Thought about creation

[Luke]

Educated guesses based on similarities to related species. It's similar to finding a bicycle with no wheels. Since you find bits and pieces of it and it looks like a bicycle, you can guess that the missing parts should resemble complete specimens. Meh, poor analogy but it is Monday.

I gotcha.

I'm just wondering what was actually found to build the whole model.

[dismayed]

They have found entire skeletons or most of entire skeletons for each of those three species. I'd have to look into it but if I had to guess I would think that they probably took a skeleton and did something similar to what forensic scientists do when they do a 'facial reconstruction' of a victim.

[Prunepicker]

They have found entire skeletons or most of entire skeletons for each of
those three species. I'd have to look into it but if I had to guess I would think
that they probably took a skeleton and did something similar to what forensic
scientists do when they do a 'facial reconstruction' of a victim.

You are exactly right. They've done exactly what you said.

However, there isn't a link, make that the evil graduated progression, that
shows a species evolving into another species.

That's where I have the problem with evolution. So far, all they have is a
species and another completely different species. But absolutely nothing
that shows one species (you can name any of the tens of thousands of
species currently discovered) evolving into another species.

Personally, I believe that the theory of evolution (aka the wishful thinking
of evolution) should be called the extrapolation of transformation.

Scientifically, evolution doesn't exist.

[HSC-Sooner]

Anyways, for those who are interested in seeing evolution occur in real time, you don't have to look very far.

The current flu strain, H1N1, appears to be a new virus that consists of genetic rearrangements from different strains. The H stands for hemagglutinin which is a structural protein on the virus that is responsible for attaching the virus to your cells. The N is a neuraminidase which assists the virus in mobility across your mucus. There are different H and N proteins (H1, H2, N1, N5, etc.) and each strain infect different groups of animals.

Our immune system can develop antibodies that are specific to these flu strains, specifically to the H and N proteins. Viral particles that are blocked by antibodies do not get to infect cells and produce more progeny. Thus, their H and N types do not survive this selective pressure. However, strains with minor mutations in their H and N surface proteins do not get blocked and they produce more progeny. This is why doctors recommend new flu vaccinations every year as the virus mutates enough to escape vaccination surveillance.

As a virus, the influenza virus undergoes rapid mutations and also undergoes gene transfer. These mutations can be genetically sequenced and you can trace viral lineages if you have the supporting data. The influenza virus gets dangerous if it infects an organism with another flu virus. The resulting progeny can swap out H and N types which can result in a more infectious virus or a dud virus.

As stated before, H proteins prefer different sets of organisms. A few H1 strains infect pigs very well but these same strains do not infect humans well. Through genetic sequencing of the current H1N1 strain that is circulating, researchers have found that the H1 in swine flu matches H1 strains commonly found in pigs. However, other genes on this H1N1 strains appeared to have come from human influenza strains and bird flu strains.

This mismatch of genes from human, avian, and pork strains lends this H1N1 strain an unusual combination. As the H1 protein on this strain is rarely seen by humans, this H1N1 strain is overwhelming younger adults' immune systems and killing them (evolutionary fitness in which the virus is not killed off easily). The N1 and other genes on this strain allows this flu virus to be transmitted from human to human (another fitness characteristic as a strain that does not transmit easily from human to human cannot spread).

Scientists and doctors can isolate samples from human patients, track its genetic history, and see the evolution of this virus. As this is a strain that has never been seen before, it is very certain that this virus resulted from a recent combination of different flu strains. Genetically speaking, this H1N1 should be different enough to be classified as a new strain.

These genetic changes is not enough to classify this H1N1 strain as a new species. But if you can add enough time (decades), there will be enough genetic differences that you can classify these strains as new species. You see similar events in the divergence of dogs from wolves and this:



Mutations in genes and selection for these genes lead to progeny that can vary dramatically from their ancestors. In the above picture, the evolutionary force that drives these vegetables are human breeders. These plants may share similar genes however there are enough genetic differences to reflect their physical change. And domestication of these vegetables have only occurred in the last thousand years. More time will increase divergence between these veggies and their mustard ancestors.

