Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
BFB

Life began in freshwater pond, not the ocean

56 posts in this topic

No, Oly, it is you that doesn't know that part of the theory.^_^

Well at least we've established it's a theory that not everyone subscribes to

"Developing resistance" is a bit different to "humans from blobs in mud"

Edited by oly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean mongrels, mutants, freaks, cross-breeds & hybrids? & the odd misrepresented skull?

Evolution hasn't been accepted, looks more like its been enforced for political reasons.

Even Darwin didn't base it on reality. People have just tried to fit evidence to the theory.

If this is what you need to believe to make yourself happy, go right ahead. If you want to actually step into the 21st century and learn something, there are a lot of online resources. Though, continuing to lie to yourself might make you happier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darwins acknowledgement of the lack of evidence for his wilder speculations doesn't prove anything anyway.

The earth not being flat is accepted, but theres too many opponents of evolution theory to say it's accepted as fact.

Here's a chart on wikipedia showing some figures for the level of support:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg

Misunderstanding of a theory by the general public has nothing whatever to do with it being accepted. Not only is it accepted, it is applied practically every single day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least we've established it's a theory that not everyone subscribes to

"Developing resistance" is a bit different to "humans from blobs in mud"

No, it actually isn't. Evolution is always about changes in the genome (DNA/RNA). It is just easier for you to understand when it is something small, like developing resistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it actually isn't. Evolution is always about changes in the genome (DNA/RNA). It is just easier for you to understand when it is something small, like developing resistance.

Take wings for example. Why would creatures begin to develop them in the first place? Or would a freak just happen to have a pair that was then passed down to descendants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take wings for example. Why would creatures begin to develop them in the first place? Or would a freak just happen to have a pair that was then passed down to descendants?

I remember reading a new scientist article many years ago about experiments with fruit flies, the essence of which was that mutations are continually accumulating but they are not expressed, they are suppressed by a control gene. when the fruit flies were bathed in a specific chemical which turned off that control gene, all accumulated mutations suddenly expressed themselves in the offspring, the hypothesis of the article was that when there is a sudden environmental change that switched off the control gene (or maybe a mutation that switched off the control gene itself, I don't recall), then all of those accumulated muttation suddenly express themselves releasing a sudden myriad of species, most of which would probably die off, but those whose mutations enabled better survival would survive, so I'd guess the fruit ant that mutated wings would survive as the fruit fly. granted these experiments were simply fruit fly, but the principle may apply to all animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A reference...

http://en.m.wikipedi...Human_evolution

You didn't know about that part of the theory?

Your understandings are, as usual, rather uninformed. While Wiki would not be one's optimal choice in regards to this topic (or any other for that matter), you may wish to read your references. For example:

Primate evolution probably began in the late Cretaceous, 85 Ma (million years ago) by genetic studies and no later than the Paleocene by the fossil record 55 Ma. [2][3] The family Hominidae or Great Apes diverged from the Hylobatidae family 15-20 Ma. Around 14 Ma the Ponginae or orangutans diverged from the Hominidae family.[4] Later the gorilla and chimpanzee would diverge from the lineage leading to the species Homo, the latter around 5-6 Ma. Modern humans evolved from the last common ancestor of the Hominini and the species Australopithecines some 2.3-2.4 million years ago in Africa.[5][6]

http://en.m.wikipedi...Human_evolution

You do understand the evolutionary branching in regards to "monkeys" and apes?

As to the "mud" comment, evolutionary studies are not directly involved with the origins of life, be they the product of abiogenesis, transpermia, or an as yet undetermined source.

As to the wing query, it should not be understood that the cumulative associated structures suddenly appeared in a full blown and "complete" form. Quite the contrary. Just some basic review:

http://www.newscient...-is-no-use.html

http://www.dinosaur-...g_evolution.htm

Edit: Format.

Edited by Swede

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Late edit to add: And this is one of the problems incurred when utilizing Wiki as a reference as per the above quote. "Homo" is not a species designation, it is a genus designation.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well at least we've established it's a theory that not everyone subscribes to

Since you do not know anything about evolution, I will clarify that for you:

It is a bunch of theories that everyone who has studied organic chemistry and biology at the professional level subscribes to.

Oh, we pretty much established that it was a theory about 150 years ago. Way to get caught up!:tu:

The fun part is that you think Darwin's theory is still what we are talking about when we refer to evolution.:lol:

"Developing resistance" is a bit different to "humans from blobs in mud"

Absolutely. One is actually a valid description of one process in evolution. The other is a political argument that has no scientific meaning, explanatory power, or even refer to any particular theory. We refer to it as a strawman, indication that the sole purpose of its existence is deception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. One is actually a valid description of one process in evolution. The other is a political argument that has no scientific meaning, explanatory power, or even refer to any particular theory. We refer to it as a strawman, indication that the sole purpose of its existence is deception.

so you don't believe we came from blobs in mud?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you don't believe we came from blobs in mud?

Not the way you understand it, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember reading a new scientist article many years ago about experiments with fruit flies, the essence of which was that mutations are continually accumulating but they are not expressed, they are suppressed by a control gene. when the fruit flies were bathed in a specific chemical which turned off that control gene, all accumulated mutations suddenly expressed themselves in the offspring, the hypothesis of the article was that when there is a sudden environmental change that switched off the control gene (or maybe a mutation that switched off the control gene itself, I don't recall), then all of those accumulated muttation suddenly express themselves releasing a sudden myriad of species, most of which would probably die off, but those whose mutations enabled better survival would survive, so I'd guess the fruit ant that mutated wings would survive as the fruit fly. granted these experiments were simply fruit fly, but the principle may apply to all animals.

