People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD

[flacaltenn]

You missed a lot but this one you did get.

You fail to understand that evolution is NOT a random process. Natural selection is the key. If you had an large box of letters and spilled them onto a table the odds that they would match Shakespare's Hamlet are infinitesimally small. However some would match and if you removed every letter that didn't match and spilled them out again some more would match. It wouldn't take very long to get to Hamlet with this selective pressure.

Every bone is a transitional bone, every fossil a transitional fossil.

Not difficult at all if you have enough time.

No and it didn't.

All bullshit alang. Natural selection had nothing to do with the beginning of life on this planet. Adapting is not the same thing as mutating.
One single cell is not, as Darwin believed, simple life form to complex forms. It is complex from the very first living cell. To create a different species from one that already exists, DNA would have to mutate, and continue to make the exact mistake without mutating again for millions of years. DNA attempts to self correct.

No, not every bone is transitional. To the contrary, my femur is the same as my mother's femur, because my DNA knows how to create one. So did my mother's DNA. Neither DNA broke with tradition. There are no 1/2 monkey 1/2 human remains to be found when there should be millions of them.

As for the eye, it is extremely complex form the git go. Even Darwin disagrees with you:

Charles Darwin, the founder of evolutionary theory, wrote in regards to the difficulties of applying evolution to the eye. “… that the eye … could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

Had Darwin known about DNA we would have never heard of Darwin.

.

To create a different species from one that already exists, DNA would have to mutate, and continue to make the exact mistake without mutating again for millions of years.

that is not correct, DNA is not the determining factor but the physical mechanism to bring about the change - the metaphysical component of the cell, the cell itself determines the procedures progression to dictate the information the DNA uses to make the alternations. the stored metaphysical information may in a final step in certain circumstances create an entirely new species in a single step without an intermediary trail. parent to offspring where the offspring is an entirely a new species that will reproduce from that time foreward.

"parent to offspring where the offspring is an entirely a new species that will reproduce from that time foreward."

That has never happened. Not once. There is more information stored in the DNA and RNA of a cell than would ever be necessary to guide the entire life and development of an organism, and much of it is simply dormant. There is absolutely no need to introduce this magical nonsense.

.

That has never happened. Not once.

particularly during the period of early development where multiple life forms evolved more readily without transitional stages to produce the wide variety of species that evolved. it is the metaphysical that makes it possible, the cicada represents the metaphysical component for all evolutionary change.

"particularly during the period of early development where multiple life forms evolved more readily without transitional stages to produce the wide variety of species that evolved."

Without transitional stages? Sorry, but you just made that up. Bullshit alert.

Not bullshit. Get educated. Go look up "jumping genes" and "accelerated evolution". Don't be stuck in the 19th version of Evolution when you come to discuss how much "faith" one needs to believe in evolution without a LOT of "missing links"..

 

[flacaltenn]

It takes far more "faith" to believe in evolution, than to believe in religion. .....

Evolution is a Fact

God is a theory

Not necessarily incompatible as the combatants make it out to be. In the years since Darwin, science has realized that "evolution" didn't muddle along at a snail's pace all the time. With all adaptations being based on survival. If that were true -- everything on the planet would have BIG TEETH and the ability to kill it's competition.

NOW we know that DNA is the key. And that expression of genes or the sequence of CATG is what moves evolution along. And we also know that is affected by cosmic rays, enviro stress, chemical exposure and rapid changes in climate. ALL of those things can be looked at by State Farm or Farmers as legal "acts of God". And during these periods, evolution moves quite quickly. Just as it does in the lab when you irradiate a jar of fruit flies.

It's NOT the Darwinian view anymore. It's a LOT more nuanced. And it allows for accelerated evolution where nobody should be expected to dig up a lot of "missing links". Because possibly -- there are none.

"Not necessarily incompatible"

Of course not! Agreed wholeheartedly. One can point at anything, and say, "God did that!" Okay, fine.

If the natural living landscape is transformed in a relatively brief period (evolutionary wise), which is documented several times in the fossil record -- it kinda, sorta, almost starts looking like a cosmic ray storm or violent event is indeed an "act of God". That's what the insurance companies call it --- RIGHT?

Point is, the tree of life didn't "plod along" at a constant rate of growth and diversity.

Besides, if you look at the story of Creation in Genesis, it's REALLY NOT that far off from the researchsy, sciency version of events. How did they get that far before science began?

"If the natural living landscape is transformed in a relatively brief period (evolutionary wise)"

Nonsensical statement. "Evolutionary wise" can mean many things, depending on one's view of graduation and punctuation, and the overlap. You are selling snake oil, friend. You picked the wrong mark this time.

No, it does not "almost" look like an "act of God". Bullshit. That's you trying to cram magical nonsense in the gaps of our understanding. Same bullshit for 1000s of years. Nor do the examples of phyletic gradualism rule out an act of God. You are simply taking an overlay of magical bullshit and laying it on top of a scientific theory.


Yes, the story of Genesis, as it relates to human origin, is far off; as in, as far off as it gets. No, our genetic "Adan and Eve" did not meet. We know this. It is clearly 100% wrong .

Do you even KNOW the order of creation of things in the story of Genesis? Starting from NOTHING -- Day one thru seven. Give it to me.

Spoiler: Spoiler ALERT !!!!!!

It's starts with a BIG BRIGHT BANG

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's your missing science between Darwin and the 21st century. Transposons was a Nobel Prize winning discovery in 1967 or so. DEFINITELY allow presumptions on RAPID evolution with FEWER "links" -- that Fort Fun Indiana accused me of using "magical nonsense" ..

Seems some homework is in order. Schedule the next couple days to come up to speed will ya?


Transposable element - Wikipedia (pay attention to the 1st section and the Evolution section. Not a prayer you'll follow the rest of it)

Jumping Genes Helped Evolution (interpreted the Evolution section of the Wiki for laymen here)

 

[RoccoR]

RE: People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD
※→ Avatar4321, et al,

Yes, this is a tempting idea; but it would it would have to be wrung out.

Your theory and test has to be structure to the concept used to explain existing facts (what we know now) and a means to evaluate the predictions we should see as a result of the experiment (the future data - what we expect to learn). The test must be of such a regiment that it is exactly producible by any other scientist anywhere, under the same conditions.

• In this case: Your experiment "asks God that He will reveal Himself."

√ So in this case, you are communing with a supernatural being for the purpose of establishing such a dialog and intimacy that the Supreme Being will make that previously unknown ⇒ known (unmasked) to all other outside observers in an unimpeachable way.
√ That significant majority of outside observers are able to interpret the data output of the experiment in the same way.​

That is a very tall order.

RE: People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD
※→ Avatar4321, et al,

The concept of a Supreme Being is not a theory. It is based on a belief system that cannot be tested through a scientific methodology. The "belief" needs no proof or empirical data behind the concept.

A "theory" cannot subject a supernatural being to the scientific method; their source of energy, power and/or characteristic cannot be defined.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course it can be tested.

Jesus taught us if we do His will we will know whether its of the Father or He made it up. We are told that if we ask, we can receive. If we seek we can find. If we lack wisdom, we can ask of God.

Alma 32 teaches us how to experiment on the word of God. The Book of Mormon promises those who sincerely read it and ask God that He will reveal Himself and show you its true.

So I have a challenge. An experiment for you. Read the Book of Mormon daily for a month. Ask God every morning and night whether it's true and whether He actually is there. Be sincere with Him. Not just going through the motions. Be honest with Him. If you don't know whether He is there tell Him that. Let Him know you want to know Him if He is there.

And exercise.a particle of faith. Just this one thing. That if He is there that He can reveal to you that He is there.

I promise you that if you humbly do this, when you are done, you will know He is real. And that the scriptures are true.

So try the experiment. What do you have to lose?

(COMMENT)

We, the outside observer, would have to all agree on some discernible and definitive outcome (unassailable evidence) that (the contact establish with the supernatural) would be of such a nature that it is incontestable evidence of the Supernatural Supreme Being.

One of the scary things about conducting such experiments is that it would require the complete elimination of all strong beliefs in Supernatural; this to avoid contamination. A deliberate effort must be made to total separate the dogma and doctrines that might adversely make the test predisposed to unveil a spiritually clear enlightenment and strength --- rather than --- a new knowledge acquired by means of observation and experimentation; disclosing a body of facts or data leading the interpretation that the proposition is true or valid.

