
 
CuddleBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,732
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by As'laDain View Post
i figured this might be an interesting thread. so, what is the evidence you have seen for evolution, and what is the evidence you have seen for creation?

i only ask one thing, please do not derail this thread into bashing people with different views. if you think a particular way of interpreting a piece of information is deluded or idiotic, poke holes in the argument rather than attack the person.
i would like to see fairly objective reasoning.

anyway, anything that you can think of that supports either creation or evolution, or refutes either of them. scientific discoveries, mathematics, genetics, etc. share the evidence and share why you believe it supports or refutes a either side.

i would love to hear your thoughts.

I've dived deep into both camps and both have pros and cons.

I've read the latest theories, only to be replaced by more theories.

During those times, the current theories were told as fact, later to be replaced by other theories.

I have yet to see a cat turn into an alien, or a human turn into a reptile. Over 7+ billion people in a short time and people were the same today as back to the first Egyptian Dynasty, 2500 BC if I'm correct.

We are finding more and more species alive and thriving that were supposed to die off millions of years ago.

Some theories say humans aren't native to planet earth and that we were placed here after everything else was done.

Many ancient civilizations with statues and pictures of beings that look like aliens.

Advanced technologies back then would seem like magic and nonsense because they're so advanced.

A human today with all technologies and understanding how things work, goes back 1000 years......people would say he is a divine being. Imagine 5000 or 10,000 years ago? A God.

New theories will always come forth and that will never change.

I see it this way. All life is meant to micro evolve, meaning limitless horizontal changes based on environment, food sources, etc. Otherwise everything would be extinct.

One camp believes in creation. Everything designed in the beginning and let go its way since then naturally. How do you describe creation in scientific terms, very difficult.

The other camp believes in evolution. Everything came uncaused, by accident, randomness, very long periods of time, and you have all complex life forms of what you get today. That makes no sense either.

I honesty think its a bit of both.

If you were an advanced being, no body, all mind, and you designed a universe with everything in it, it would be easy for you. Try explaining that to physical beings so they understand. Good luck. Magic, we can't comprehend it so it doesn't exist, etc. 100+ years later we got it......oooops we understand now.

Based on evolution, universe is billions of years old, speed of light.

Based on design in the beginning, speed of light is irrelevant until after the design is put in place.

The only true way well start figuring out how everything works, no theories, no telescopes, build space ships and get out there.

Sign me up Scotty. I would be out there so fast.

Strength and Honor. What we do in life echo's in eternity.

Last edited by CuddleBug; 02-05-2017 at 10:42 PM.
CuddleBug is offline  
post #25 of 385 (permalink) Old 02-05-2017, 11:42 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,126
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Since there is very solid evidence for species changing over hundreds of millions of years, the only model of intelligent design is an agent that has spent hundreds of millions of years guiding these changes, or an agent that has made a few specific changes, while the rest is due to evolution.

Its difficult to imagine the sort of intelligence that would act that way. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it would be hard to imagine interacting with it.

uhtred is online now  
post #26 of 385 (permalink) Old 02-06-2017, 02:25 AM Thread Starter
Member
 
As'laDain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,155
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by uhtred View Post
Since there is very solid evidence for species changing over hundreds of millions of years, the only model of intelligent design is an agent that has spent hundreds of millions of years guiding these changes, or an agent that has made a few specific changes, while the rest is due to evolution.

Its difficult to imagine the sort of intelligence that would act that way. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it would be hard to imagine interacting with it.
an intelligence that could interact outside of time might.

regardless, life could evolve over millions of years pretty much exactly the way we see it if the earliest life forms had enough genetic information to make it happen. all that would be needed would be time and random loss of function mutations to allow the offspring to develop different physical traits and branch out into different species.

"The ecologist is continually having to look at the aspects of nature with which he is unfamiliar and perforce must be an amateur for much of his working time.... professionals may carp at omissions, misconstructions, or even downright errors in these pages. perhaps ultimately they may forgive them for the sake of the overall vision that only the amateur, or the ecologist, blithely sets out to experience."G. Evelyn Hutchinson
As'laDain is online now  
post #27 of 385 (permalink) Old 02-06-2017, 10:39 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,126
Re: Evolution VS Creation

By earliest life, do you mean earliest complex life ~600M years ago, or earliest life of any kind ~3B years ago?




