Why I am an "Evolutionist"

rossum said:
Easily done. Humans have a body part -- the Cytochrome C protein -- that is shared with Chimpanzees. Other species have different Cytochrome Cs. Since they share exactly the same part, then that part is 50% human and 50% chimpanzee. Other sections of the sequence are shared with different animals.

Here are the amino acid sequences, with a few other species for comparison:

Code: 
Hum:          mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
Chm:          mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
Rhe:          mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
Mou:          mgdvekgkki fvqkcaqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqaagfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkkg eradliaylk katne
Frg:          mgdvekgkki fvqkcaqcht cekggkhkvg pnlygligrk tgqaagfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkkg erqdliaylk sacsk
Fly:     mgvp agdvekgkkl fvqrcaqcht veaggkhkvg pnlhgligrk tgqaagfayt dankakgitw nedtlfeyle npkkyipgtk mifaglkkpn ergdliaylk satk
Sun: masfaeap agdpttgaki fktkcaqcht vekgaghkqg pnlnglfgrq sgttagysys aanknmaviw eentlydyll npkkyipgtk mvfpglkkpq eradliaylk tsta

Hum - human, Chm - Chimpanzee, Rhe - Rhesus monkey, Mou - mouse, Frg - bullfrog, Fly - fruit fly, Sun - sunflower.

It is worth noting that Yockey (1992) calculated that there were 2.3 x 10^93 different ways to make a working Cytochrome C. What are the chances of humans and chimps having identical amino acid sequences, when there are so many different possible sequencWe are taLKING
Click to expand...

rossum said:
Easily done. Humans have a body part -- the Cytochrome C protein -- that is shared with Chimpanzees. Other species have different Cytochrome Cs. Since they share exactly the same part, then that part is 50% human and 50% chimpanzee. Other sections of the sequence are shared with different animals.

Here are the amino acid sequences, with a few other species for comparison:

Code: 
Hum:          mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
Chm:          mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
Rhe:          mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
Mou:          mgdvekgkki fvqkcaqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqaagfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkkg eradliaylk katne
Frg:          mgdvekgkki fvqkcaqcht cekggkhkvg pnlygligrk tgqaagfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkkg erqdliaylk sacsk
Fly:     mgvp agdvekgkkl fvqrcaqcht veaggkhkvg pnlhgligrk tgqaagfayt dankakgitw nedtlfeyle npkkyipgtk mifaglkkpn ergdliaylk satk
Sun: masfaeap agdpttgaki fktkcaqcht vekgaghkqg pnlnglfgrq sgttagysys aanknmaviw eentlydyll npkkyipgtk mvfpglkkpq eradliaylk tsta

Hum - human, Chm - Chimpanzee, Rhe - Rhesus monkey, Mou - mouse, Frg - bullfrog, Fly - fruit fly, Sun - sunflower.

It is worth noting that Yockey (1992) calculated that there were 2.3 x 10^93 different ways to make a working Cytochrome C. What are the chances of humans and chimps having identical amino acid sequences, when there are so many different possible sequences.
Click to expand...
We are talking about fossils and not for someone who knows they can not provide that evidence to find something that living things have to share and thus you have the 50/50 part?
 
rossum said:
Erm... Someone is misinforming you. Evolution includes descent with variation. Mostly those variations are minor, so evolution expects organisms to be similar to their parent(s).

The human genome has about 3 billion base pairs. On average between 50 and 100 of those base pairs are changed, not found in either parent. That is descent with variation, but usually not a major variation.
Click to expand...
If it is not a major variation then it is just a similarity.
 
Gus Bovona said:
Remember, the question was,


So seeing species A with 1/2 of its leg from species B and 1/2 leg from species C isn't necessarily the only way for large changes to happen over long periods of time. It could also be that species A's leg changes bit by bit over a long period of time until it's had a lot of changes and now it's species B.* In that case, what would your answer to my question quoted above be?

* Evolution doesn't even say that species A has 1/2 leg from species B and 1/2 leg from species C.
Click to expand...
I just told you the fossil would clearly need to to show all the different changes from one species to the next even if it is only a leg or fin to start with.

If it happened over long periods of time or small changes until you get to the 50/50 part there should be even more fossils than predicted because even more would die before they got to the various stages of evolution.
 
Nathan P said:
I just told you the fossil would clearly need to to show all the different changes from one species to the next even if it is only a leg or fin to start with.
Click to expand...
I think I understand, but let me be sure: so, the fossil record, in order to show that many small changes happened over a long time, like evolution says, would need to show all the changes from one species to the next, even if it's just a single body part. Do I have that right?

Nathan P said:
If it happened over long periods of time or small changes until you get to the 50/50 part there should be even more fossils than predicted because even more would die before they got to the various stages of evolution.
Click to expand...
Let me address the number of fossils in a bit, right now I want to focus on the characteristics of the fossils, see above, but I promise I'll get back to the number of fossils.
 
Gus Bovona said:
I think I understand, but let me be sure: so, the fossil record, in order to show that many small changes happened over a long time, like evolution says, would need to show all the changes from one species to the next, even if it's just a single body part. Do I have that right?


Let me address the number of fossils in a bit, right now I want to focus on the characteristics of the fossils, see above, but I promise I'll get back to the number of fossils.
Click to expand...
It does not have to show all the changes from the different body parts, but a few hundred at least out the untold trillions would be a start.
 
Nathan P said:
It does not have to show all the changes from the different body parts, but a few hundred at least out the untold trillions would be a start.
Click to expand...
1. Trillions? These changes start with mutations to DNA, and there are only 3 billion base pairs in human DNA, and not every base pair will change from one species to the next, so that looks to be a gigantic overestimate.