(PARADOX)

Most scientist, within the clergy, outside the clergy, and the devote, would avoid any case that would attempt to use the scientific method to directly challenge --- affirm or deny --- the existence of a Supreme Being or any supernatural entity. There are an ever growing lists of reasons why this is true. The four most predominant groups are:

• Such scientific challenges would be interpreted as expressions or experimentation that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups who are socially important to the funding and growth of science.

• Such scientific challenges and proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) and critical reasoning that would otherwise form acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that may injure or severally stunt further scientific exploration.

• That the two realms of science and religion can co-exist without a conflict between the two disciplines.

• That the basic "Holy Books and Scripture" are free of error, having been cause to come into existence by divine will.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[alang1216]

For life to form DNA has to be complete from the start to continue to it's next stage.

Here is where you go awry. DNA is extremely complex and probably the result of millions or billions of years of evolution. Life almost certainly formed from much simpler molecules.

For something to be alive it must be able to replicate. There are many examples of molecules that can self assemble. They only have to have the right conditions and that self assembling becomes subject to natural selection. And life is off and running.

 

[alang1216]

Research the complexity of DNA. The incredible complexity of the very first eye to realize, as science tells us, there was nothing random about the seeing eye. It needed an extremely complex code to form and work.
The thing people don't realize is that the simplest of life forms was embedded with a complex code. That single celled life form had a complex code.
Codes don't appear. They are created. Look to your computer. Did it just come into existence one fine day or was it encoded in order for it to work?

How long it takes? The math has been calculated. DNA is self correcting, so if it starts to mutate, it will attempt NOT to mutate again. For a species to mutate into a different species, the DNA would have to make the exact same mistake for millions of years for Darwin to be correct. We would be walking on all of the bones of all of "missing links" it would take to finally emerge as a new species. It never happened.
Who had the information to code DNA into a life form? It had to come from someone. We know Gates encoded computers. Who encoded the amoeba?

You'd be much more convincing if you actually understood what you were talking about. If you want to dispute something you must study it first and you have obviously not done so.

I'm guessing that is why you didn't challenge anything she said

You may have missed the post where I challenged everything she said.

 

[Avatar4321]

Research the complexity of DNA. The incredible complexity of the very first eye to realize, as science tells us, there was nothing random about the seeing eye. It needed an extremely complex code to form and work.
The thing people don't realize is that the simplest of life forms was embedded with a complex code. That single celled life form had a complex code.
Codes don't appear. They are created. Look to your computer. Did it just come into existence one fine day or was it encoded in order for it to work?

How long it takes? The math has been calculated. DNA is self correcting, so if it starts to mutate, it will attempt NOT to mutate again. For a species to mutate into a different species, the DNA would have to make the exact same mistake for millions of years for Darwin to be correct. We would be walking on all of the bones of all of "missing links" it would take to finally emerge as a new species. It never happened.
Who had the information to code DNA into a life form? It had to come from someone. We know Gates encoded computers. Who encoded the amoeba?

You'd be much more convincing if you actually understood what you were talking about. If you want to dispute something you must study it first and you have obviously not done so.

I'm guessing that is why you didn't challenge anything she said

You may have missed the post where I challenged everything she said.

You called her ignorant. That isn't challenging a single point

 

[alang1216]

Research the complexity of DNA. The incredible complexity of the very first eye to realize, as science tells us, there was nothing random about the seeing eye. It needed an extremely complex code to form and work.
The thing people don't realize is that the simplest of life forms was embedded with a complex code. That single celled life form had a complex code.
Codes don't appear. They are created. Look to your computer. Did it just come into existence one fine day or was it encoded in order for it to work?

How long it takes? The math has been calculated. DNA is self correcting, so if it starts to mutate, it will attempt NOT to mutate again. For a species to mutate into a different species, the DNA would have to make the exact same mistake for millions of years for Darwin to be correct. We would be walking on all of the bones of all of "missing links" it would take to finally emerge as a new species. It never happened.
Who had the information to code DNA into a life form? It had to come from someone. We know Gates encoded computers. Who encoded the amoeba?

You'd be much more convincing if you actually understood what you were talking about. If you want to dispute something you must study it first and you have obviously not done so.

I'm guessing that is why you didn't challenge anything she said

You may have missed the post where I challenged everything she said.

