Proof of Evolution
- Thread starter Vaiyen
- Start date
maybe someone needs to explain to me because i think thats hardly proof of evolution. it just shows how a sub-species is created e.g. breeding between two species of dogs?
evolution is a theory that is lacking in a couple of important evidences
1. evidence of evolutionary links e.g. fish to mammal? monkey to human?
2. no mechanism exists to add or subtract an organisms genome on a large scale. Any point mutation during replication has to overcome the mechanisms that correct such mutations, which is present in all single and multi-celled organisms. In addition to that, the organism has to survive the mutation, depending on where the mutation occurs, it is most of the time detrimental.
sorry for the terminology here but anyone who has studied bio can verify these.
evolution is a theory that is lacking in a couple of important evidences
1. evidence of evolutionary links e.g. fish to mammal? monkey to human?
2. no mechanism exists to add or subtract an organisms genome on a large scale. Any point mutation during replication has to overcome the mechanisms that correct such mutations, which is present in all single and multi-celled organisms. In addition to that, the organism has to survive the mutation, depending on where the mutation occurs, it is most of the time detrimental.
sorry for the terminology here but anyone who has studied bio can verify these.
growlingsoulpup
New member
50 bucks that before this thread gets to two pages, irate Creationists will come in.
EDIT: Damn, I placed my bet after the match!
EDIT: Damn, I placed my bet after the match!
teleplayer
New member
quote taypeng81:
no mechanism exists to add or subtract an organisms genome on a large scale. Any point mutation during replication has to overcome the mechanisms that correct such mutations, which is present in all single and multi-celled organisms. In addition to that, the organism has to survive the mutation, depending on where the mutation occurs, it is most of the time detrimental.
Meiosis results in the formation of gametes. When cells undergo meiosis, the chromosomes cross over with each other and results in variations. When there are variations in the species, natural selection occurs... For example, height of animals is classified as continuos variation, meaning that there is a range of phenotypes.. There aren't any clear-cut phenotypes for height. Let's say, meiosis results in the different neck lengths of giraffes. There are giraffes with slightly longer necks and giraffes with shorter necks. Naturally, over time, the giraffes with a longer neck will be able to survive because they can reach out for the food and have a better chance of survival as compared to those with shorter necks. The giraffes with shorter necks will die as time passes and the species is left with more and more giraffes with long necks.. Evolution has got something to do with "survival of the fittestt"..
If I am wrong, someone please correct and I will edit my post. Thanks.
no mechanism exists to add or subtract an organisms genome on a large scale. Any point mutation during replication has to overcome the mechanisms that correct such mutations, which is present in all single and multi-celled organisms. In addition to that, the organism has to survive the mutation, depending on where the mutation occurs, it is most of the time detrimental.
Meiosis results in the formation of gametes. When cells undergo meiosis, the chromosomes cross over with each other and results in variations. When there are variations in the species, natural selection occurs... For example, height of animals is classified as continuos variation, meaning that there is a range of phenotypes.. There aren't any clear-cut phenotypes for height. Let's say, meiosis results in the different neck lengths of giraffes. There are giraffes with slightly longer necks and giraffes with shorter necks. Naturally, over time, the giraffes with a longer neck will be able to survive because they can reach out for the food and have a better chance of survival as compared to those with shorter necks. The giraffes with shorter necks will die as time passes and the species is left with more and more giraffes with long necks.. Evolution has got something to do with "survival of the fittestt"..
If I am wrong, someone please correct and I will edit my post. Thanks.
i don't think that's how it happened....
in any case, for those who have time, do check out the other links at the bottom of the article. Very interesting stuff, n good to know.
hey comeon im just putting in some facts and opinions for the discussion. dont need to make this whole thing sound like some argument. i have no "creationists" agenda here
teleplayer
New member
There isnt anything to add.. but mutations can occur... and also, sexual reproduction results in a larger gene pool which is more variations...
Once again, please correct me if i am wrong because I only studied ordinary level bio.... the things I have studied might not be updated...