Quote:
Originally Posted by As'laDain View Post
an intelligence that could interact outside of time might.

regardless, life could evolve over millions of years pretty much exactly the way we see it if the earliest life forms had enough genetic information to make it happen. all that would be needed would be time and random loss of function mutations to allow the offspring to develop different physical traits and branch out into different species.
uhtred is online now  
post #28 of 385 (permalink) Old 02-06-2017, 06:53 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
As'laDain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,155
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by uhtred View Post
By earliest life, do you mean earliest complex life ~600M years ago, or earliest life of any kind ~3B years ago?
earliest as in the first life on the planet.

some pretty primitive life forms have insanely large genomes. how they got them, who knows. to be honest, i would love to try mutating the crap out of a few of them and see if it produces something crazy. for instance, amoeba dubia apparently has 670 billion base pairs. we have 3 billion. and of our 3 billion, over 98 percent are non coding. the rest either does nothing or plays regulatory function. what the HELL does an amoeba do with 670 billion base pairs? loss of function mutations have already been proven to have a dramatic effect in driving adaptation. whats interesting is that the larger an organisms genome it is, the slower it grows and the more fragile it is in respect to its environment. it would need a LOT of time to be able to accumulate enough meaningful loss of function mutations to produce the kind of dramatic changes that scientists see in typical bacteria.

i would love to see what happens if it were to be mass cultured and then randomly mutated in a similar fashion...

"The ecologist is continually having to look at the aspects of nature with which he is unfamiliar and perforce must be an amateur for much of his working time.... professionals may carp at omissions, misconstructions, or even downright errors in these pages. perhaps ultimately they may forgive them for the sake of the overall vision that only the amateur, or the ecologist, blithely sets out to experience."G. Evelyn Hutchinson

Last edited by As'laDain; 02-06-2017 at 06:57 PM.
As'laDain is online now  
post #29 of 385 (permalink) Old 02-06-2017, 07:14 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,126
Re: Evolution VS Creation

The earliest life (for most of the last 3 billion years) we think was cyanobacteria which seem to have very simple genetics

Amoebas are much more complex and more recent, maybe 750My.

I don't know why you think "loss of function" is the only method of evolution, I haven't seen that anywhere.

If cyanobacteria were the earliest life (and there is a lot of evidence that they are very early), then life evolved from much simpler origins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by As'laDain View Post
earliest as in the first life on the planet.

some pretty primitive life forms have insanely large genomes. how they got them, who knows. to be honest, i would love to try mutating the crap out of a few of them and see if it produces something crazy. for instance, amoeba dubia apparently has 670 billion base pairs. we have 3 billion. and of our 3 billion, over 98 percent are non coding. the rest either does nothing or plays regulatory function. what the HELL does an amoeba do with 670 billion base pairs? loss of function mutations have already been proven to have a dramatic effect in driving adaptation. whats interesting is that the larger an organisms genome it is, the slower it grows and the more fragile it is in respect to its environment. it would need a LOT of time to be able to accumulate enough meaningful loss of function mutations to produce the kind of dramatic changes that scientists see in typical bacteria.

i would love to see what happens if it were to be mass cultured and then randomly mutated in a similar fashion...
uhtred is online now  
post #30 of 385 (permalink) Old 02-06-2017, 07:27 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
As'laDain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,155
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by uhtred View Post
The earliest life (for most of the last 3 billion years) we think was cyanobacteria which seem to have very simple genetics

Amoebas are much more complex and more recent, maybe 750My.

I don't know why you think "loss of function" is the only method of evolution, I haven't seen that anywhere.

If cyanobacteria were the earliest life (and there is a lot of evidence that they are very early), then life evolved from much simpler origins.
the earliest life were anaerobes. they came about(supposedly) a billion years before cyanobacteria. and truth be told, we have no idea what the early oxygen producers actually looked like, genetically, we just know that they must have produced a lot of oxygen for a very long time.

as for loss of function being the only method, i never said it would be impossible for a gain in function resulting from mutation. i have said that we have never actually seen it. its like the holy grail of the theory of evolution. we can show loss of function mutations driving adaptation, and in turn, evolution, all day long. a gain in function? still elusive.

"The ecologist is continually having to look at the aspects of nature with which he is unfamiliar and perforce must be an amateur for much of his working time.... professionals may carp at omissions, misconstructions, or even downright errors in these pages. perhaps ultimately they may forgive them for the sake of the overall vision that only the amateur, or the ecologist, blithely sets out to experience."G. Evelyn Hutchinson
As'laDain is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on Talk About Marriage, you must first register. Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

Important! Your username will be visible to the public next to anything you post and could show up in search engines like Google. If you are concerned about anonymity, PLEASE choose a username that will not be recognizable to anyone you know.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior tech-novelist The Social Spot 2 09-08-2016 02:34 AM
Religion Mr The Other Politics and Religion 585 02-20-2016 07:44 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome