基因

Dalvm

"約4000萬年前，與人類基因最相似的大猿, 黑猿開始分開，
各自進化。
奇怪是經過4000萬年，漫長的歲月，大猿和黑猿幾乎沒有甚麼明顯的變化，而人類已經進化成智人。
再過4000萬年大猿和黑猿也不會進化成智人。

Why? 進化論會不會有些解不懂的地方?

beebeechan

Least you forget, dogs are evolved from wolf.

dye 發表於 2011/11/11 12:26

As evolutionists said, on the evolution tree, there must be at one time, fish and canine have a common ancestor.

beebeechan

回復  beebeechan

You said:
(Homo sapian is not the only intelligence ever exist on earth, the others has just gone extinct)

I said:
Tell me what that intelligent speices called?

and you said:
For example,
H. neanderthalensis
dye 發表於 2011/11/11 12:28

How do you know the Neanderthals were as wise as homo sapiens? Did you perform an IQ test on a living Neanderthal?

beebeechan

回復  beebeechan
Most of DNA is just, junk.

dye 發表於 2011/11/11 12:41

Evolutionists say that homo sapiens and apes have common ancestor because their DNA is 90% identical.
Well, they do not take into account the 90% so called "junk DNA" in the whole DNA sequence which human  being at this stage has no idea what they mean.
In that case, the claim that "they have a common ancestor because of the 90% DNA matches" is just bullshit!! You have no idea the rest of the ＂Ｙes, just junk DNA" sequences (90% of the total) are doing! "You don't know" does not mean they are functionless and play no part at all.

beebeechan

A fish CAN evolve to be a totally different creature, given enough environment pressure, time, and mutation.  Least you forget, dogs are evolved from wolf.

dye 發表於 2011/11/11 12:26

Evolutionists claim that man has evolved from an ape-like ancestor over 6 million years; therefore if we allow an average of 10 years for each generation, then there would have been 600,000 generations. Every generation would have to have a genetic change of 200 base pairs  to turn an ape into a man.

We know that a 200 base pairs changes would make the son look very different from his parents. We don't see any of this happening today.

I don't know how many base pairs have to change in each generation for a fish to become a dog, and this must be completed within 4.5 billion years.

beebeechan

回復  beebeechan
b) Junk DNA, copying for the sake of copying.  As long as it do enough harm.  Most of DNA is just, junk.

dye 發表於 2011/11/11 12:41

You just called them junks simple because you have no idea what these DNA sequences are for?

beebeechan

回復  beebeechan
I think talking to you is a waste of time.  Other who are interest can read the page and decide for themselves.

dye 發表於 2011/11/11 12:41

If you feel you cannot convince me with your stupid arguments, then  you are free to go.
You are never on the hook.

As long as you stop sending out bullshits, things gonna get quiet and peaceful here.


I　forgot......you are welcome to come back with your Evolution 303!

beebeechan

A fish CAN evolve to be a totally different creature, given enough environment pressure, time, and mutation.

dye 發表於 2011/11/11 12:26

I dont know how much time you would think is enough for living species to evolve.

On my example above, the fern kept its structure and shape for 300 million years with no significant changes.
Do you think the evolution of species from a single cell to the complex live species we see on earth today can be completed within the earth's history of 4.5 billion years?
If that is the case, some species must have evoloved in fanstatic speed,like this:

dye

回復 18# beebeechan

Not every feature of evolution is make a species better at adapting to the environment.  It only need to be "fit" in the sense that it will transfer to the next generation.  Adapting to the environment is only one of the criteria.  Other criteria, for example
a) Like the tail of peacock, to attract mates!  In fact, it is thoerize the reason human brain get so large is because of this reason.  People with higher mental capability (not exactly wise) is "sexy".

As for the reason why peacock use its tail, it is way of signalling to female about its health, reasourcefulness, etc  Besides tails, birds dance, sing, build nests, too!

b) Junk DNA, copying for the sake of copying.  As long as it do enough harm.  Most of DNA is just, junk.

c) DNA that causes aging, old age disease.  People (in old days) reproduce when they are young!  So anything that has a harmful effect when you are old will have not much evolutionary pressure to be removed!

And you wonder why people's health goes downhill quickly after they pass their reproductive age (like after 30).

