PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     5 questions for evolutionists

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1.  how exactly did the big bang happen and where did the material come from for it?
2.  has evolution every been observed in bacteria?
3.  what was the first living thing?
4.  do you believe that God exists?
5.  how did the heart develop from 2-chambered to 3-chambered?

NOTE: im asking these questions just cause im curious, im sure you have answers to them.  im interested in your responses.
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 3:15 PM on April 21, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mythrandir at 3:15 PM on April 21, 2006 :
 im interested in your responses.


Then ask them seriously, and one at a time rather than trying to pull a
Dr. Dino .


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:48 PM on April 21, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1.  how exactly did the big bang happen and where did the material come from for it?
2.  has evolution every been observed in bacteria?
3.  what was the first living thing?
4.  do you believe that God exists?
5.  how did the heart develop from 2-chambered to 3-chambered?

NOTE: im asking these questions just cause im curious, im sure you have answers to them.  im interested in your responses.


1.) It's largely irrelevant, because not all evolutionists even believe the Big Bang occured.

2.) Evolution has been observed time and again through bacteria. Bacterial evolution has a plethora of internet-accessible information as well, because it can be observed within days. Here's some stuff from a five-minute search of Google:

E. Coli: http://www.isso.uh.edu/publications/A2002/fox2.htm

Additional information on bacterial evolution (requires Adobe Reader): www.im.microbios.org/04december98/06%20Lenski.pdf

Viruses are even worse, because their DNA changes without the need to reproduce or come into contact with other viruses or bacteria.

AIDS: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/03/010313074117.htm

H5N1 flu virus: http://www.recombinomics.com/News/06250502/H5N1_Evolving_Alarm.html

3.) The first known life was prokaryotic bacteria. You’ve probably learned in either a middle school, high school or some other kind of biology class that a basic cell has a bunch of different components in it, like mitochondria, a nucleus, etc. Normal cells that you and I are made of have most of those components, but prokaryotes do not. They live without a nucleus, and their DNA floats freely throughout the entire cell. They’re very basic units of life.

4.) I, personally, do not believe that a supernatural being exists, but I don’t believe there’s any proof against the possibility. A god could exist—we just don’t have the ability to know.

5.) How did the heart develop from a two-chambered heart to a three-chambered heart? Seems like a fairly random question, and to be honest, I don’t know. However, I promise you that first thing on Monday, as soon as I get to school, I’ll talk to my anatomy teacher about it, because he knows a lot more about that than I probably ever will.



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:48 PM on April 21, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

2.) Evolution has been observed time and again through bacteria. Bacterial evolution has a plethora of internet-accessible information as well, because it can be observed within days. Here's some stuff from a five-minute search of Google:


I could be wrong, but I'm guessing he is asking for proof that bacteria (as you stated, evolutionists speculate that bacteria was the first known life) has evolved into something besides bacteria.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:37 PM on April 21, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mythrandir said:

2.  has evolution every been observed in bacteria?


Oh well. We'll just wait for him/her to clarify.




-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:50 PM on April 21, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i have never heard of Dr. Dino

response to EntwickelnCollin
1. what do you mean, irrelevant? all i asked was how it happened.  if you dont believe in the big bang, what do you believe?
2. what i meant was macroevolution within bacteria.
3. how do you know the first life was a prokaryotic bacteria? do all evolutionists agree on that?
4. ok- thats a whole different topic, i was just wondering.
5. i know its random, but i still want to know.
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 07:32 AM on April 23, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1.  how exactly did the big bang happen and where did the material come from for
it?


This has nothing to do with evolution.  Biologists don't study the Big Bang, astronomers and physicists do that.  However the Big Bang happened, or whether it happened or not, has no impact on the theory of evolution.

2.  has evolution every been observed in bacteria?

Yes, look up nylon eating bacteria.

3.  what was the first living thing?

From here: FirstLife

"The very earliest organisms in the fossil record are cells of a very simple, primitive type where the DNA is free within the cell, and the cell is without internal structures. Cells of this type, called prokaryotes, are represented by bacteria and some other single-celled organisms living at the present day."

4.  do you believe that God exists?

No, but I could be wrong, and hope I am.

5.  how did the heart develop from 2-chambered to 3-chambered?