You called her ignorant. That isn't challenging a single point

She talks about the complexity of the eye. I posted a link to a page showing the evolutionary steps to the complex eye of mammals.
She equates DNA codes with computer codes. Since computer code is written she implies DNA must also have been written but provides no evidence.
She states DNA is self correcting and would have to make the exact same mistake for millions of years. But passing down inherited traits is exactly what DNA does.

 

[BreezeWood]

It takes far more "faith" to believe in evolution, than to believe in religion. .....

Evolution is a Fact

God is a theory

Not necessarily incompatible as the combatants make it out to be. In the years since Darwin, science has realized that "evolution" didn't muddle along at a snail's pace all the time. With all adaptations being based on survival. If that were true -- everything on the planet would have BIG TEETH and the ability to kill it's competition.

NOW we know that DNA is the key. And that expression of genes or the sequence of CATG is what moves evolution along. And we also know that is affected by cosmic rays, enviro stress, chemical exposure and rapid changes in climate. ALL of those things can be looked at by State Farm or Farmers as legal "acts of God". And during these periods, evolution moves quite quickly. Just as it does in the lab when you irradiate a jar of fruit flies.

It's NOT the Darwinian view anymore. It's a LOT more nuanced. And it allows for accelerated evolution where nobody should be expected to dig up a lot of "missing links". Because possibly -- there are none.

.

It's NOT the Darwinian view anymore. It's a LOT more nuanced. And it allows for accelerated evolution where nobody should be expected to dig up a lot of "missing links". Because possibly -- there are none.

- nobody should be expected to dig up a lot of "missing links". Because possibly -- there are none.

that is correct, evolution represents the metaphysical component of the CNS or the cell's composite purpose that either adjusts to its surroundings or simply augments itself for whatever reason to insure its surviveability and is a complete process when successful - the cicada example reconfigures its physical presence from one to another without interuption - this same process under certain circumstances can be used to change from one species to another without physical intermediary steps.

and just why the religious would object to recognizing the process allowing for speciation makes no sense as it confirms the metaphysical presence within the physiology of all beings.

 

[BreezeWood]

Jumping genes are sequences of DNA that have the ability to move to different positions within the genome of a developing organism.

- and what then moves them ... ; the metaphysical presence within the physiology.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

All bullshit alang. Natural selection had nothing to do with the beginning of life on this planet. Adapting is not the same thing as mutating.
One single cell is not, as Darwin believed, simple life form to complex forms. It is complex from the very first living cell. To create a different species from one that already exists, DNA would have to mutate, and continue to make the exact mistake without mutating again for millions of years. DNA attempts to self correct.

No, not every bone is transitional. To the contrary, my femur is the same as my mother's femur, because my DNA knows how to create one. So did my mother's DNA. Neither DNA broke with tradition. There are no 1/2 monkey 1/2 human remains to be found when there should be millions of them.

As for the eye, it is extremely complex form the git go. Even Darwin disagrees with you:
Had Darwin known about DNA we would have never heard of Darwin.

.

To create a different species from one that already exists, DNA would have to mutate, and continue to make the exact mistake without mutating again for millions of years.

that is not correct, DNA is not the determining factor but the physical mechanism to bring about the change - the metaphysical component of the cell, the cell itself determines the procedures progression to dictate the information the DNA uses to make the alternations. the stored metaphysical information may in a final step in certain circumstances create an entirely new species in a single step without an intermediary trail. parent to offspring where the offspring is an entirely a new species that will reproduce from that time foreward.

"parent to offspring where the offspring is an entirely a new species that will reproduce from that time foreward."

That has never happened. Not once. There is more information stored in the DNA and RNA of a cell than would ever be necessary to guide the entire life and development of an organism, and much of it is simply dormant. There is absolutely no need to introduce this magical nonsense.

.

That has never happened. Not once.

particularly during the period of early development where multiple life forms evolved more readily without transitional stages to produce the wide variety of species that evolved. it is the metaphysical that makes it possible, the cicada represents the metaphysical component for all evolutionary change.

"particularly during the period of early development where multiple life forms evolved more readily without transitional stages to produce the wide variety of species that evolved."

Without transitional stages? Sorry, but you just made that up. Bullshit alert.

Not bullshit. Get educated. Go look up "jumping genes" and "accelerated evolution". Don't be stuck in the 19th version of Evolution when you come to discuss how much "faith" one needs to believe in evolution without a LOT of "missing links"..

Those things don't skip "transitions" in the way he is obviously implying. And his claim of that being dominant or widespread is even more absurd.

