Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't real

[_Chap]

I shan't waste time with SPG. Everything that needs to be said has already been said in this thread, and it does not appear that he has anything interesting to add.

[_canpakes]

Why isn't Earth a big round lump of moss? Because there are patterns in the nature of consciousness that lead us to where are. Life is more than physical.

Why are you so down on moss, SPG? :/

[_SPG]

I cannot, but I can provide how it explains and addresses things that science cannot. Such parallel realities, where the Big Bang came from, how energy of the soul is real energy and doesn't cease to exist at death.

Science will readily admit many areas in which it does not know the answer yet. Explanations are a dime a dozen, where religions peddle them like candy. The idea of a soul existing after death is not new, but it is only an assertion. When a scientist asks for an explanation they want more then just an assertion. They want actual evidence supporting the assertion. How would we test these assertions to show they are likely true?

As honorable as this sounds, BS.

Science is like a religion. You have your general authorities that dictate what is said in the name of science. Then your NOM types that don't quite buy it. So they go out and start looking at stuff themselves. Even though they are "scientists" what they find is buried.

Like the two 600,000,000 year old fossils of 6.5 inch creatures found in Antarctica that are very similar to ones found in Chile thought to be 400 years old?

Or the evidence of mermaids that scientists have presented but got crushed?

Science is just another church.

[_Lemmie]

[Or the evidence of mermaids that scientists have presented but got crushed?

I'm hoping you are being facetious there, but if not, CFR.

For a palate cleanser, some real science:

Life today is definitely not basically the same as it was a few billion years ago. Fortunately, human biology and physiology today are quite different from life back then, which pretty much consisted of prokaryotic cyanobacteria that made a living from photosynthesis.

These guys lived in an environment in which we humans, left to our own devices, would have lasted for less than 10 minutes. These single celled organisms didn't even have a nucleus. Their DNA was in the from of little circular plasmids that sort of roamed around the cell at will. The task of cyanobacteria in the evolution of the planet was to release oxygen into the atmosphere so we multi-celled organisms could eventually live here, as soon as evolution could come up with us.

A good working definition of evolution is the acquisition of new and heritable traits in a population. New and heritable traits means acquisition of mutations; that is, changes in the sequence of base pairs in the DNA. New DNA sequences lead to new proteins, which enable new physiology.

The experiment with mice described by the article referenced in the OP demonstrated that the genomes of the light-coat mouse population were statistically different, in terms of mutations in their DNA, from the genomes of the dark-coat population, and that both had evolved from the founding population through adaptation to their respective environments (light soil vs dark soil). Natural selection is demonstrated yet again.

Many of the adaptations SPG described in humans could be accomplished to some extent, without genetic changes. More likely over time, however, epigenetic changes would be involved.

Epigenetic changes, while heritable to some extent, do not arise from a mutation in the DNA sequence itself, but by means of chemical tags such as methyl groups attached to the outer surface of the DNA. This methylation does not alter the sequence of base pairs, but does help control how they are expressed in terms of relative rates of protein production.

Epigenetic changes that do not alter the DNA sequence can also include acetylation of the basesas well as methylation. It can also include methylation of the histone proteins around which the DNA is wrapped to form chromatin.

A well known example of a genetic mutation to the DNA itself, one that confers a heritable survival advantage, is the emergence of the nylonase enzyme in a strain of Flavobacterium. This point mutation allows bacteria to derive energy from molecules that did not exist on the planet before the invention and manufacture of the nylon polymer in 1930s.

The nylonase enzyme is the result of a point mutation in the genetic sequence for a protein (enzyme in this case) that previously had no capability to use nylon by-products as food.

Judging from massive quantities of pseudo-scientific nonsense they come up with in response, the discovery of nylonase by the Japanese, as a crystal-clear example of evolution by mutation, appears to drive the creationist and ID communities crazy.

[_canpakes]

Science is like a religion. You have your general authorities that dictate what is said in the name of science.

Science is just another church.

I had no idea that the Authority of Science was decided on by progression of randomly chosen fellows on up to the Oldest Scientist, who then chooses his three Science Counselors, and then who meet in a room to talk to Science God, afterwards letting all the rest of us know what’s new, during twice-yearly Science Conferences.

Who is the Science Prophet? I missed this development.

[_canpakes]

Like the two 600,000,000 year old fossils of 6.5 inch creatures found in Antarctica that are very similar to ones found in Chile thought to be 400 years old?

1. CFR?

2. Why is this a problem for science?

Or the evidence of mermaids that scientists have presented but got crushed?

3. CFR?

4. Are these mermaids sharing their workout routine?

[_honorentheos]

[Or the evidence of mermaids that scientists have presented but got crushed?

I'm hoping you are being facetious there, but if not, CFR.

Boy does this bring back memories.

When our daughter was around middle school age she watched a "documentary" on Animal Planet her friends were anxious about that showed there was a species of primates-like creatures that had evolved to live underwater that were the basis for the mermaid myth. It took a bit of work to explain to her why this supposed TV documentary was a crock of dog feces in a way that was helping her become a better critical thinker rather than just rely on, "That's stupid because I said it is" though it seems to have worked out. That and the entire 2012 Mayan calendar thing were very real to her. Thank Goddess she is a smart kid, and Neal Degras Tyson can speak at a level even an 11 year old can follow.