Interesting question, new genetic research being conducted now is shedding light on this.
From here:
HeartEvo

"Fishman also realized that the way these heart-module genes work in living fish might hold a clue to the evolution of vertebrate hearts. It’s possible that the complex, chambered heart didn’t change gradually, with many genes evolving minor mutations that changed their functions. Instead, each of the heart modules may have existed in earlier vertebrates, where they performed other, still unknown jobs. Merely by tinkering with the master gene that controlled a module, evolution could have quickly invented a new structure for the heart. To picture the difference between these two kinds of evolution, imagine building a concrete bridge. If you build it by adding sand grains one at a time, it will take a lot longer than if you assemble it from large prefabricated blocks."


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:42 PM on April 23, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i have never heard of Dr. Dino


Good. If someone ever gives you a source from Kent Hovind (aka Dr. Dino), ignore it. He's just not someone you want to get your information from.

1. what do you mean, irrelevant? all i asked was how it happened.  if you dont believe in the big bang, what do you believe?


By irrelevant, I mean inconsequential to evolution. Evolution can still occur with or without a big bang at the beginning of the universe. If all you want to know is if I accept the Big Bang theory, the answer is yes.

2. what i meant was macroevolution within bacteria.


Alright, then we're covered.

3. how do you know the first life was a prokaryotic bacteria? do all evolutionists agree on that?


As far as I know, all evolutionists agree on that, yes.


5. i know its random, but i still want to know.


I still plan to talk to my teacher about that tomorrow morning.




-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:09 PM on April 23, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what i meant was macroevolution within bacteria

Yes, look up nylon eating bacteria

Alright, then we're covered

I'm not a scientist, but I'm still not figuring out where macroevolution was covered?    What species was it before it came bacteria?  Or what non-bacteria species is it now?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:58 PM on April 23, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not a scientist, but I'm still not figuring out where macroevolution was covered?    What species was it before it came bacteria?  Or what non-bacteria species is it now?

Species is kind of a fuzzy concept when your dealing with asexually reproducing bacteria, but it evolved the ability to eat a synthetic material, it could now survive in a whole new niche.  Pretty dramatic evolutionary change.  No one said anything about evolving into non bacteria.  As to how prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes, from here:
Berkeley
"The complex eukaryotic cell ushered in a whole new era for life on Earth, because these cells evolved into multicellular organisms. But how did the eukaryotic cell itself evolve? How did a humble bacterium make this evolutionary leap from a simple prokaryotic cell to a more complex eukaryotic cell? The answer seems to be symbiosis — in other words, teamwork.
Evidence supports the idea that eukaryotic cells are actually the descendents of separate prokaryotic cells that joined together in a symbiotic union. In fact, the mitochondrion itself seems to be the "great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great granddaughter" of a free-living bacterium that was engulfed by another cell, perhaps as a meal, and ended up staying as a sort of permanent houseguest. The host cell profited from the chemical energy the mitochondrion produced, and the mitochondrion benefited from the protected, nutrient-rich environment surrounding it. This kind of "internal" symbiosis — one organism taking up permanent residence inside another and eventually evolving into a single lineage — is called endosymbiosis."

So far, the evidence supports eukaryotes evolving from prodayotes.




 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:21 AM on April 24, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


I'm not a scientist, but I'm still not figuring out where macroevolution was covered?    What species was it before it came bacteria?  Or what non-bacteria species is it now?


There are different species of bacteria. In fact, "bacteria" is probably the most broad taxonomic term in the entire Protazoan Kingdom.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:24 AM on April 24, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

demon 38, are you saying that fish always had 3 chambers, but only used two, and the third had some other function?  its not as simple as the chamber changing functions.  the entire circulatory system would have to be reworked and the fish would lose whatever function the third chamber performed before becoming a third chamber.  also, are there really structures that resemble a heart chamber?  isnt a heart chamber quite unique?
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 1:02 PM on April 24, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mythrandir at 1:02 PM on April 24, 2006 :
demon 38, are you saying that fish always had 3 chambers, but only used two, and the third had some other function?  its not as simple as the chamber changing functions.  the entire circulatory system would have to be reworked and the fish would lose whatever function the third chamber performed before becoming a third chamber.  also, are there really structures that resemble a heart chamber?  isnt a heart chamber quite unique?