 

[flacaltenn]

.
that is not correct, DNA is not the determining factor but the physical mechanism to bring about the change - the metaphysical component of the cell, the cell itself determines the procedures progression to dictate the information the DNA uses to make the alternations. the stored metaphysical information may in a final step in certain circumstances create an entirely new species in a single step without an intermediary trail. parent to offspring where the offspring is an entirely a new species that will reproduce from that time foreward.

"parent to offspring where the offspring is an entirely a new species that will reproduce from that time foreward."

That has never happened. Not once. There is more information stored in the DNA and RNA of a cell than would ever be necessary to guide the entire life and development of an organism, and much of it is simply dormant. There is absolutely no need to introduce this magical nonsense.

.

That has never happened. Not once.

particularly during the period of early development where multiple life forms evolved more readily without transitional stages to produce the wide variety of species that evolved. it is the metaphysical that makes it possible, the cicada represents the metaphysical component for all evolutionary change.

"particularly during the period of early development where multiple life forms evolved more readily without transitional stages to produce the wide variety of species that evolved."

Without transitional stages? Sorry, but you just made that up. Bullshit alert.

Not bullshit. Get educated. Go look up "jumping genes" and "accelerated evolution". Don't be stuck in the 19th version of Evolution when you come to discuss how much "faith" one needs to believe in evolution without a LOT of "missing links"..

Those things don't skip "transitions" in the way he is obviously implying. And his claim of that being dominant or widespread is even more absurd.

Who's "he"? The lady that won the Nobel prize for transposons (to my knowledge) made no claims as to the prevalence of these transitions, but 30 years of subsequent work suggest they DO occur more than rarely and often in RAPID SUCCESSION. You got the basic view of missing 180 years of science since the "Darwinian evolution" --- glad I could help. The REST is up to you..

 

[Boss]

Spent my life in science disciplines. And spiritual belief has NEVER collided with my logic and reason. Folks like the OP who WORSHIP science -- but never have practiced it --- wouldn't know this. IN FACT -- the DISCIPLINE of religious observation IMO is HELPFUL to separating the two worlds. Even tho I no longer practice a religion, I have HUGE respect for those that do. And they are capable of the same sane, logical processes as a person who knows nothing about religion or detests it.

In fact, several of my mentors were VERY observant in their religions. This is a "fake scuffle"...

Always has and will be. No matter how many threads the Gawd haters open about it..

^^^THIS!

I wish I could give this post a "winner" and "agree" and "thank you!"

 

[Boss]

Of course I don't know. What a stupid thing to say... are you drunk? No scientist claims to know, either. Scientists are proud of saying "I don't know", because it usually delineates what they DO know and HAVE discovered. Unlike you religious charlatans, who think they have answers, but actually have none at all.

Try to remember.... there is only one of us claiming to know. That would be you. And, being the religious charlatan you are, your "knowing" is actually "knowing nothing at all", as you merely substitute 'It's magic!" for 'I don't know".

It's refreshing for you to publicly state the OP is totally full of shit! Because it clearly states that the reality is NO GOD... not that the OP is unsure or doesn't know. So it's commendable of you to interject reason and set the record straight... now if you'll just remain there, we'll all get along just fine!

I constantly hear this complaint from you "atheist scientists" that religious people fill the gaps of knowledge with "God did it!" And how that isn't a reasonable answer. I agree-- it's not answering anything! So why should that bother a scientist?

Whenever you are debating science with a religious person who's answer is "God did it," why not just reply... "Well, of course God did it, but HOW?" You see, that's what we're trying to discover with Science. It's obvious, if you believe in God, that God did it! That goes without saying. It simply adds nothing to the evaluation of HOW something happened.

 

[alang1216]

Whenever you are debating science with a religious person who's answer is "God did it," why not just reply... "Well, of course God did it, but HOW?"

I've asked that question many times in many situation and ALWAYS get met with a defining silence. I'd love to hear how God did anything 'supernatural' (above and beyond the natural scientific explanation).

 

[flacaltenn]

It takes far more "faith" to believe in evolution, than to believe in religion. .....

Evolution is a Fact

God is a theory

Not necessarily incompatible as the combatants make it out to be. In the years since Darwin, science has realized that "evolution" didn't muddle along at a snail's pace all the time. With all adaptations being based on survival. If that were true -- everything on the planet would have BIG TEETH and the ability to kill it's competition.