If SPG believes in mermaids based on the same "documentary"...uh, wow.

ETA: Wiki for the "documentary": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mermaids:_The_Body_Found

[_honorentheos]

It's not that evolution had a plan, the life form adapted. I watched a Star Trek Voyager where Janeway followed a prescribed evolution and became some sort of river creature. I don't believe that evolution decides who we become, I think those that survive the environment become the new life.

Since this is somewhat in line with the OP, I came back to it because I was puzzled as to what you thought this statement was responding to? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think the majority of people who view evolutionary theory as the best explanation for the diversity of species would argue that evolution is something that has direction or "a plan". I would suggest most would even go so far as to argue that evolution favors variety over specialization/complexity to the point that it doesn't automatically lead to more and more advanced, complex organisms per se. Advantages that arise from competition that tend towards complexity can just as easily be wiped out by a different mutation that is capable of outcompeting complex species and end up dominating in a given niche. We as people are the ones imposing direction and sentience onto it, looking for patterns like we have evolved to do.

Anyway, I think I missed why you even posted that. Was it intended to be a response to something someone said that I missed?

[_SteelHead]

Peel away the biocentrism smoke screen and embrace the Intelligent Design.

[_SPG]

[Or the evidence of mermaids that scientists have presented but got crushed?

I'm hoping you are being facetious there, but if not, CFR.

For a palate cleanser, some real science:

Life today is definitely not basically the same as it was a few billion years ago. Fortunately, human biology and physiology today are quite different from life back then, which pretty much consisted of prokaryotic cyanobacteria that made a living from photosynthesis.

These guys lived in an environment in which we humans, left to our own devices, would have lasted for less than 10 minutes. These single celled organisms didn't even have a nucleus. Their DNA was in the from of little circular plasmids that sort of roamed around the cell at will. The task of cyanobacteria in the evolution of the planet was to release oxygen into the atmosphere so we multi-celled organisms could eventually live here, as soon as evolution could come up with us.

A good working definition of evolution is the acquisition of new and heritable traits in a population. New and heritable traits means acquisition of mutations; that is, changes in the sequence of base pairs in the DNA. New DNA sequences lead to new proteins, which enable new physiology.

The experiment with mice described by the article referenced in the OP demonstrated that the genomes of the light-coat mouse population were statistically different, in terms of mutations in their DNA, from the genomes of the dark-coat population, and that both had evolved from the founding population through adaptation to their respective environments (light soil vs dark soil). Natural selection is demonstrated yet again.

Many of the adaptations SPG described in humans could be accomplished to some extent, without genetic changes. More likely over time, however, epigenetic changes would be involved.

Epigenetic changes, while heritable to some extent, do not arise from a mutation in the DNA sequence itself, but by means of chemical tags such as methyl groups attached to the outer surface of the DNA. This methylation does not alter the sequence of base pairs, but does help control how they are expressed in terms of relative rates of protein production.

Epigenetic changes that do not alter the DNA sequence can also include acetylation of the basesas well as methylation. It can also include methylation of the histone proteins around which the DNA is wrapped to form chromatin.

A well known example of a genetic mutation to the DNA itself, one that confers a heritable survival advantage, is the emergence of the nylonase enzyme in a strain of Flavobacterium. This point mutation allows bacteria to derive energy from molecules that did not exist on the planet before the invention and manufacture of the nylon polymer in 1930s.

The nylonase enzyme is the result of a point mutation in the genetic sequence for a protein (enzyme in this case) that previously had no capability to use nylon by-products as food.

Judging from massive quantities of pseudo-scientific nonsense they come up with in response, the discovery of nylonase by the Japanese, as a crystal-clear example of evolution by mutation, appears to drive the creationist and ID communities crazy.

I read this whole post from DrW, and I'm not quite sure if he is agreeing with me and that I'm awesome, but since it was quoted by lemmie, probably not. And sadly, I couldn't determine what CFR meant in this context.

I'm not afraid to admit that I believe in mermaids. But, again, my concept of belief, as noted several times, is different.

Mermaid exist in history, told in many tales. They have been blamed for ship wreaks. They are painted on the wall of caves in Africa, depicted in a war between land-lubbers and merfolk in the rivers. Humans are more closely related to dolphins in terms of internal body function then we are to primates. We have found spears and arrows made of whale bone embedded in other whales with elaborate cravings that don't match any known land culture. We have a couple of videos that show something that looks like a humanoid fish. And one doctor who recorded the hand of what looked like a human/fish being on the glass of his sub. He was convinced, for other reasons, it was a merfolk.

So, do I believe in Merfolk? Sure. I study the idea to some degree and there is supporting evidence. But, I've never met one, don't expect to. Will I keep looking, keeping an open mind about the subject?? Straight up, Yes!! It fascinates me. When the "aquatic-ape" was in the lineage of mankind, did a linage stay in the water? Is it possible? Seems totally possible to me. Not only possible, very probable. So does my world include the possibilities of merfolk? Yes. Does it stop me from paying my bills? No!

The belief in merfolk makes me happy. Doesn't cost me a thing, (as I have already don't have your affection or respect.) And, if my belief in merfolk would cost me your respect, I really didn't need it anyway. I can respect people I don't agree with, even if it sounds a bit crazy.