[Thunder]

I'm not keepin track of all this discussion, but I'm seeing the discussion of evolution now and the first thing that came to mind was the dinosaurs. We still have them today, they've evolved. I know that Pigeons was evolved from a huge dinosaur. Is that what everyone is talking about, evolution, and not anymore on human creation?

[Stan Silliman]

If you can prove evolution in lower forms of creatures or even plants, then as a theory or model, evolution is in play.

Some seem hung up on the monkey to man premise, mainly because it runs counter to the Genesis story, and thusly, instead of discussing evolution as a model, we've sidetracked onto human beginnings.

Those with a vested interest in creationism seem to be going out of their way to deny evolution as a working model, such as building museums in Kentucky and the like.

My question is why?

Why, if you have faith and your faith is strong, is there a need to challenge science? Why push to have a faith based theory taught in classrooms? Faith should mean you have an unquestioning trust in your beliefs. Faith means that in spite of evidence to the contrary you still hold on to your strong beliefs.

My expectation is that if you're fighting hard, using spurilous arguments to deny scientific findings is that you've got questions about your faith. You're taking time away from believing what you believe to tell others what they believe is wrong. That's called doubt.

[Prunepicker]

If you can prove evolution in lower forms of creatures or even
plants, then as a theory or model, evolution is in play.

The operative word is IF.

[HSC-Sooner]

I'm not keepin track of all this discussion, but I'm seeing the discussion of evolution now and the first thing that came to mind was the dinosaurs. We still have them today, they've evolved. I know that Pigeons was evolved from a huge dinosaur. Is that what everyone is talking about, evolution, and not anymore on human creation?

Not all. Scientists who study dinosaurs, birds, or reptiles may be more involved in this aspect of evolution. My field of study is within bacterial pathogens and viruses where I can keep track of evolution in a timescale that's manageable (my lifetime!).

Anthropologists are more involved with the human aspects of evolution, ie when did we last share a common ancestor with the modern apes, who are our ancestors, and the rise of modern human traits. I know botanists who are involved in studying the evolution of some modern crop plants.

The modern corn is a very interesting plant. It can't survive in the wild without our intervention as the seeds (corn kernels) do not fall off the cob easily. Also, as the seeds are so densely packed..any seeds that do germinate will be subjected to intense competition from its siblings. The corn's insatiable thirst for water and nutrients also prevents it from surviving in the wild. The corn's hardy ancestor, teosinte, is still around. Teosinte is a grass that is adapted to drier and tougher conditions. The kernels are fewer and it stands a better chance of getting dispersed and germinating. There has been so much divergence that corn and teosinte are considered separate species.



I will say in Prune's defense that he is right about evolution. It can NEVER be proven although we can observe it in action. But this is how theories in science work. The theory of gravity and the theory of relativity can never be proven despite all of the convincing evidence. The theory of continental drift or any other number of theories can never be proven. However, these theories are constantly used by scientists regardless of their unproven nature. This is because in science, you can never say "I know everything there is to know about this, I will stop looking for any more mysteries". Theories get revised constantly (as Darwin didn't have access to modern genetics and DNA as units of inheritance).

As a working theory, the theory of evolution is our best working model of how new species arise, how viruses escape our immune system, how modern crops arise from their ancestors, how methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is threatening hospitals, and how everything related to life works.

[Stan Silliman]

I see in your illustrations the male corn is sticking its little thingees out while the female corn is more demur.

How did the teosinthe get from its ancestral state to modern corn? Did it evolve on its own or did we help it along? Was Iowa State University its intelligent designer?

Is there a pro-extinction crowd that refuses to accept evolution?

