A CONSERVATIVE solution to global warming (Part 1)


#61

Yup:

what originally started as a viral gene designed to produce proteins that would fuse the host’s cells together, thereby allowing the virus to spread with greater ease

Scientists have found that viruses have been invading and shaping what would ultimately become the human genome for millions of years. Most of these viruses altered the genetic code by invading sperm or eggs. Once inside these cells, the viruses target the DNA and integrate their own viral DNA into the host’s DNA. If the sperm or egg goes on to produce a viable organism, the viral gene can be inherited from one generation to the next.

? I have CRISPR. A means of genetically manipulating organisms; that was created by nature, and which we simply hijack for our own purposes.

tDNA, or “transfer DNA”, is what makes it possible.

Nature-built mechanisms, to further evolution along.

You pretty much can’t deny it anymore Ken, time to come over to a better understanding:

https://biologos.org/about-us/our-mission/

And again, we come back to this.

Lizard developing new organs to digest plants.

We observed this happening, it took about 30 years. Just because you don’t understand how, doesn’t deny that it happened, because again, observed.

We know it’s over 4 Billion, due to the radioactivity of Uranium.

It’s pretty clear we have this down to a science, because this is also what allows to predict how much Uranium we’ll find in a given deposit.

The Earth could still be older, and that’s simply a matter of finding something even older that’s been sitting around. But at it’s at least over 4 Billion, as indicated by fragments of the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite.

… oh, and the oldest human-made structures are 12,000 years old. Just FYI.


#62

As I said, “science” is no person or a single group. It can corrupt the thoughts of a few, but science understands the weaknesses of humans and it is science and it’s method that corrects it.


#63

Nonsense. Changing their eating habits isn’t becoming a “new animal.” Neither is a grasshopper learning to stay quiet to avoid being eaten. They are the SAME animals as before. Your fruit flies are still fruit flies, your fish are still fish and your lizards are still lizards.


#64

They grew new organs, to digest plant matter better.

And If the animal keeps changing to adjust to changing diet or environment, if those changes keep compiling, what happens Dave?

It’s not behavior (though that’s regulated by evolution too), their wings altered in structure, so that they no longer produced a sound when rubbed together.

Again, this happened twice, on two different islands, through different mutations in the x chromosome.


#65

BS. They are STILL the same animal but with survival adaptations. They didn’t become something other than a lizard or a grasshopper. Neither “morphed” into a rat or a spider. They merely developed adaptations–over time–to increase their survivability…the EXACT same thing that happened to those birds in the Galapagos that Darwin observed causing him to propose his “survival of the fittest” meme. Those were ALL the same species of bird, but with different shaped bills. NONE of them became mice or bugs. They remained, basically, the same animal.


#66

Because that takes time.

It’s like having a picture of yourself every single day of your life and looking at your picture as a baby and one as an adult and asking, “show me the picture where the baby became an adult”. You can’t do it because the changes are gradual and occur over long periods of time.

Thus, changes are like the small changes in ourselves that occur from day to day, week-to-week. If I asked you to look at this first pic of Sean Connery on the left and asked you to find a single picture that shows how he turns into Sean Connery on the right:

…you can’t do it because the changes are too small and occur over long periods of time.

The changes we’re talking about don’t happen in moths and years or even centuries but millennia or more.

If you look for changes in any time scale shorter than that you won’t ever find it. That’s why the evidence is found in the blueprint of life, DNA, as AS has pointed out.


#67

But you don’t change into something other than the human being you became when your father’s sperm united with your mother’s ovum. Your DNA doesn’t change and you don’t become a chimpanzee, even though you share 97% of your DNA with them…however gradually your appearance changes.

BTW, IF we “descended” from apes, why are there still apes?


#68

No, not in 100 years you don’t. As I already stated, it takes many millennia for that to happen. The point of the example was simply to point out that when you look at changes, just in the infinitesimal lifespan of humans you cannot find a day relative to a life that shows how one thing (a baby) becomes another thing (an adult).

Thus you won’t see how this:

Branches off to this:

image

And eventually branches off to this:

And so on…


#69

The idea that these creatures were all created by a god in the environments we find them in is falsified fairly easily.

There is evidence of glaciers all over the earth, suggesting that there was a time, perhaps as recently as 635 million years ago, when the environments you see above probably didn’t exist as the whole world would have become to cold (if not for the creatures I show above, certainly for others). Thus most of what we see today would have evolved from the life that remained, probably in the oceans and deepest lakes and any temperate regions that remained.


#70

It’s STILL BS. There’s nothing to show that catfish, frogs or toads are even remotely related to S. Pacific walking fish. I was challenging the assertion that “We’ve SEEN evolution in action where one animal becomes another.” “We” haven’t “seen” any such thing. ALL life on this planet…including plants…share SOME DNA. All that proves is that DNA is the basic building block of life. It does NOT mean that all lives are related to one another through “evolution.”


#71

The images are a generalization.


#72

But the claim isn’t. The claim that “We’ve seen evolution in action” is as false as “I didn’t have sex with…”


#73

As AS has pointed out to you, several times, is that viruses can insert themselves in our DNA. Most of the time it does nothing, but just as certain technologies in a car would give you some clue as to when they were created, virus’ inserting itself into DNA shows as all of the creatures that share common ancestry.

There’s no other explanation as to why two different creatures (e.g. a whale and a hippo) have the same viral markers in the same places except that they share a common ancestor.


#74

Well, that depends on how you define it.

Bacteria that live in environments high in industrial waste that evolve to “eat” nylon (nylonase) is an example of a creature evolving. That is evolution that can be “seen”. But seeing one distinct species accumulate enough changes such that it can no longer breed or even live in the same environments isn’t something we can “see” with our eyes, rather something we discover though understanding of how life changes.


#75

AGAIN with the nonsense??? Those bacteria were bacteria BEFORE they learned to eat nylon and they were bacteria AFTERWARDS, too. All that is is an ADAPTATION to one’s environment. It’s NOT one species becoming another.


#76

Are you sure burning coal does not produce CO2? I remember learning the smell of CO2 in chemistry class (I believe CO is odorless), and I recognized it as the same smell that occurred whenever my mother would take a shovelful of hot coals from the heating stove to light the fire in the kitchen stove.


#77

Again, this has been addressed ad nauseam. Take all those little changes, add them up over a million years and you get something similar, but different (horse and a zebra), add 100 million years and you get something that’s no longer recognizable (Hippo and a Whale).


#78

Yes, but this is an example of micro-evolution. The same team of Japanese researchers that discovered that change isolated it down to just TWO point mutations. Two amino acids changes, probably not in the same generation. It’s an interesting change, but it doesn’t qualify as a new protein. And certainly not a new organ.


#79

…and not even a new creature. It’s the SAME creature that it was prior to the “mutation.”


#80

But what happens when the differences keep accruing Dave?

Different leg structure, different vocal cords, slightly longer body… but keeping the pouch, turns something like a possum, into the Tasmanian Wolf.

If these species lose the ability to reproduce with one another, and develop divergent characteristics, they become different species.

That’s what speciation is:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evo101/VC1gReproIsolation.shtml

If adaptation requires it, and if they’re sufficiently isolated, there’s no reason it wouldn’t make these things, just like those beaks on Darwin’s finches.