Once again, please correct me if i am wrong because I only studied ordinary level bio.... the things I have studied might not be updated...
predz23
New member
People who don't believe in evolution don't believe in it because they don't want to believe in it, not because they think evolution is untrue. and then these idiots will try to pass "God created the world in 6 days 6,000 years ago. humans walked with dinosaurs" as SCIENCE
So far science has found A LOT of evidence of evolution to the point where its a fact just like gravity. But creationists make their claims through LACK of evidence. For example if we discover species A, C, D and F, the creationists will say evolution is false because we haven't discovered species B and E and completely ignore the already discovered species
They're like conspiracy theorists, the holocaust never happened?
So far science has found A LOT of evidence of evolution to the point where its a fact just like gravity. But creationists make their claims through LACK of evidence. For example if we discover species A, C, D and F, the creationists will say evolution is false because we haven't discovered species B and E and completely ignore the already discovered species
They're like conspiracy theorists, the holocaust never happened?
i also studied basic bio and biochem in poly only so im not any authority on this haha. but what i do know is during meiosis, the chromosome replicates itself, the variations occur during the replication from mutations - point mutation - which means addition or subtraction of one gene at a time.
the variations also occur because each parent contributes half of their chromosome not because there are wholesale changes in the chromosome.
there isnt any other mechanism that adds or subtracts genes. that is what i mean. correct me if im wrong...and i dont mean this in any sarcastic way.
let me put another problem across, its the chicken and egg situation.
in an ordinary single cell there are three mechanisms-
cell wall - which acts to maintain the osmotic difference between the cell and the outer environment. Requires energy in the form of ATP to do so.
DNA replication and protein coding - process of coding DNA into protein. process of replicating the DNA during cell division. Requires ATP.
energy production - cycle of producing energy in the form of ATP, large part of it occurs in the mitochondria but requires the proteins/enzymes coded from the cell DNA.
all three processes are dependent on each other. how did all these come together and which one first? e.g. if the cell wall was around first...where did the ATP come from?
(some scientist have proposed that originally the mitochondria was a seperate organism before it was ingested into the cell)
haha. but what i do know is during meiosis, the chromosome replicates itself, the variations occur during the replication from mutations - point mutation - which means addition or subtraction of one gene at a time. the variations also occur because each parent contributes half of their chromosome not because there are wholesale changes in the chromosome.
there isnt any other mechanism that adds or subtracts genes. that is what i mean. correct me if im wrong...and i dont mean this in any sarcastic way.
let me put another problem across, its the chicken and egg situation.
in an ordinary single cell there are three mechanisms-
cell wall - which acts to maintain the osmotic difference between the cell and the outer environment. Requires energy in the form of ATP to do so.
DNA replication and protein coding - process of coding DNA into protein. process of replicating the DNA during cell division. Requires ATP.
energy production - cycle of producing energy in the form of ATP, large part of it occurs in the mitochondria but requires the proteins/enzymes coded from the cell DNA.
all three processes are dependent on each other. how did all these come together and which one first? e.g. if the cell wall was around first...where did the ATP come from?
(some scientist have proposed that originally the mitochondria was a seperate organism before it was ingested into the cell)
teleplayer
New member
from what i know ( :X ) , variations occur after the replication. Yes there aren't any wholesale changes, but the formation of chiasma at prophase I results in new combination of genes.. yeah each parent contributes only half but on top of that, there's also crossing-over of the chromosomes.
and
quote:
cell wall - which acts to maintain the osmotic difference between the cell and the outer environment. Requires energy in the form of ATP to do so.
are you referring to the cell membrane..? as the cell wall is not a living cell and it's fully permeable so it is not likely for it to maintain any osmotic differences.
There are natural occurring proteins and the proteins taken in by the cells can be used to synthesize new cell membranes etc. proteins ingested by the cells are digested to form amino acids. and amino acid is the basic unit of a protein. so the amino acids can be used for formation of the ATP..? and also, in plant cells, there are chloroplasts which contain chlorophyll and these chlorophylls convert light energy from the sun to chemical energy. This energy can be used for cell activities. and if i am not wrong, chlorophyll is also a protein with magnesium ions. so can i say the proteins and amino acids required originate from nature and the atmospheric gases like carbon dioxide, nitrogen and oxygen?
