Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,278 Year: 5,535/9,624 Month: 560/323 Week: 57/143 Day: 19/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
barbara
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 377 of 968 (600059)
01-12-2011 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by bluescat48
01-12-2011 2:38 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
So what is the common ancestor of humans and chimps?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by bluescat48, posted 01-12-2011 2:38 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Coragyps, posted 01-12-2011 9:31 AM barbara has not replied
 Message 380 by bluescat48, posted 01-12-2011 9:43 AM barbara has not replied

barbara
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 407 of 968 (600141)
01-12-2011 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by Taq
01-12-2011 11:45 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
There is plenty of fossils found in every state in the U.S. of the Pleisocene large mammals: Saber Tooth, Puma/cougar, American Lion, horse, dire wolf, mammoths, mastodon, Cheetahs, some marsupials, Giant beaver and many more.
They have not found any fossils of gorilla and found very few of chimp fossils but yet have found all the different species of human/ape.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by Taq, posted 01-12-2011 11:45 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by Coyote, posted 01-12-2011 8:21 PM barbara has replied
 Message 418 by Taq, posted 01-13-2011 11:07 AM barbara has not replied

barbara
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 409 of 968 (600148)
01-12-2011 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 408 by Coyote
01-12-2011 8:21 PM


Re: Bump for ICANT
What I meant to say that there are no fossils found in Africa for the gorilla and the chimp. Yet the U.S. has many fossils of these large mammals that once existed here.
Many of the fossils that represent the human lineage look more like chimp skulls then human.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by Coyote, posted 01-12-2011 8:21 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by Coyote, posted 01-12-2011 9:36 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 419 by Taq, posted 01-13-2011 11:13 AM barbara has not replied

barbara
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 423 of 968 (600199)
01-13-2011 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 414 by Dawn Bertot
01-13-2011 10:07 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
The Theory of Evolution would not be a hot debate if they had just left it as "change' over time. The problem comes in when they state they have the evidence that backs up the details of their theory.
Genetics at this point can only say that we share many protein sequences with many different species in the genes that are involved in development of body plans and its system of regulation mechanisms. A blind study of different samples from different species will not determine who those samples belong to that identify the subject.
They can sequence your genes but it cannot tell them what you are going to look like so by stating this is evidence that connects each species in a tree model is not conclusive.
There are many contributing factors that are believed to be involved with morphology changes in life forms over time. There is no such thing as A+B=C to define life's processes. This makes it impossible for science to solve the mysteries of life.
Human beings are not qualified and are limited by their sensory abilities that prevent them from being capable to study life in its intricate details because we can''t see it up close.
We can only observe the results not the actual process of how it got there. This is why we have many theories that attempt to explain these actual processes. The theories are validated as long as the results remain predictable. The conflict arises and the debate continues in defining the process based on opinions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-13-2011 10:07 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by Taq, posted 01-13-2011 11:41 AM barbara has not replied
 Message 425 by Coyote, posted 01-13-2011 11:42 AM barbara has not replied
 Message 426 by Granny Magda, posted 01-13-2011 11:43 AM barbara has not replied

barbara
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 568 of 968 (601676)
01-22-2011 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 567 by RAZD
01-22-2011 6:42 PM


Re: increased mutation rate is not directed mutation
There is no man made device or machine that is built to make decisions. Every step is designed to work if all of its parts are working properly in the order of how it was suppose to function.
In a living body form of life it is regulated in all of its parts and systems that also allow it to function without any other mechanism required to operate it. The problem of accepting this as developing by randomly attracting all of its components together by circumstances that allowed this organized system to emerge as the end result over time without any directed mechanism with the ability to communicate its direction is going to be met with disbelief.
If we are going to accept the fact that mutations are random and no living entity is exempt from this rule and every individual in a lifetime will experience a large number of mutations in their genes that eventually kills you if predation doesn't get to you first then the word "mutations" doesn't explain evolution very well.
When people generally are trying to understand how species can change into another species with a different body plan over time, they don't want to hear the word mutations. Especially when all you hear is how mutations causes disease factors in populations.
At this point in time, science cannot identify any mutation specifically to a gene or a set of genes that can be connected to its morphology that is evidence of one body plan emerging a different morphology structure of another body plan and give its identity of those creatures.
The point is by using the word mutations as the answer for changes then the entire genome is nothing but mutations, therefore it would be impossible to identify differences in any of the genes in that we all came from a common ancestor.
How would you identify when a gene became neutral, deleterious, or beneficial without a set of genes in their original form to compare it too? We do not have the first body plan organisms genetic sequences as the base of your comparison group.
Genetic studies are producing too many false/positive results which indicate the model that is being used is worthless. Until most of the biodiversity has their genes sequenced and logged that perhaps more meaningful patterns will emerge.
Sometimes the best response is to say,"We just do not know enough yet to make any solid determination regarding mutations"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 567 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2011 6:42 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 569 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2011 11:54 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 570 by Wounded King, posted 01-23-2011 4:40 AM barbara has not replied
 Message 572 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2011 8:10 AM barbara has not replied
 Message 574 by jar, posted 01-23-2011 9:58 AM barbara has not replied

barbara
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 591 of 968 (601899)
01-24-2011 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 590 by Taq
01-24-2011 12:27 PM


Differences in DNA sequences
Taq responded that the differences between species is the differences in DNA sequences. At some point for speciation or descent with modification, differences in the DNA sequences must change within the species population.
if epigenetics is not a factor, what specific mutations in the germ cells would modify the offspring to create a new generation of slightly different appearance from their parents?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 590 by Taq, posted 01-24-2011 12:27 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 592 by Coyote, posted 01-24-2011 10:42 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 593 by Taq, posted 01-24-2011 11:27 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 594 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2011 11:56 PM barbara has replied

barbara
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 606 of 968 (602019)
01-25-2011 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 594 by RAZD
01-24-2011 11:56 PM


Re: Differences in DNA sequences
You are talking about two different aspects of it. No we are not clones of either parent but a combination of both. That is not what I am referring to here. I am talking about the point when the appearance changes in morphology that defines them as another species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2011 11:56 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 609 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2011 7:57 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 610 by Taq, posted 01-26-2011 11:36 AM barbara has not replied

barbara
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 607 of 968 (602021)
01-25-2011 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 600 by Taq
01-25-2011 11:52 AM


Re: what gets turned on? what's new?
Perhaps you should not exclude all of the other species when you use chimps and humans to state your argument of mutational differences or similarities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 600 by Taq, posted 01-25-2011 11:52 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 611 by Taq, posted 01-26-2011 11:39 AM barbara has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024