A lungfish is an example of a "partially" developed circulatory system.



Lungfish

And another:

Anatomy Chapter 21

Current day lungfishes are representative of the rhipidistian lungfishes that gave rise to the amphibians. As is true for the appendicular skeleton, the basic patterns observed in human anatomy was laid down by evolutionary events in the primitive lobe-finned fishes. Lungfishes have an atrium that is divided by a partial interatrial septum. The right side of the atrium is larger than the left side. A pulmonary vein from the lung (a simple out-pocketing of the esophagus) leads to the sinus venosus in the Australian lungfish but it leads to the left atrial chamber in the South American and African Lungfish species. Thus, lungfishes have the beginnings of a two-circuit circulatory system. The systemic and pulmonary circuits do not become completely separated until the late dinosaurs, crocodiles, birds and mammals. In the lungfishes, the ventricle is partially divided by an interventricular septum. The conus arteriosus has a spiral valve to help separate blood flow into two separate channels directed toward separate aortic arches. In the lungfish, the sequence of blood flow is:

Systemic circulation:
Venous blood from the post cava (low O2) _ sinus venosus _ right side of atrium _ ventricle _ conus arteriosus _ aortic arches #5 and #6 that bear gills _ systemic circulation

Pulmonary circulation:
A newly formed pulmonary artery leads from the efferent branchial artery leaving the gills on the 6th branchial arch to supply blood to the vascularized lung _ pulmonary vein (high O2) _ left side of atrium _ ventricle _ conus arteriosus _ aortic arches #3 and #4 _ systemic circulation. Arches #3 and #4 lack gills so that blood oxygen is not lost to the surrounding water. There is a shunt at the base of the gills to prevent blood from passing through the gills for when the concentration of oxygen in the water is less than in the blood.




(Edited by Apoapsis 4/24/2006 at 1:36 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:29 PM on April 24, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

yeah, but its still a functioning circulatory system right?  what i dont understand is how a functioning two chamber heart and circulatory system could evolve into a three chamber heart and ciruculatory system.
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 2:45 PM on April 24, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mythrandir at 2:45 PM on April 24, 2006 :
yeah, but its still a functioning circulatory system right?  what i dont understand is how a functioning two chamber heart and circulatory system could evolve into a three chamber heart and ciruculatory system.


Close the partial interatrial separation on the Lungfish and you have a three chambered heart.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:54 PM on April 24, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

so what about a 4 chambered heart?
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 2:56 PM on April 24, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

do you guys believe that the Neanderthal man was a step between ape and man?
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 2:57 PM on April 24, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mythrandir at 2:56 PM on April 24, 2006 :
so what about a 4 chambered heart?


Close the partial interventricular septum.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:01 PM on April 24, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mythrandir at 2:57 PM on April 24, 2006 :
do you guys believe that the Neanderthal man was a step between ape and man?


The latest mtDNA results I have seen would indicate no, have you seen something new?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:03 PM on April 24, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

demon 38, are you saying that fish always had 3 chambers, but only used two, and the third had some other function?  its not as simple as the chamber changing functions.  the entire circulatory system would have to be reworked and the fish would lose whatever function the third chamber performed before becoming a third chamber.  also, are there really structures that resemble a heart chamber?  isnt a heart chamber quite
unique?


No, a fish has a 2 chambered heart.  What the evidence shows us is that evolution of the regulatory genes could have co-opped another structure for the third chamber, it didn't always have 3 chambers.  Why isn't it as simple as another structure changing functions?  What evidence do you have that refutes this theory?  The entire circulatory system could have evolved at the same time, that's what evolution can do when regulatory genes evolve.  Now would you please show us the empirical evidence that falsifies evolution of the 2 chambered heart into the 3 chambered heart?

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:14 PM on April 24, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how about Cro-Magnon?
what do you think about Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man?

oh, i just thought of something.  you probably have heard it a lot and can easily argue against it, but who cares?  im really here to learn what evolutionists think.  ill leave extensive argueing to sceintists and people who have actually researched evolution.

anyway, evolution takes place when a random DNA change creates an animal more capable of survival than other members of its species.  but it takes a long time to even notice anything.  so how does natural selection work?  an animal experiences a DNA mutation.  the mutation is so small that its not noticeable, right?  so what makes the animal better able to survive?  
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 3:19 PM on April 24, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

do you guys believe that the Neanderthal man was a step between ape and man?