NOW we know that DNA is the key. And that expression of genes or the sequence of CATG is what moves evolution along. And we also know that is affected by cosmic rays, enviro stress, chemical exposure and rapid changes in climate. ALL of those things can be looked at by State Farm or Farmers as legal "acts of God". And during these periods, evolution moves quite quickly. Just as it does in the lab when you irradiate a jar of fruit flies.

It's NOT the Darwinian view anymore. It's a LOT more nuanced. And it allows for accelerated evolution where nobody should be expected to dig up a lot of "missing links". Because possibly -- there are none.

.

It's NOT the Darwinian view anymore. It's a LOT more nuanced. And it allows for accelerated evolution where nobody should be expected to dig up a lot of "missing links". Because possibly -- there are none.

- nobody should be expected to dig up a lot of "missing links". Because possibly -- there are none.


View attachment 152982

that is correct, evolution represents the metaphysical component of the CNS or the cell's composite purpose that either adjusts to its surroundings or simply augments itself for whatever reason to insure its surviveability and is a complete process when successful - the cicada example reconfigures its physical presence from one to another without interuption - this same process under certain circumstances can be used to change from one species to another without physical intermediary steps.

and just why the religious would object to recognizing the process allowing for speciation makes no sense as it confirms the metaphysical presence within the physiology of all beings.

This "complete metamorphosis" is a long PRODUCT of evolution, shared by a large fraction of ALL SPECIES on the planet. It's now believed that the butterfly/cicada type of metamorphosis is done by a type of cell present from the time of the egg. Not TOTALLY "gene expression" that aids this "secondary image" cell to trigger it's development. Sometimes fueling the new entity development by consuming the larval cells.

The basic DNA remains the same. It's the presence of the "image cells" that lay dormant until triggered that MAKE it literally a metaphysical display of natural complexity.

It's a two-fer. 2 beings in one. With a DESTINY to consume the other and emerge. If that ain't metaphysical territory -- I don't what what would be.

 

[flacaltenn]

.
that is not correct, DNA is not the determining factor but the physical mechanism to bring about the change - the metaphysical component of the cell, the cell itself determines the procedures progression to dictate the information the DNA uses to make the alternations. the stored metaphysical information may in a final step in certain circumstances create an entirely new species in a single step without an intermediary trail. parent to offspring where the offspring is an entirely a new species that will reproduce from that time foreward.

"parent to offspring where the offspring is an entirely a new species that will reproduce from that time foreward."

That has never happened. Not once. There is more information stored in the DNA and RNA of a cell than would ever be necessary to guide the entire life and development of an organism, and much of it is simply dormant. There is absolutely no need to introduce this magical nonsense.

.

That has never happened. Not once.

particularly during the period of early development where multiple life forms evolved more readily without transitional stages to produce the wide variety of species that evolved. it is the metaphysical that makes it possible, the cicada represents the metaphysical component for all evolutionary change.

"particularly during the period of early development where multiple life forms evolved more readily without transitional stages to produce the wide variety of species that evolved."

Without transitional stages? Sorry, but you just made that up. Bullshit alert.

Not bullshit. Get educated. Go look up "jumping genes" and "accelerated evolution". Don't be stuck in the 19th version of Evolution when you come to discuss how much "faith" one needs to believe in evolution without a LOT of "missing links"..

Those things don't skip "transitions" in the way he is obviously implying. And his claim of that being dominant or widespread is even more absurd.

Right.............................

Transposable elements and an epigenetic basis for punctuated equilibria

Transposable elements and an epigenetic basis for punctuated equilibria

• First published: 26 May 2009Full publication history
• DOI: 10.1002/bies.200900026 View/save citation
• Cited by (CrossRef): 59 articlesCheck for updates
• 
  Funding Information

Abstract

Evolution is frequently concentrated in bursts of rapid morphological change and speciation followed by long-term stasis. We propose that this pattern of punctuated equilibria results from an evolutionary tug-of-war between host genomes and transposable elements (TEs) mediated through the epigenome. According to this hypothesis, epigenetic regulatory mechanisms (RNA interference, DNA methylation and histone modifications) maintain stasis by suppressing TE mobilization. However, physiological stress, induced by climate change or invasion of new habitats, disrupts epigenetic regulation and unleashes TEs. With their capacity to drive non-adaptive host evolution, mobilized TEs can restructure the genome and displace populations from adaptive peaks, thus providing an escape from stasis and generating genetic innovations required for rapid diversification. This “epi-transposon hypothesis” can not only explain macroevolutionary tempo and mode, but may also resolve other long-standing controversies, such as Wright's shifting balance theory, Mayr's peripheral isolates model, and McClintock's view of genome restructuring as an adaptive response to challenge.