The term "extinction" was first coined by anatomist Baron Cuvier in the late 1700s. The term refers to the destruction of a species. Prior to Cuvier's theory, extinction was thought impossible and even during his lifetime most naturalists held strong to the belief that extinction was an unprovable theory. These were the Prunes of that day. Even when fossils were being discovered during that time most other scientists believed the organisms still lived somewhere on the earth. It took a century for other scientists to comprehend and run with Cuvier's theory. Now it is accepted and understood that many species have gone extinct.

Darwin was almost a century after Cuvier. Darwin's theories go hand-in-hand with Cuvier's. We're now a little more than a century removed from many of Darwin's theories which the overwhelming majority of the scientific community accept.

"Adaptation" which was posed in the 17th century by natural theologians John Ray and William Paley is a precursor to "Natural Selection." "Adaptation" states organisms change or adapt to their environment to become better suited for survival in their habitat. This has been an observable and recordable theory. "Natural selection" explains the mechanism by which species adapt and survive.

The ironic thing is so much of our lexicon in other fields have been lifted from Darwin's theories. The argumentative psychological term "nature or nurture" was lifted by Sir Francis Galton and placed into accepted debate. The term "survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer when referring to natural selection but has been used by economists to promote laissez-faire economics.

[Prunepicker]

OY Vey!

Those are nice thoughts. I wish I could comment more but I'm very busy,
musically.

Before I leave for a few daze, I want to tell everyone that I don't think they
are idiots for not agreeing with my phenomenal knowledge of science and
1931 muscle cars.

I have appreciated everything that's been discussed.

I'll see you later!

[HSC-Sooner]

Have fun, musically speaking!

Teosinte's gradual evolution has been shaped by humans. That's the great thing about evolution as it can be left alone and let nature take care of the selective pressure or humans can come in and select for certain traits.

Native Americans were the people who were involved in the evolution of corn. Through a gradual process of domestication and selecting for varieties with bigger ears, more kernels, and kernels that don't fall off the cob..you get the modern corn.

[Stan Silliman]

Have fun, musically speaking!

Teosinte's gradual evolution has been shaped by humans. That's the great thing about evolution as it can be left alone and let nature take care of the selective pressure or humans can come in and select for certain traits.

Native Americans were the people who were involved in the evolution of corn. Through a gradual process of domestication and selecting for varieties with bigger ears, more kernels, and kernels that don't fall off the cob..you get the modern corn.

But they call it "maize".

[dismayed]

Earlier I made reference to statistics in science. I happened to stumble upon this and found it interesting....

"Biologists view species as statistical phenomena and not as categories or types. This view is counterintuitive since the classical idea of species is still widely-held, with a species seen as a class of organisms exemplified by a "type specimen" that bears all the traits common to this species. Instead, a species is now defined as a separately evolving lineage that forms a single gene pool. Although properties such as genetics and morphology are used to help separate closely-related lineages, this definition has fuzzy boundaries.[1] However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3] Biologists have proposed a range of more precise definitions, but the definition used is a pragmatic choice that depends on the particularities of the species concerned.[3]"

[twinkles]

But they call it "maize".

Is maize and corn even the same thing?? Related, I know, but ??

[HSC-Sooner]

It's the same thing. Native Americans and latinos call it maize. We call it corn.

[soonervegas]

Either side that states they 100% have the answer....will probably be proved to be the biggest fools of all.

[DaveSkater]

Especially when the spaceships come back....

[Midtowner]

[HeatherDawn]

Faith in the Bible isn't scientific. That's the whole point. If it was a proven fact, then everyone would believe and there would be no faith at all. Faith is the point.

[Prunepicker]

Faith in the Bible isn't scientific. That's the whole point. If it was a proven
fact, then everyone would believe and there would be no faith at all. Faith is
the point.

I contend that evolution, since it can't be proven (see my posts) requires
something other than science in order to keep the desire of wanting it to be
real.

There are scientists who will admit that evolution is a farce but they continue
to preach it because they refuse to accept the alternative.

[HSC-Sooner]

I contend that evolution, since it can't be proven (see my posts) requires
something other than science in order to keep the desire of wanting it to be
real.

There are scientists who will admit that evolution is a farce but they continue
to preach it because they refuse to accept the alternative.

Nah, we don't preach about it. We stand by the theory because of laboratory, genetic, and biochemical evidence for micro-evolution AND morphological, genetic, and fossil evidence for macro-evolution.

Most biologists will stand by evolution, but its not a conspiracy. There are scientists who don't believe in evolution but they're mostly in engineering and physics. I hate to quote wiki, but here is the trend you observe in engineers and evolution-rejection: Salem hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We just refuse to accept the alternative because it is untestable, it requires faith (you really don't want to have faith in an experimental drug and hope it works, you test it with rigor), and there is no strong evidence for any alternative. Believe me, give biologists definitive proof that evolution is false and biologists WILL drop evolution as a theory.

[Prunepicker]

Nah, we don't preach about it. We stand by the theory because of
laboratory, genetic, and biochemical evidence for micro-evolution AND
morphological, genetic, and fossil evidence for macro-evolution.

Here we go again. Evolution has not been proven.

[HSC-Sooner]

Nor has gravity, relativity, or plate tectonics been proven. It is how science is done.

But evolution has not been disproven either

[joel228]

Nor has gravity, relativity, or plate tectonics been proven. It is how science is done.
But evolution has not been disproven either

Gravity has been proven. We have the Law of Gravity. It is observable and repeatable. Evolution has not been proven, and scientifically disproving it is a relatively new field of study -- one that most evolutionists try to discredit before even hearing the evidence.

That said, I believe evolution will not survive the advance of information. Before long, it will become too implausable to believe that the evolution of species was left to random mutations and natural selection.

Anyways, for those who are interested in seeing evolution occur in real time, you don't have to look very far.

The current flu strain, H1N1, appears to be a new virus that consists of genetic rearrangements from different strains. The H stands for hemagglutinin which is a structural protein on the virus that is responsible for attaching the virus to your cells. The N is a neuraminidase which assists the virus in mobility across your mucus. There are different H and N proteins (H1, H2, N1, N5, etc.) and each strain infect different groups of animals.

Let me know when the H1N1 flu strain evolves into a bumblebee or a lizard. For now, it's still a flu virus. When it evolves into something other than a virus, I'll consider that as evidence of macroevolution.

[HSC-Sooner]

Gravity has been proven. We have the Law of Gravity. It is observable and repeatable. Evolution has not been proven, and scientifically disproving it is a relatively new field of study -- one that most evolutionists try to discredit before even hearing the evidence.

That said, I believe evolution will not survive the advance of information. Before long, it will become too implausable to believe that the evolution of species was left to random mutations and natural selection.


Let me know when the H1N1 flu strain evolves into a bumblebee or a lizard. For now, it's still a flu virus. When it evolves into something other than a virus, I'll consider that as evidence of macroevolution.

As far as I know, the theory of gravity falls under the theory of relativity with Einstein's modification. But you also have to understand that the semantics behind the word theory in science holds a different meaning than theory in common usage. Theories in science have good observational evidence, strong reasoning for its proof, and experimental data to back it up.

That's a common misconception about evolution. The H1N1 flu strain won't evolve into a lizard or a bumblebee. It can evolve into other flu strains. Just like there are many different species of ants, beetles, grasses, etc. Given enough time, it'll be a radically different virus. One different enough that it may not have characteristics of the influenza family. Besides, when I was quoting H1N1, it's a time scale we can see in human years. We can look at genetic sequences from H1N1 and see that it is a product of avian flu, swine flu, and human flu. It's a good example of micro-evolution.

The information age has given scientists access to genomic sequences. We find dog DNA and wolf DNA to be fairly similar. This correlates with their skeletal shapes and the general hypothesis that dogs were domesticated from wolves. That's one of the examples of macro-evolution I can think of now.