The evidence says no.  They were homonids closely related to homo sapiens that evolved to live in cold climates.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:20 PM on April 24, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

demon 38 and Apoapsis- you have propose two different ways in which the heart could have evolved.  which one was it?
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 3:22 PM on April 24, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mythrandir at 3:19 PM on April 24, 2006 :
anyway, evolution takes place when a random DNA change creates an animal more capable of survival than other members of its species.  but it takes a long time to even notice anything.  so how does natural selection work?  an animal experiences a DNA mutation.  the mutation is so small that its not noticeable, right?  so what makes the animal better able to survive?  


Suggested reading material.

The Beak of the Finch


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:27 PM on April 24, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mythrandir at 3:22 PM on April 24, 2006 :
demon 38 and Apoapsis- you have propose two different ways in which the heart could have evolved.  which one was it?


Why do you think they are totally diffferent?


Gene that controls heart development

From the Lungfish post:
A pulmonary vein from the lung (a simple out-pocketing of the esophagus)


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:30 PM on April 24, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the finches are an example of microevolution.
what do you think of the Cambrian explosion?  
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 3:37 PM on April 24, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mythrandir at 3:37 PM on April 24, 2006 :
the finches are an example of microevolution.

And natural selection.

what do you think of the Cambrian explosion?  

It's poorly named.



Introduction to the Vendian period


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:45 PM on April 24, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how about Cro-Magnon?

We are Cro-Magnon man.

what do you think about Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man?

Nebraska man was a misidentified tooth that was thought by some scientists at the time to be from a homonid.  For the few years before real scientists accurately identified it, it was extremely controversial and not all biologists accepted it was from a homonid.  What do I think about it?  It's a good example of how science works.  An hypothesus was proposed and was falsified.  Don't see how this is a problem for the theory of evolution.

Piltdown man was a hoax that was exposed by real scientists.  Again, science in action.  It was a controversial subject and not all biologists accepted it as real.  

anyway, evolution takes place when a random DNA change creates an animal more capable of survival than other members of its species.  but it takes a long time to even notice anything.

What do you mean it takes a long time to even notice anything?  Small changes that give an organism even a small edge in survival is all it takes.  Where is the problem?

so how does natural selection work?  an animal experiences a DNA mutation.  the mutation is so small that its not noticeable, right?  so what makes the animal better able to survive?

How small is too small?  Obviously, if it's selected for by nature, it does have a noticable affect.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:06 PM on April 24, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

demon 38 and Apoapsis- you have propose two different ways in which the heart could have evolved.  which one was it?

No we haven't.  Apoapsis went into detail on what changed, I gave some evidence for the mechanism that caused that change.  Two pieces of evidence for the same thing.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:10 PM on April 24, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the finches are an example of microevolution.

Well, no, since new species arose, that is, by definition, macroevolution.  
From here:
DarwinFinches

"Most importantly, the evolutionary tree obtained by this analysis of finch microsatellite DNA is monophyletic.  That is, all of the different Galapagos finches turn out to be descended from a single ancestral form.  At the base of the tree, the ancestor to all the other finches, is a pointy-beaked warbler finch, Certhidea olivacea, with DNA very similar to warbler finches on Ecuador, 900km away,  Darwin was right.
The subsequent evolutionary history of the 14 finch species can be clearly seen in the microsatellite DNA tree."

So 14 species of finch on the Galapagos means macroevolution, since new species were formed.  And that has been verified by genetics.

what do you think of the Cambrian explosion?  

Extremely interesting period of Earth's history which is best explained by the theory of evolution.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:37 PM on April 24, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Research in the period 1973-1982 on Daphne Major was fairly typical of field studies until the 'big one,' a super El Nino, hit the Galapagos in January of 1983. Unusually warm water in the eastern Pacific stirred up a rainy season like none other before it. These desert islands became almost tropical with plant abundance and bird food was plentiful. In turn breeding was frequent and productive such that by June there were more than two thousand finches on the island.

