Proteins argue against evolution


#161

Except the article ( that you did not read) points out we’re talking about O2, and then I emphasized this, in the very next post:

So no excuse Dave. That’s where your “misunderstanding” should have ended, but you pursued it, because you did not pay attention.

You did not read my post and you fooled yourself.


#162

BS. Fish don’t “breathe” free oxygen MOLECULES. They utilize the oxygen that’s inherent in water…the O that’s part of H2O.


#163

@Pappadave, AS says a lot of outrageous things, but don’t give him ammunition. Fish don’t dissociate water, they breathe oxygen dissolved in water. Otherwise, fish aquariums wouldn’t need an air pump to keep replenishing the air in the water.


#164

An error as KJ points out, and I was talking about O2 from the start.

You didn’t pay attention, and you fooled yourself.

Your rear-end covering doesn’t do a damn thing Dave.


#165

Well this can’t be one of them; two other planetoids in our solar system have H2O, without having large amounts of O2, because they either don’t have life, or that life doesn’t produce oxygen.

A primordial Earth without life would have been in the same state.


#166

You’re right, of course. It’s dissolved oxygen that allows fish to breathe and not “atomic oxygen.” Chalk it up to one of my brain farts. That doesn’t negate the FACT that water CONTAINS oxygen, however.


#167

The ancient oceans didn’t contain O2.

I was talking about O2, the article was talking about O2, and the moment I responded with “Oxygen Molecules”, you should have known I was talking about O2.

That you didn’t, was your own fault Dave. You didn’t pay attention when I clarified, you didn’t read the article, and so you fooled yourself.


#168

Curious as to your reference, about Jacob thinking that what the animals saw when they conceived would affect the offspring. Later on, however, God gave Jacob - in a dream - a lesson in genetics - that the offsprings’ characteristics were determined by the characteristics of their parents. Gen. 31: 11-12


#169

Which is itself a hallmark of both the shuffling of genetic traits and Epigenetics, the frontline process of Evolution.

I’ll say it once more, whether Evolution is God’s process and he’s directly guiding it is up to you, but the fact that biological progression happens is something that’s well established.

To claim otherwise, would be to invalidate practical science we see operating in the world, not simply a questioning of theory or experimentation.


#170

ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!


#171

Do you see what you’ve done here, AS? You’ve referenced the process that is observed and declared that the controversial theoretical process that is not observed is well established. That’s called conflation. It’s not science.

BTW, @qixlqatl, I never commented on your posts, but meant to. You posted a prime example of microevolution taken advantage of by breeding, and pretended it had some relevance to the macroevolution being discussed here.


#172

It is, because practical science is involved.

Epigenetics, was not discovered as a means to substantiate Evolution.

It was looked at to try and understand how genes change expression within the lifetime of one person, and what caused those changes.

When it was first found in the 1970s, scientists thought that these genetic “tags” were not hereditary; as soon as a baby was born, the slate was wiped clean.

Turned out this wasn’t true, some of these tags are hereditary, and if consistent over enough generations, it will change the genome. This has been observed. That’s neither an exaggeration, nor conflation.

It greatly impacts human disease and your chances of exhibiting it. Diabetes and cancer are both affected by it.

And once again, it’s also responsible for racial differences. Changes in diet, activity, and climate, molds the genome. That’s why we look different, and have genes that are different from one another, despite all of us descending from the same ancestors.

That’s why isolated populations of closely related birds in the Galapagos have different beaks. That’s why a lake that started with one fish species split into two.


#173

Since one side of the argument is ‘intelligent design’, I offered a biblical passage dealing with genetics in action, to all appearances reacting in a single generation to environmental factors. Is not macro-evolution made up of repeated interactions of micro-evoltion? Whether it Is relevant or not Is up to the members who are taking part in the discussion.


#174

So I’ll say it once more:

Biological progression is observed: Speciation.

We see macro changes in shorter-lived animal species and plants.

American goatsbeards, the Apple Maggot fly, the Heliconius butterflies. these all split into two or more species within the last two hundred years.

You then have things like the yellow bellied three-toed skink, where populations that lived in mountains instead of on the beach went from laying eggs, to having live births.

Or the Italian Wall Lizards introduced to the island of Pod Mrčaru in the 1970s; whose bodies have since adapted to an all-plant diet, rather than an insect diet. The most important development being cecal valves, new muscles that the original species did not have, that slow the passage of food through the intestine and give time for the bacteria in the gut to breakdown the plant matter for absorption.

Or the Blue Moon Butterfly, where males went to less than 1% of the population due to a parasite which destroyed male embryos. Today males are 40% of the population, because a male butterfly developed a mutation that made it resistant to the parasite.

And that’s not all. There’s a way for species to get genetic innovations from other species without mating; viruses. We’ve observed this too.

Horizontal gene transfer is something that happens among bacteria and archaea all the time; it turns out that higher organisms aren’t entirely left out.