----------
I think talking to you is a waste of time.  Other who are interest can read the page and decide for themselves.

dye

回復 19# beebeechan

For example,
H. neanderthalensis

dye

When mutation accumulates, the change will be significant.  A fish CAN evolve to be a totally different creature, given enough environment pressure, time, and mutation.  Least you forget, dogs are evolved from wolf.

Evolution is about genes, not individuals.  So no YOU cannot evolve to have an extra pair of limbs.

The side qestion is even if you have an extra pair of limbs, is it worth?  It is survival of the fittest, not the faster, not the strongest, not even most wise.  A lot of successful animals in the world simply survive by reproducing extremely fast.

beebeechan

回復  抽刀斷水
Walking upright is also advantageous in traveling long distance on grassland.  It is better at spotting food or enemy on grassland.

dye 發表於 2011/11/10 15:08

If that is the reason, I rather prefer to evolve to have one more pair of limbs so that I can flee faster from enemy or to chase my brunch.

beebeechan

dye 發表於 2011/11/11 07:19
Species change by MUTATION

While you are on your Evolution 101 course , you forget about the Logic 101.
You can get rich by winning a lottery, but buying a lottery does not necessary make you rich.

Evolution may start with mutation but not all mutation would lead to species evolution.
Mutation will not make a fish to become a dog.

Evolution is big change in phenotype.

beebeechan

dye 發表於 2011/11/11 07:19
There are some environment on earth that has not change much to pressure an evolution.  

You made me lol!! a lot.

Then tell me which environment on earth did not have undergone great environment changes when the meteorite hit the earth causing the dinosaurs and many species to extinct.

beebeechan

(Homo sapian is not the only intelligence ever exist on earth, the others has just gone extinct)

Tell me what that intelligent speices called?

beebeechan

Where do we begin?
And now we are calling the specie thata create nuclear weapon to capable of destroying the planet acouple of times "wiser"  (I never said a larger brain wiser.

dye 發表於 2011/11/11 07:19

As you have said:
If I remember correctly, our brain did get a tiny bit larger after civilisation.


Then how do you explain why homo sapien develops larger brain, if that large brain is not to make the species probably "better adapted" and "fix into" its living environment.

If it only happened by chance, then why not primates could have developed wings so that they could fly between trees. It would be a 'better fit' to survive in the jungle than a larger brain.

dye

Where do we begin?

And now we are calling the specie thata create nuclear weapon to capable of destroying the planet acouple of times "wiser"  (I never said a larger brain wiser.  Otherwise, the elephant should be the wiser)  

Evolution has no goal, does not mean it is random.  Snow flakes has no goal, yet it is not random.  Pattern can form due to natural process.  Human is just a particular pattern, like a particular shape of snowflakes.   (Homo sapian is not the only intelligence ever exist on earth, the others has just gone extinct)

We do walk upright and they generally don't.  It is quite advantageous in certain environment.  I never said it is the sole factor that distinguish us from them.  (You never get over the idea that human is just another species, do you?)

There are some environment on earth that has not change much to pressure an evolution.  Obviously, you forget the salamander that HAS changed.

Species change by MUTATION AND SELECTION.  Now you get a lighter skin color?  Evolution built on ancertor, it is not a puff from design.  As long as the species manage to survive, it does not need to be perfect!

Go back to evolution 101 IN UNIVERSITY

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

beebeechan

Please begin with Evolution 101 again.
.
dye 發表於 2011/11/10 14:59

Good. Why don't we  go back to Introduction to the Beginning and Fundamental study of Evolution 101 .........TOGETHER!

beebeechan

c) There is no GOAL in evolution.  Human is not the goal.  (Obviously, the fall into evolution misconception again)  In the end, primate just evolve to be DIFFERENT primate

dye 發表於 2011/11/10 14:59

You are trying to say that evolution is a 'no goal' and a 'random' thing. This contradicts strongly with the most fundamental concept in science: that the nature and the universe have patterns, rules and laws. Things would not have happened randomly as they have appeared.

beebeechan

As the environment change (including human factors, competition), so will be species that "fit" into it.
.
dye 發表於 2011/11/10 14:59

I do not agree.

If species "fit" into the environment, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless and everyone else.

If species "fit" into the environment, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict.