Evolution - A serious question.

[One Brow]

What is the possibility that the great apes are not related but because it is such a successful model that very different species are converging rather than diverging from a common ancestor?

Converge from what? There are many features of apes that are exclusive to primates and have no paticular adaptive advantage.

For example, there are similarities between gray wolves and Tasmanian wolves based on convergent evolution, but eacdh retained the basic skeletal characteristics of placental mammals (for gray wolves) or non-placetal (for Tasmanian wolves).

 

[Scat]

Converge from what?

Primordial goo... duh!

 

[One Brow]

Bacteria and viruses are phenomenally successful, with very limited genetic diversity.

Bacteria share their DNA with each other in a process separate from cell division, and as a result exhibit enormous genetic diversity, even within a species.

Viruses use the machinery of other beings to reproduce, introducing diversity during that process.

And as the first single-cell organisms developed the mutation requiring sexual reproduction of some sort, did a "male" a "female" develop at the same time?

Bacteria share their DNA with each other in a process separate from cell division, and as a result exhibit enormous genetic diversity, even within a species.

Probably not. Even today, there are sexually reproducing species that have one sex (earthworms, many types of fruit trees).

What was the mechanism that allowed 2 of them to mate to begin passing along separate genetic material? This seems like a fairly substantial jump in mutation and evolution.

Bacteria share their DNA with each other in a process separate from cell division, and as a result exhibit enormous genetic diversity, even within a species.

There are eukaryotes that exchange DNA via syzygy (similar to bacterial plasma exchange), such as amoebas. Sexual reproduction is less of a leap if it is a combining of functions.

 

[One Brow]

If mutations are reactionary ...

The selection of mutations is reactionary, and the selection is not random.

 

[One Brow]

If the mutations that led to new functional attributes and to new species are random what is the evidence that they are?

There are a variety of mutational mechanisms (point replacement, cutting out a string, duplication, transverse insertion, etc.). None of them are directed byh the organism in any way we can detect, so we take them as being random, absent evidence otherwise.

As you say, the progression from simple organism to more complex organisms look like a deliberate/reactionary progress, so what evidence leads you to believe it isn't?

It is reactionary, but fueled by random mutations.

 

[One Brow]

Where is the evidence for all these undesirable mutations?

You mean, like the inability of primates to create vitamin C, based on a deletion mutation in a gene that produces vitamin C for almost every other animal?

 

[Agoxlea]

What is the possibility that the great apes are not related but because it is such a successful model that very different species are converging rather than diverging from a common ancestor?

Not possible, but that does happen pretty often. Here is a list of examples of convergent evolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_convergent_evolution

 

[PearlWatson]

With the inherent efficiency of splitting to reproduce, when and how did it diverge into sexual reproduction? Wouldn't the single-celled organisms that lost the ability to reproduce via splitting simply die? What advantage is there in sexual reproduction vs aesexual reproduction?

It would have to do it by random mutation to fit Darwin's theory of evolution and the chances for that are nil.

 

[PearlWatson]

I mean theories.

So you included snow to say that both theories are as certain/factual as snow?
Sorry to tell you but not all theories are created equal.
The theory of gravity has a testable hypothesis making it a scientific theory. The "theory" of evolution doesn't have a testable hypothesis, and I'll be generous and say that is mostly because of the time factor. The supposed "theory" is speculation. It is a non-disprovable pseudoscience, like astrology.

Do you even know what a mutation is?

Yup. The fossil record doesn't show the vast quantities of hapless creatures that ought to have died out in the survival-of-the-fittest regime.

 

[PearlWatson]

The selection of mutations is reactionary, and the selection is not random.

So creatures randomly mutated attributes that they just happened to need at the time. Absurd.

 

[The-Joker]

So you included snow to say that both theories are as certain/factual as snow?
Sorry to tell you but not all theories are created equal.
The theory of gravity has a testable hypothesis making it a scientific theory. The "theory" of evolution doesn't have a testable hypothesis, and I'll be generous and say that is mostly because of the time factor. The supposed "theory" is speculation. It is a non-disprovable pseudoscience, like astrology.

False, evolution in bacteria and singled celled organisms... is hypothesized, observed, and recorded all the time. It's even manipulated.


Yup. The fossil record doesn't show the vast quantities of hapless creatures that ought to have died out in the survival-of-the-fittest regime.

Evolution isn't a survival of the fittest regime, so that would make sense. Evolution isn't the biggest, strongest, fastest survive... evolution is those that respond best to change survive.



LOL, you just called evolution a pseudoscience... that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

 

[The-Joker]

So creatures randomly mutated attributes that they just happened to need at the time. Absurd.