 

[Boss]

Whenever you are debating science with a religious person who's answer is "God did it," why not just reply... "Well, of course God did it, but HOW?"

I've asked that question many times in many situation and ALWAYS get met with a defining silence. I'd love to hear how God did anything 'supernatural' (above and beyond the natural scientific explanation).

Yes, and rightly so... but we can also turn that scenario around when asking the "atheist scientist" to explain the gravitational constant, the cosmological constant, golden ratios and such. We're met with the same deafening silence and the "just so happens" argument, which is no different, in my opinion, than "God did it!"

Why does Science work? Why do two hydrogen atoms bond with an oxygen atom to form water, ice or steam? Why can liquid water only exist under atmospheric pressure that we "just so happen" to have on Earth? Why does light behave as both a particle and wave depending on whether it is observed? What is the explanation for quantum entanglement? ....You see, Science is chock full of unanswered questions and we are nowhere near understanding it all.

Again, like I said earlier, the word "supernatural" is something we created to define things that can't be explained by physical nature. Over the years, the things we once thought were "supernatural" phenomenon have been explained and they forever leave the realm of "supernatural" because we then have an explanation. So to say something is "supernatural" simply means you currently don't have a physical explanation. It doesn't mean there isn't one... just that you don't currently have one. In a sense, is that not the exact same thing as relying on "God did it" as a placeholder for explanation?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"parent to offspring where the offspring is an entirely a new species that will reproduce from that time foreward."

That has never happened. Not once. There is more information stored in the DNA and RNA of a cell than would ever be necessary to guide the entire life and development of an organism, and much of it is simply dormant. There is absolutely no need to introduce this magical nonsense.

.

That has never happened. Not once.

particularly during the period of early development where multiple life forms evolved more readily without transitional stages to produce the wide variety of species that evolved. it is the metaphysical that makes it possible, the cicada represents the metaphysical component for all evolutionary change.

"particularly during the period of early development where multiple life forms evolved more readily without transitional stages to produce the wide variety of species that evolved."

Without transitional stages? Sorry, but you just made that up. Bullshit alert.

Not bullshit. Get educated. Go look up "jumping genes" and "accelerated evolution". Don't be stuck in the 19th version of Evolution when you come to discuss how much "faith" one needs to believe in evolution without a LOT of "missing links"..

Those things don't skip "transitions" in the way he is obviously implying. And his claim of that being dominant or widespread is even more absurd.

Who's "he"? The lady that won the Nobel prize for transposons (to my knowledge) made no claims as to the prevalence of these transitions, but 30 years of subsequent work suggest they DO occur more than rarely and often in RAPID SUCCESSION. You got the basic view of missing 180 years of science since the "Darwinian evolution" --- glad I could help. The REST is up to you..

Ffirst, "he" is Breezewood, which should have been easy for you to figure out. Second, I clearly know more about this topic than you, as I use concepts in context and explain them, while you drop phrases you have found through Google into your whiny insults.

You, like Breezewood, tried to argue the absurd idea of "no transitions". You even misrepresented scientists and their work to attempt this. I would call you dishonest, but that would mean you actually understand the concepts you misrepresented. You do not.

 

[flacaltenn]

Whenever you are debating science with a religious person who's answer is "God did it," why not just reply... "Well, of course God did it, but HOW?"

I've asked that question many times in many situation and ALWAYS get met with a defining silence. I'd love to hear how God did anything 'supernatural' (above and beyond the natural scientific explanation).

It's faith. The SAME FAITH you have to use when science tells you that all the MATTER, ENERGY of the universe was once concentrated in something smaller than a head of a pin at the Big Bang. Can they DESCRIBE how this happens? Have they OBSERVED it? Have they re-created it? Not really. It's a theory.

That's why scientists are USED to accepting the "best explanations" but OFTEN have to just shake their heads and take it on faith. That's the frustration of science as well.