Interesting...

Suppressed mutations? Is there any evidence? Or just theory?

Specific chemicals to release the mutations? Is this realistic in nature? Any evidence? What kind of chemicals?

Accumulated suppressed mutations released at once? That would be some variety surely. Is there any fossil evidence for increased mutations in a given species in a particular time period? 

Was it replicable?

Is it conjecture & hypothesis? Or based on observation?

Working wings straight off a mutant? 1st generation? If not first, what purpose half developed wings?

Not darwins theory, right?

What was the mutation observed? Was there one? Was it an improvement on original fruit fly?

...just thinking out loud!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Oops

Edited by oly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that might be too advanced for just idle contemplation. If you do actually want to understand it, you will need to start at a more fundamental level, and you will have to actually have to correct some foundational errors you have on the entire subject of evolution specifically, and science generally.

As it is...it is never going to make sense to you as long as you continue to believe that your knowledge regarding evolution is correct.

And, even if you choose not to learn about evolution...you really should not argue the anti-evolution side anymore. Not if you sincerely want to support them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that might be too advanced for just idle contemplation. If you do actually want to understand it, you will need to start at a more fundamental level, and you will have to actually have to correct some foundational errors you have on the entire subject of evolution specifically, and science generally.

As it is...it is never going to make sense to you as long as you continue to believe that your knowledge regarding evolution is correct.

And, even if you choose not to learn about evolution...you really should not argue the anti-evolution side anymore. Not if you sincerely want to support them.

Im just asking questions that you're not answering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are asking the wrong questions. You are asking about things that are too advanced for you to understand yet. First, you need to get the foundations right. The things you currently believe, they aren't right. As long as you continue to believe those things, nothing that you hear about evolution from people who understand it is going to make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting...

Suppressed mutations? Is there any evidence? Or just theory?

Specific chemicals to release the mutations? Is this realistic in nature? Any evidence? What kind of chemicals?

Accumulated suppressed mutations released at once? That would be some variety surely. Is there any fossil evidence for increased mutations in a given species in a particular time period?

Was it replicable?

Is it conjecture & hypothesis? Or based on observation?

Working wings straight off a mutant? 1st generation? If not first, what purpose half developed wings?

Not darwins theory, right?

What was the mutation observed? Was there one? Was it an improvement on original fruit fly?

...just thinking out loud!

Extensive research has been conducted in regards to gene/mutation suppression. There can be a number of agents, amongst them, proteins. This first is a general overview of such agents/mechanisms:

http://www.univie.ac.at/ibmz/student/results/SuppressionTRENDS.pdf

The following papers go into more detail in regards to specific cases:

http://www.pnas.org/content/86/8/2794.full.pdf

http://www.columbia.edu/~em2282/MillerWebSite/Site_2/Publications_files/PagantJBC2010.pdf

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000484

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC213157/pdf/jbacter00123-0281.pdf

This last is one that you may find to be of interest in regards to Drosophila wing-size change:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC213157/pdf/jbacter00123-0281.pdf

Keep in mind that the above references represent a mere fraction of the research available of this topic.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take wings for example. Why would creatures begin to develop them in the first place? Or would a freak just happen to have a pair that was then passed down to descendants?

Again you are looking at the big picture and expecting some kind of answer. The structure of an organism is so down the line that it is impossible to see what is really going on. For wings, that is pretty easy because wings, fins, and arms are all made from the same genes, just expressed in different ways. DNA changes in the genes that control expression happened, and made wings possible. Nature has shown us time and again, if it is possible, it will happen. Luckily this would have been very advantage because there were no creatures to fill the niche that flying creatures fill before wings. That is really strong selective pressure.

Edited by FurthurBB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seem to be a number of anomalies with the timescale, which the whole theory hangs on.

Nope.^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope.^_^

I knew a christian sectarian once who said that when I asked him if he believed in dinosaurs & had he been to the natural history museum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*gasp*

A sectarian used the same commonly used English expression denoting a negative response in a casual and unimportant fashion as I did? :o

Why...that must mean that...that...

Wait, what does it mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*gasp*

A sectarian used the same commonly used English expression denoting a negative response in a casual and unimportant fashion as I did? :o

Why...that must mean that...that...

Wait, what does it mean?

Only that you reminded me of him for some reason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, nothing, then.

You may want to consider upping your standards when it comes to making connections between people, if you can actually classify them by who has said "no" to you.

More generally, you may want to review your entire process for determining which data is valid and credible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seem to be a number of anomalies with the timescale, which the whole theory hangs on.

Old carving of a stegasaurus:

http://www.bible.ca/...ks-cambodia.htm

A few other anomalies:

http://clearwisdom.n.../2/8/82470.html

You may wish to seriously consider upgrading the level of your research/documentation.

To address just a few of the "examples" presented in your "references":

http://paleo.cc/palu...osaur-claim.htm

http://www.ramtops.co.uk/coso.html

http://www.ooparts.u...orp-spheres.htm

http://www.badarchae...om/?page_id=334

http://pseudoarchaeo...g/b03-ross.html

Have you found supplied references to genetic/mutation suppression to be of interest?

Edit: Aquatus - Chuckle. Was writing as you were submitting.

Edited by Swede

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.