More important than the rush of matings within species was the hybridization between species of Ereospiza. A scandens male mated with a fortis female and produced four viable offspring. Three of the hybrids mated to produce forty-three grandchildren. In yet another hybridization, a fuliginosa female mated with a fortis male, and they now have great grandchildren.

'But since 1983, which can truly be called a watershed year, the hybrids have done better. Those that hatched after that year were more likely to breed. They were also slightly more successful than the offspring of purebred fortis or fuliginosa pairs. And these odd couples went right on producing for the rest of the 1980s.'

'Crosses between fortis and scandens, the medium beak and the cactus finch, are doing better yet.'

What do you suppose the Grants made of that? Certainly they would have observed that these three species are really only one species if they can interbreed and produce offspring that are fitter than their parent species which were successful up to that time. However, they concluded,

'Hybridization is evolutionarily important because it produces novel combinations of genes . . . thereby creating favorable genetic conditions for rapid and major evolutionary change to occur. . . . '

Did they see a new species form? No. Rather they saw despeciation or fusion of species implying that the original 'species' were really parts of one highly variable gene pool."

Kenneth B. Cumming
-Ph.D. and M.A. in biology from Harvard University (1965, 1959)
-B.S. with honors in chemistry/biology from Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts (1956)
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 10:45 AM on April 25, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

When I think of the Cambrian Explosion in the context that most Creationists like to present it, the first thing that comes to mind is "Red Herring".

For the sake of discussion, if I ignore all of the scientific explanations for the Cambrian Explosion,  and chalk the "sudden appearance" of "multiple phyla" to divine intervention,  I still have not resolved all the evidence supporting the evolution of species in the 500+ million years subsequent to the CE.  

Creationists can moan all day about the sudden appearance of primitive bony fish or trilobites in the Burgess shale, but until they honestly address some of the other, more compelling evidence supporting evolution, their petty, little pot-shots and clumsy handwaves will only serve to highlight their real motives which center directly on their inablility to reconcile the available scientific evidence with their rigid, religious beliefs.  

It is a fact that the US court systems have determined that genetic evidence is reliable and compelling enough to put rapists and murderers behind bars. It is also a fact that scientists can use genetic evidence to demonstrate that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. Moreover they can demonstrate this shared ancestory among all chimps and all humans to the same level of certainty that juries routinely accept when they decide to remove pedophiles, rapists and other creeps from the gene pool.  What do the creationists think of all this?  

 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 10:48 AM on April 25, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You can genetically prove that someone is "likely" to have commited a crime.  It is a known fact that even DNA evidence is not 100%.  I have seen cases where DNA was used to take a child away from their mother even with documented proof from the doctor, nurses, father and other relatives who WITNESSED the birth.  The DNA of the mother did not match that of the child (and no, the mother was neither a surogate or an invitro fertilization).  No, it doesn't happen often, but do not fool yourself into thinking that genetics are foolproof.  Every scientist who has ever been wrong has thought he was right.



-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:22 PM on April 25, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What do you suppose the Grants made of that? Certainly they would have observed that these three species are really only one species if they can interbreed and produce offspring that are fitter than their parent species which were successful up to that
time.


No they wouldn't have concluded that these three species are really only one.  You should do more research.  Species is a fuzzy concept.
As populations branch out into new species, those branches that are closest to the ancestral population will be the most similar, so the possibility for interbreeding will still exist.  As the branches remain isolated over several generations and each accumulates more mutations, they will become less and less able to interbreed, until it will be become impossible for them to interbreed.  Under the conditions that an ancestral population splits, the new populations will be reproductively isolated.  Obviously El Nino was a major disruption of both of these finches ecological nicnes.  The question you have to answer is do fortis and scandens mate on a regular basis now?  If not, why not?  Evolution tells us why, they are 2 different populations reproductively isolated.  The more generations that are born, the more different they will become from each other.  This is how evolution works.

Did they see a new species form? No. Rather they saw despeciation or fusion of species implying that the original 'species' were really parts of one highly variable gene pool."

Did the hybrids form a reproductively isolated population?  Are they genetically distinct from the 2 species populations they formed from?
What does despeciation mean?  Are the new genomes different from the genomes they descended from?  Yes they are, therefore, they are a new species.  Youir source claims they descended from one gene pool, so what, the gene pools of the new hybrid species is different from it's parents, recombinations can form novel new combinations that were nto present before, this is how evolution works, this is one way new species can form.