:mrgreen:
and
quote:
cell wall - which acts to maintain the osmotic difference between the cell and the outer environment. Requires energy in the form of ATP to do so.
are you referring to the cell membrane..? as the cell wall is not a living cell and it's fully permeable so it is not likely for it to maintain any osmotic differences.
There are natural occurring proteins and the proteins taken in by the cells can be used to synthesize new cell membranes etc. proteins ingested by the cells are digested to form amino acids. and amino acid is the basic unit of a protein. so the amino acids can be used for formation of the ATP..? and also, in plant cells, there are chloroplasts which contain chlorophyll and these chlorophylls convert light energy from the sun to chemical energy. This energy can be used for cell activities. and if i am not wrong, chlorophyll is also a protein with magnesium ions. so can i say the proteins and amino acids required originate from nature and the atmospheric gases like carbon dioxide, nitrogen and oxygen?
:mrgreen:
LadyInTears
Well-known member
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh bio whores!
hoogxpoogx
New member
umm predz23.. if i were you i would keep my comments to myself cause i dont think you wanna start a religion VS science war here and piss the christians softies... i studied darwinism in my history class but not gonna comment on anything
LadyInTears
Well-known member
i see nothing wrong with his posts.
seriously, its a good read when you get to view both sides in question.
and im sure the christian softies wont take offence, if they can see it from a different perspective.
hoogxpoogx
New member
well its after all a very very sensitive topic... oh wells
ultracrap
New member
haha
quote from taypeng81
(some scientist have proposed that originally the mitochondria was a seperate organism before it was ingested into the cell)
yeah that's the endosymbiotic theory.
As for ATP, the process of photosynthesis actually SYNTHESIZES ATP, from ADP. the process is freaking long and complicated, but yeah. so it isnt exactly the proteins that are used for making ATP. oh yeah, ATP = adenosine tri-phosphate (got 3 PO4 groups) and ADP is adenosine di-phosphate (only got 2 PO4 groups).
refering to taypeng81's first post
1. as for the evidence of evolutionary links, its freaking everywhere. just compare the DNA of a chimpanzee and a human. its like 98-99% same. coincidence? perhaps, but i doubt so. with like thousands upon thousands of nucleotides in our DNA, having a 99% match is like almost impossible? Also, how is it that we humans use ATP for energy, yet so does the cockroach you step on, and even the bacteria you sneeze out? Similarly, how is it that the same organelles (mitochondria, golgi apparatus, endoplasmic reticulum, nuclues, ribosomes etc) are present in almost all eukaryotes? the list can go on.
2. no mechanism to add or subtract an organism's genome on a large scale? uh, thats the reason why evolution takes MILLIONS OF YEARS? and not like
overnight. and its not just point mutation during replication. chromosomal mutation can also happen. when like a whole chunk of DNA from 1 chromosome can be deleted/inserted/moved to another chromosome. so yeah, mechanisms do exist to alter an organism''s genome. over A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, the mutations can become significant enough.
here comes in the 'survival of the fittest part'. mutations cause the different alleles present in the gene pool, and the alleles affect the phenotype of the organism, thus its characteristics. the ones with the genes favourable for that particular environment survive better, and more of them survive to reach sexual maturity. they reproduce and produce viable offspring, with the same desirable characteristics. the frequency of that gene increases in the gene pool. when the organisms have been evolved to a point that they no longer mate with each other, 2 separate species are formed.
fun fact: 2 organisms that can mate can still be distinct species if they cannot produce viable offspring. (offspring that can reproduce). like a horse can mate with a donkey, producing a mule. But are horses and donkeys under the same species? NO, cause a mule cant reproduce. btw, its due to the odd number of chromosomes, go google it, its pretty cool.
quote from taypeng81
(some scientist have proposed that originally the mitochondria was a seperate organism before it was ingested into the cell)
yeah that's the endosymbiotic theory.