2. How did you calculate that you'd like to see a few hundred; and, over what period of evolutionary time would that hundred suffice? I presume that a shorter bit of evolution time between species would require fewer, and a longer period of evolutionary time would require more.
 
Gus Bovona said:
1. Trillions? These changes start with mutations to DNA, and there are only 3 billion base pairs in human DNA, and not every base pair will change from one species to the next, so that looks to be a gigantic overestimate.

2. How did you calculate that you'd like to see a few hundred; and, over what period of evolutionary time would that hundred suffice? I presume that a shorter bit of evolution time between species would require fewer, and a longer period of evolutionary time would require more.
Click to expand...
What I am giving you a break as there actually should of been untold quadrillions of the missing link type fossils and you could find a quarter to half of them at the rate they find current fossils they have. You have any idea of how many fossils survive out of every million fossils?
 
CrowCross said:
But that's beside the point I was making. You challenged the view that fins can evolve into legs (or was it vice versa?), and I made a very good case for the plausibility of that kind of evolution. You don't even need fossils for it because we have living creatures that show their evolutionary traits.
Click to expand...
really?
Click to expand...
Really.
CrowCross said:
Do you seriously believe that?
Click to expand...
Yes. It makes perfect sense to me.
CrowCross said:
You seem to be a fan of embrionic recapitulation.
Click to expand...
Is that why you think evolution doesn't occur?
CrowCross said:
As I said....all you have is coloring book explanation.
Click to expand...
Yes--you said that. More than once before. You know what they say about people who keep repeating themselves.
CrowCross said:
i tried to go deeper with you but you refused.
Click to expand...
You just have no good evidence to argue that evolution does not occur. That's because it does occur.
 
Unknown Soldier said:
Really.

Yes. It makes perfect sense to me.

Is that why you think evolution doesn't occur?

Yes--you said that. More than once before. You know what they say about people who keep repeating themselves.

You just have no good evidence to argue that evolution does not occur. That's because it does occur.
Click to expand...
Show me how an assembly of organelle evolves via a process of evolutionism......or kindly give up on this thread.
 
Gus Bovona said:
No, I'm sorry. My question has nothing to do with evolution, actually, because it can be considered completely apart from whether evolution is true. It's merely a question about how many species - out of the millions? billions? that have ever existed - should we expect to find fossils for? I think you're saying that we should expect to find a fossil for every species. Do I have that wrong, perhaps?
Click to expand...
I would imagine that every species placed on a hierarchy tree would have a linage of ancestors most of which would be fossils since DNA only goes back so far. If that is so, then are there any species discovered that are not supposedly nested on the tree?
Gus Bovona said:
Sorry, my mistake. Fossilization is very, very, very rare. But, really, it doesn't matter what adjective we place before "rare." it is what it is, and we don't find fossils for every species that evolution says existed - although there have been predictions of transitional fossils that should be found in a certain age of rock in a certain place, that those predictions have proved true.
Click to expand...
The only one that I know about is the tiktaalik which was supposedly the predicted transitional fossil for tetrapods. And although it is technically a transitional fossil, it still had fin like legs which it used to wobble on the ground while fossils with fully formed feet were later discovered that were dated about 20 million years earlier. This quashed the evolutionary predictions along with any victory celebrations it created. This is not to say that there might not be others.
Gus Bovona said:
Do those experts explain their reasoning as to why they think that evolution predicts we should find more fossils than we have?
Click to expand...
I believe that they have plenty of fossils just not the ones that fill in the gaps. Like I stated even Darwin expected more fossil discoveries to fill in the gaps.
 
CrowCross said:
Let me guess....you're qualified to answer?
Click to expand...
Let me guess, neither you nor I are qualified scientists. I don't need to be a carpenter to appreciate well made furniture. I can accept what those who are qualified tell me precisely because I am not qualified to gainsay it. I accept what physicists say about quantum mechanics even though it makes very little sense, because I grasp the fact that it makes sense to them. Why should I not accept what biologists say about evolution, when not only does it make eminent sense, but is also blindingly obvious.
 
Nathan P said:
We are talking about fossils and not for someone who knows they can not provide that evidence to find something that living things have to share and thus you have the 50/50 part?
Click to expand...
We have eyes. Chimps have eyes. Sheep have eyes. All have mammalian eyes. There is a shared body part. Is that what you are talking about? Those eyes were inherited from the mammalian common ancestor.
 
Nathan P said:
If it is not a major variation then it is just a similarity.
Click to expand...
Evolution results from those similarities, which add together over time, as directed by natural selection. Each generation the average length of the neck gets a little bigger, and you end up with a giraffe. Each generation the nose gets a bit longer and you end up with an elephant's trunk.

A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. Evolution is the same; a lot of single steps adds up to a thousand miles.
 
Nathan P said:
I bet you can not prove your point?
Click to expand...
It's your point. You are claiming that evolution is wrong because it cannot show individual organisms evolving. Evolution doesn't claim that individual organisms evolve. You will not find any scientists claim that individuals evolve. No teacher teaches that individuals evolve. It's a non- issue. Evolution doesn't require individuals to evolve. All it requires is that individuals are slightly different from their parents and that the environment in which they live changes slowly over time. Both these requirements are obviously true. Where on earth did you get the motion that individuals evolve? Go back to your source and explain that they are talking gibberish.
 
rossum said:
Evolution results from those similarities,
Click to expand...
The giant panda and the red panda are similar enough to both be called pandas. The similarities extend down to their sesamoid thumbs.....Yet they say one is related to a bear and the other to a raccoon. Homology isn't evidence for evolutionism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top