Are you going to comment on the most recent studies of Galapagos finch microsatellite DNA analysis that clearly shows new species of finches all descending from one ancestral population (macroevolution) or are you going to ignore this research also?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:28 PM on April 25, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You can genetically prove that someone is "likely" to have commited a crime.  It is a known fact that even DNA evidence is not 100%.


There are indeed cases where DNA convictions were thrown out because the humans that performed the tests and analysis commited errors that in some instances may have even been willful.  But in cases where the testing procedures and anaylysis are performed properly, the evidence is better than a smoking gun.

I have seen cases where DNA was used to take a child away from their mother even with documented proof from the doctor, nurses, father and other relatives who WITNESSED the birth.  The DNA of the mother did not match that of the child (and no, the mother was neither a surogate or an invitro fertilization).
I don't doubt that you believe this to be true, however, I don't see how this could be possible.  I would respectfully ask you to provide a source if you can.  For the record, my request for a source is not meant to be viewed as a challange to your integrity.  I am just curious
No, it doesn't happen often, but do not fool yourself into thinking that genetics are foolproof.
Genetic markings are as unique to individuals (with the exception of non-fraternal twins) as fingerprints.  If DNA testing is performed correctly (and by no means is this a given--see link below) then resulting evidence is nearly fool proof.

Every scientist who has ever been wrong has thought he was right.
This I believe applies to all humans.  Kind of like we all have red blood.


BAD DNA TESTER!!!  BAD!!!
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 9:46 PM on April 25, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't doubt that you believe this to be true, however, I don't see how this could be possible.  I would respectfully ask you to provide a source if you can.  For the record, my request for a source is not meant to be viewed as a challange to your integrity.  I am just curious

Wish I could provide a link to it or a book reference but it was a tv news show (yes, one of the networks) that was highlighting genetic anomalies and why the current feeling that DNA evidence was indisputable could lead to the conviction of innocent people.  I don't think it was 20/20, but it was one of those types of shows.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 9:58 PM on April 25, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 8:58 PM on April 25, 2006 :
Wish I could provide a link to it or a book reference but it was a tv news show (yes, one of the networks) that was highlighting genetic anomalies and why the current feeling that DNA evidence was indisputable could lead to the conviction of innocent people.  I don't think it was 20/20, but it was one of those types of shows.


Was it possibly this show?

I am my own twin

I'll have to try to catch that.

Chimeras


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:45 AM on May 26, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Excellent post Apoasis.  I was totally clueless about Chimeras.  Ed, my thanks go to you as well for providing the impetus for this.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 7:52 PM on May 26, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Would a chimera have two souls?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:59 AM on May 27, 2006 | IP
the_general

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1.I personally do not know the answer to those HIGHLY complicated science questions and you should ask someone with a PhD for that extremely hard to find answer.
2.Yes actually it has, newdiseases, becoming resistant to cures, did you know Bird-Flu is a bacteria that is constantly evolving right before our eyes extremely rapidly.
3.Plants,actually, but is it has to be an animal single celled organisms.
4.Me, personally, no, i dont however speak for others.
5.The need for more endurance and to be able to do things faster, stronger, and longer.


-------
Religon=Opium of the Masses, except for Buddhism, thats about inner peace.

F.Y.I. to the Catholics/Christians...JESUS SAID LOVE ALL EQUALLY, HE NEVER SAID GAY PEOPLE ARE THE EXCEPTION!!!

IN AMERICA RELIGON IS NOT A GOOD REASON FOR ANY LAW!!! Period.

The idea of marriage was made in a time where being gay would be a good reason to torture you to death.

Before you say it im straight, but believe it or not im also, God forbid, tolerant.

If being gay is a choice then you accept being straight is too.

If God existed and couldn't accept gay people because he doesn't like them (guess where sins come from!) then he's imposing HIS beliefs on YOU!

If you aren't religous you can still be moral.

Where in the Bible does it say being gay is wrong, cuz if it wasnt in the first draft whats the big deal. Yes the Bible HAS been revised.