As for ATP, the process of photosynthesis actually SYNTHESIZES ATP, from ADP. the process is freaking long and complicated, but yeah. so it isnt exactly the proteins that are used for making ATP. oh yeah, ATP = adenosine tri-phosphate (got 3 PO4 groups) and ADP is adenosine di-phosphate (only got 2 PO4 groups).
refering to taypeng81's first post
1. as for the evidence of evolutionary links, its freaking everywhere. just compare the DNA of a chimpanzee and a human. its like 98-99% same. coincidence? perhaps, but i doubt so. with like thousands upon thousands of nucleotides in our DNA, having a 99% match is like almost impossible? Also, how is it that we humans use ATP for energy, yet so does the cockroach you step on, and even the bacteria you sneeze out? Similarly, how is it that the same organelles (mitochondria, golgi apparatus, endoplasmic reticulum, nuclues, ribosomes etc) are present in almost all eukaryotes? the list can go on.
2. no mechanism to add or subtract an organism's genome on a large scale? uh, thats the reason why evolution takes MILLIONS OF YEARS? and not like
overnight. and its not just point mutation during replication. chromosomal mutation can also happen. when like a whole chunk of DNA from 1 chromosome can be deleted/inserted/moved to another chromosome. so yeah, mechanisms do exist to alter an organism''s genome. over A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, the mutations can become significant enough.
here comes in the 'survival of the fittest part'. mutations cause the different alleles present in the gene pool, and the alleles affect the phenotype of the organism, thus its characteristics. the ones with the genes favourable for that particular environment survive better, and more of them survive to reach sexual maturity. they reproduce and produce viable offspring, with the same desirable characteristics. the frequency of that gene increases in the gene pool. when the organisms have been evolved to a point that they no longer mate with each other, 2 separate species are formed.
fun fact: 2 organisms that can mate can still be distinct species if they cannot produce viable offspring. (offspring that can reproduce). like a horse can mate with a donkey, producing a mule. But are horses and donkeys under the same species? NO, cause a mule cant reproduce.
btw, its due to the odd number of chromosomes, go google it, its pretty cool.gutturalpiss
New member
Discussing this is pointless if you're not part of an academic body tasked with doing so. Because first of all, we have things like this and this that negate any progress on both sides. I have never read anything more interesting than this one.
No amount of evidence is going to convince the Creationist, and no amount of trust is going to convince the Evolutionist. Unless (a) God shows Himself or (b) someone who can rewind and forward space time, create matter from nothing, take away the sun and then return it, shows himself and claims he is human. Both (a) and (b) are either infinite assumptions or baseless, in turn resulting in (c) we die, believe it or not.
No amount of evidence is going to convince the Creationist, and no amount of trust is going to convince the Evolutionist. Unless (a) God shows Himself or (b) someone who can rewind and forward space time, create matter from nothing, take away the sun and then return it, shows himself and claims he is human. Both (a) and (b) are either infinite assumptions or baseless, in turn resulting in (c) we die, believe it or not.
Last edited:
predz23
New member
They have THE RIGHT to be offended, and so do I with their nonsense ideas
and btw it was never about science vs religion, its about religious people trying to deceive the public into thinking creationism is science
Last edited:
Hi, while it is true that many organisms share very similar DNA sequences, it doesnt necessarily mean that we are evolved from a common ancestor. It could simply mean that these DNA sequences are universally critical to most living organisms, in other words, most living organisms on this planet require these similar DNA sequences to be alive; a lack of these similarities is probably the difference between what is organic and what is inorganic.
What I am trying to say is that different people will interpret this fact different.
Believers of evolution will see this as an evident for evolutionary link.
Creationists will see this as how well thought-out God is.
A scientist will identify these DNA sequences as trademark for life. NASA probably search for these trademarks in space samples to identify possible lifeforms in outer space.
Pro animal testing researchers, will use this as a very good reason to perform animal testing due to large chunk of similar DNA sequences between human and, let's say, chimpanzee.
A lawyer will probably think that this is bullshit because the conclusion that evolution exists based on very similar DNAs, is unprecedented by any other previous or similar cases.
A perpetrator of the big bang theory believes that the universe was conceived by coincidence, while a pro evolution scientist feels that there is no such thing as "coincidental" when 98-99% of DNA across most organisms are similar. So you see, even great minds and scientists that expound profusely on their pet scientific interests, have different opinions to when it is reasonable or appropriate for a phenomenon to be considered "coincidental" or not.
So, coincidence? Let's keep this open.