"No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"

  • 103 Replies
  • 19080 Views
*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #90 on: March 04, 2012, 06:48:06 PM »
Um...98% of DNA is most certainly not inactive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA

Depends on what you mean by "inactive", but noncoding DNA still performs valuable functions, even if its not coding.

Quote
Much of this DNA has no known biological function and is sometimes referred to as "junk DNA"

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #91 on: March 04, 2012, 06:58:43 PM »
Um...98% of DNA is most certainly not inactive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA

Depends on what you mean by "inactive", but noncoding DNA still performs valuable functions, even if its not coding.

Quote
Much of this DNA has no known biological function and is sometimes referred to as "junk DNA"

"Increasing evidence is now indicating that this DNA is not "junk" at all. Especially, it has been found to have various regulatory roles. This means that this so-called "non-coding DNA" influences the behavior of the genes, the "coding DNA", in important ways. "

http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm

"The idea that a major part of our DNA is "garbage" ignored the fact that a key feature of biological organisms is optimal energy expenditure. To carry enormous amounts of unnecessary molecules is contrary to this fundamental energy saving feature of biological organisms. Increasing evidence are now indicating many important functions of this DNA, including various regulatory roles. "

"We have a greater percentage of junk DNA in our genomes - 50 percent - than the mustard weed (11 percent), the worm (7 percent) or the fly (3 percent). Also, shockingly, there seems to have been a dramatic decrease in the activity of repeats in the human genome over the past 50 million years - as if the human species decided 50 million years ago to stop collecting junk. In contrast, there seems to be no such decline in repeats in rodents. (See Vignette 6)"

http://www.genome.gov/10002192

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #92 on: March 05, 2012, 06:49:23 AM »
One word.....epigenetics.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8812
  • Semper vigilans
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #93 on: March 05, 2012, 01:30:52 PM »
Holy DNMT batman.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #94 on: March 05, 2012, 08:50:35 PM »
Where did he go?  He just ran away?

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #95 on: March 06, 2012, 04:36:14 AM »
So basically no one agrees on where we came from?

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #96 on: March 06, 2012, 04:49:24 AM »
Who do you mean by "no one"?
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #97 on: March 06, 2012, 05:03:41 AM »
So basically no one agrees on where we came from?

Biologists don't disagree.  We don't know every single little step, but that's the fossil record for ya.

If that's not good enough, though, you're free to cling to a literal interpretation of the Bible and ignore the fossil record completely.  Personally, I feel like that would make a hole in my brain, but different strokes for different folks.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #98 on: March 07, 2012, 05:02:44 AM »
Who do you mean by "no one"?

Those two.

but that's the fossil record for ya.

And what exactly does the fossil record show?  That some animals are similar in composition and makeup?  Or might be related?  How does that prove evolution?

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #99 on: March 07, 2012, 11:06:38 AM »
And what exactly does the fossil record show?  That some animals are similar in composition and makeup?  Or might be related?  How does that prove evolution?

Do your own research into it.  You give little indication that you actually read the words people write, so why should I bother?  Your ignorance is your shield, and I don't think you're going to give that up.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #100 on: March 09, 2012, 11:23:50 AM »
Except that Chordata evolved from Arthropoda and we cannot reasonably be considered arthropods.

What?  Arthropoda and Chordata are two separate Phylums.  Chordata are a sub group of Dueterostomia which is a subgroup of Bilateria, arthropods are also in the Bilateria group but are protostomes.  Chordata is not named as a subgroup of Arthropods, where did you hear this?

Sorry for the long pause. I forgot.

That's exactly my point. Early chordates evolved from some of the more advanced arthropods, but cannot be considered arthropods. Therefore, your claim that evolution can't cause something to become something completely different is false.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that chordates evolved from arthropods.  All vertebrates are more closely related to star fish than any arthropod.

We don't have a great fossil record for the evolutionary history of chordates.  What we do have shows jellyfish-like creatures becoming more slug-like/worm-like, and eventually developing a tadpole shape.  Unlike arthropods, which have hard outer coverings, these creatures were quite soft and didn't get preserved as easily. 

Somewhere along the line they developed notochords, which are simple, flexible rods that act like a backbone.  All chordates, including humans, still have notochords at some point in their development.  There's no a single arthropod, living or dead, which has anything similar.

It's been a long time since I've had marine bio, but I seemed to remember that the more complex arthropods like lobster were the first to have central ganglia, which was a precursor to a brain and were therefore considered to have been the closest to chordates. But even if I'm misremembering, the point stands.

No, the point doesn't stand because chordates didn't come from arthropods.  We came from chordate ancestors.  We're still chordates.  Things evolve and change, but remnants of the past remain.

But even if we evolved form echinoderms, we still evolved from something unlike us. We can and do lose features that belonged to our ancestors. About 98% of our DNA is inactive. At some point in the future, whales will lose their hips (if they manage to survive, which they probably won't). We are already losing our appendixes.

I understand what you're trying to say here, but the point is that things don't evolve into other classifications of things.  A feline isn't going to evolve into a canine.  An arthropod isn't going to evolve into a chordate.  They'll always be different because they have different evolutionary baggage, even if they're similar on the surface.

I think the whole discussion started because some people get confused about evolution by thinking one thing just turns into another.  Like a cat suddenly turning into a dog.  It never happens like that.  The changes are gradual.  The new creature will still have characteristics from its ancestors.  They may be greatly changed, and over a really long time may just disappear entirely, but the point is that it isn't just one thing suddenly turning into another.

So you mean things don't evolve into preexisting kinds but still evolve into other kinds? Cool.

This entire argument is over the misunderstanding of the word other and it should probably end soon.

?

Mr Pseudonym

  • Official Member
  • 5448
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #101 on: March 09, 2012, 04:00:38 PM »
Caterpillars become butterflies.
Why do we fall back to earth? Because our weight pushes us down, no laws, no gravity pulling us. It is the law of intelligence.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #102 on: March 09, 2012, 10:57:31 PM »
Caterpillars become butterflies.

Same DNA different protein phenotype for a different stage in life.


Babies turn into people.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #103 on: March 10, 2012, 12:31:07 AM »
Caterpillars become butterflies.

Same DNA different protein phenotype for a different stage in life.


Babies turn into people.

I was assuming he was kidding, but I guess I should never assume.