Race-does not matter
Religon-does not matter
Sex-does not matter
Sexuality-shouldn't have to matter, cuz it's not like whites don't befriend blacks , Christians don't befriend aetheists, and Men dont befriend Women, so...why make being straight or gay matter? Wanna know what does matter? We're alive. Shouldn't that be more than enough?
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 06:29 AM on July 17, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

2.Yes actually it has, newdiseases, becoming resistant to cures, did you know Bird-Flu is a bacteria that is constantly evolving right before our eyes extremely rapidly.


Just to clear up a misconception: the bird flu is a retro virus, H5N1--not a bacterium. It certainly does evolve, and far more rapidly than any bacteria can, but there is a very visible difference between viruses and bacteria, most notably the fact that viruses are not alive. In the case of most viruses, they're simply DNA surrounded by a shell of protein. Retro viruses, like the bird flu, are RNA surrounded by a shell of protein. Since they are RNA, and the strand of nucleic acid is not bound in a double helix, it can change more suddenly.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 09:57 AM on July 17, 2006 | IP
thelmoose

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am picking nits here, but the influenza virus is an RNA virus, but not a retrovirus, i.e., it does not require host DNA to replicate.
 


Posts: 40 | Posted: 6:44 PM on July 17, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ah. I recalled from my anatomy class that retro viruses were synonymous with RNA viruses.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 7:42 PM on July 17, 2006 | IP
the_general

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"the bird flu is a retro virus" -EntwickelnCollin

Sorry for the mistake at the time, youre rite it is a virus, not a bacteria, but regardless there is proof bacteria evolves, i'll admit i can't give any specific examples. is anyone else, however able to?


-------
Religon=Opium of the Masses, except for Buddhism, thats about inner peace.

F.Y.I. to the Catholics/Christians...JESUS SAID LOVE ALL EQUALLY, HE NEVER SAID GAY PEOPLE ARE THE EXCEPTION!!!

IN AMERICA RELIGON IS NOT A GOOD REASON FOR ANY LAW!!! Period.

The idea of marriage was made in a time where being gay would be a good reason to torture you to death.

Before you say it im straight, but believe it or not im also, God forbid, tolerant.

If being gay is a choice then you accept being straight is too.

If God existed and couldn't accept gay people because he doesn't like them (guess where sins come from!) then he's imposing HIS beliefs on YOU!

If you aren't religous you can still be moral.

Where in the Bible does it say being gay is wrong, cuz if it wasnt in the first draft whats the big deal. Yes the Bible HAS been revised.

Race-does not matter
Religon-does not matter
Sex-does not matter
Sexuality-shouldn't have to matter, cuz it's not like whites don't befriend blacks , Christians don't befriend aetheists, and Men dont befriend Women, so...why make being straight or gay matter? Wanna know what does matter? We're alive. Shouldn't that be more than enough?
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 8:48 PM on July 17, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course. You'd be surprised how easy it is, actually. Try "evolving bacteria" in Google. You'll come up with a lot about E. Coli.

Viruses are even more widely observed to evolve. AIDS and the bird flu are pretty well-known examples.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:48 PM on July 17, 2006 | IP
thelmoose

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Retroviruses are a type of RNA virus that use the host's DNA and reverse transcriptase to replicate. They transribe their RNA to a DNA intermediate. This DNA can then be integrated into the host DNA. HIV is a retrovirus.

Influenza virus uses the host's cellular apparatus to replicate, but its genome remains solely RNA throughout its "life"cycle.

Small point.
 


Posts: 40 | Posted: 10:05 PM on July 17, 2006 | IP
Unriggable

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mythrandir at 3:15 PM on April 21, 2006 :
1.  how exactly did the big bang happen and where did the material come from for it?

How is this at all relevant to evolution?

2.  has evolution ever been observed in bacteria?

Yep, here.

3.  what was the first living thing?

We don't know.

4.  do you believe that God exists?

Nope, if he does then he doesn't do much.

5.  how did the heart develop from 2-chambered to 3-chambered?

Mutation. A heart works more efficiently when it has more chambers (especially if they are connected) because it can use the same amount of energy for multiple things. The first animals with a three-chambered heart could keep energy for other tasks.


NOTE: im asking these questions just cause im curious, im sure you have answers to them.  im interested in your responses.


Since I answered those questions, answer this: Why do some humans not have appendices?


-------
"Without Judgment"
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 4:40 PM on April 29, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.