No, some did... all the others died. Again you seem to be referring to random mutation as a single roll of the die, random mutation to be beneficial takes a countless number of rolls to get it right.

 

[PearlWatson]

Undesirable mutations don't survive, it's like the difference between being born with a 12 inch ***** and being born with a ***** on your forehead... if you're wondering where the guy with the ***** on his forehead is? He didn't reproduce.

So the first weener to appear was based on one mutation? Why would a creature that didn't need a weener to reproduce before suddenly find use for a weener. The female would have to have randomly mutated a ****** and all the other sexual organs for that weener to be of any use at all besides to play with.

Here's the intro to Bio summation

You have a thing in biology called DNA, DNA is made up of base pairs, base pairs are classified by 4 letters (ATCG) based on the molecule in the base pair. You literally have billions (maybe even a trillion) base pairs made up of those 4 molecules, which form a double helix called DNA, which forms chromatids which form chromosones, which are the genetic makeup of cells. Mutation occurs in about 1 in a million base pairs, but when you add it all up it occurs a lot in just one person's replication of DNA. Most base pairs are dormant and are leftovers from evolution and don't do anything, but the few that do, control anything from alcoholism to skin pigment to cancer (that's right evolution explains cancer)... some base pairs when mutated will kill you, others will make you Lebron James (the proof is Lebron James). This is science, I have observed it with my own eyes as a 1st year Biology student.

Its hard to document mutation because it occurs on such a large scale, but we do know of the existence of mutation and what it can do (kill you). We can usually even mark on which chromosome and where the mutation is (given controlled and uncontrolled variables).

DNA is the whole design part.

 

[PearlWatson]

Evolution isn't a survival of the fittest regime, so that would make sense. Evolution isn't the biggest, strongest, fastest survive... evolution is those that respond best to change survive.
LOL, you just called evolution a pseudoscience... that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

It is a circular argument.
The fittest survive.
Who are the "fittest?"
The ones who survive. See it happens every time!

 

[PearlWatson]

False, evolution in bacteria and singled celled organisms... is hypothesized, observed, and recorded all the time. It's even manipulated.

Evolution is not the capacity of bacteria to develop antibiotic resistance, but which never evolves into anything more than bacteria. In fact evolution is not adaptive characteristics developing within a species at all. Darwin's theory says we get a whole new species not a taller version of the same species.

 

[PearlWatson]

No, some did... all the others died. Again you seem to be referring to random mutation as a single roll of the die, random mutation to be beneficial takes a countless number of rolls to get it right.

So, you are saying that mutations are done by gradual steps...of surviving organisms...but the fossil record doesn't show gradual steps.

 

[PearlWatson]

Look, first of all, I do believe in a God, despite my username... although it's somewhat different from the traditional Christian conception of God.

But here's the thing with religion based solely on authority: which one am I supposed to believe? In case you hadn't noticed, Hinduism and Christianity say quite different things. They both claim to be authoritative, and ultimately only because they say they are.

The only way to solve such a dilemma is to come up with some criteria to judge religions with competing claims. What those criteria are is majorly up for grabs. I'm not going to believe in something just because some religious organization tells me I should when there are other religious organizations that have equally viable but mutually exclusive claims, because one of them must be wrong. Ultimately, their authority is based on nothing but air. Why aren't you a Hindu, anyway, Millsapa? Why not believe in that religion instead?

In the end, a "relevant expert" is someone who has some evidence to back up their claims. Evolution as a theory emerged to help explain the data. Creationism emerged the same way, but now it no longer fits the data, so creation scientists are trying to fit the data to the theory. But it just doesn't work that way. You can't ignore evidence contrary to your theory just because you find it distasteful, and that's exactly what [Darwinists] are doing.

I fixed that for you.
Would you say a "relevant expert" is also someone who has some evidence to dispute claims?

If you go with evolution, over ID or creation, on the basis of consensus then shouldn't you also take religion on the basis of consensus? Which ever belief system has the most support?

 

[The-Joker]

Evolution is not the capacity of bacteria to develop antibiotic resistance, but which never evolves into anything more than bacteria. In fact evolution is not adaptive characteristics developing within a species at all. Darwin's theory says we get a whole new species not a taller version of the same species.

Nope. Literally, that is the definition of evolution

Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms.[1]

 

[The-Joker]

So, you are saying that mutations are done by gradual steps...of surviving organisms...but the fossil record doesn't show gradual steps.

What the **** are you talking about? Of course the fossil record shows gradual steps... I must have misunderstood you... explain, please.

 

[One Brow]

So creatures randomly mutated attributes that they just happened to need at the time. Absurd.

Depends on what you mean by "attributes". Based on experience, you are envisioning a Hopeless Monster/saltationistic view, which is not part of evolutionary theory.