Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?

[Hollie]

I can't imagine why you think I'd waste the time on an invincibly ignorant batshit crazy.

If you refuse to understand the clear explanations you've already had nor can explain what you can't understand about them then there's not much point further explaining the reality based world.

Perhaps you should look at faith based stories of the world, then you won't have to bother about demanding evidence based explanations you can't understand.

I'm sure you'll be happier in fantasy land where every question has the same easy to remember answer.

'YWHW done it', in case you were wondering.

Won't waste time giving me proof but you'll waste time responding to every one of my posts with name calling and adolescent put downs? You do know other people are reading your posts, right?

Yes indeed, others are reading this. And he's right. You people wouldn't know evidence if it bit you in the arse. And the fact is, evidence isn't what you people want. What you people want is to spam science forums like this one with your scam queries about "evidence" that you don't actually give a shite about. Seems you can't argue the evidence, and so this is all you can manage with your weak minds. My advice? Take a pill. And get some therapy.

• 
  I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.

There is nothing about random and accidental about a nut with a soft shell developing a harder shell as a result of predation.

Scientists don't throw up their hands in frustration and proclaim "god did it" because such a tautology doesn't explain anything. That is something we leave to the faithful, and as we all know, faith is a belief in something not in evidence.

natural selection not evolution

Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution. You didn't know this? Huh.

not all of evolution is incorrect.. mutation is also claimed as a mechanism of evolution,.but its not

I guess you have never heard of the flu virus?

 

[eots]

Yes indeed, others are reading this. And he's right. You people wouldn't know evidence if it bit you in the arse. And the fact is, evidence isn't what you people want. What you people want is to spam science forums like this one with your scam queries about "evidence" that you don't actually give a shite about. Seems you can't argue the evidence, and so this is all you can manage with your weak minds. My advice? Take a pill. And get some therapy.

There is nothing about random and accidental about a nut with a soft shell developing a harder shell as a result of predation.

Scientists don't throw up their hands in frustration and proclaim "god did it" because such a tautology doesn't explain anything. That is something we leave to the faithful, and as we all know, faith is a belief in something not in evidence.

natural selection not evolution

Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution. You didn't know this? Huh.

not all of evolution is incorrect.. mutation is also claimed as a mechanism of evolution,.but its not

If your family is a species of anteater, and one has a longer snout (a mutation) than the rest, it can reach further into the ant hill to reach more ants to eat. The longer snout confers an advantage over the rest, making it more likely to live long enough to reproduce. And it confers that advantage to its children. And so on and so forth. So for you to say mutation is not a mechanism of evolution but natural selection is demonstrates that you don't know what a mutation is and you don't know what natural selection is. But we knew that already. Right?

Or it could just mean that one of your family members (I won't name names) lies a lot, and so has Pinocchio syndrome.

having a gene for a larger nose is not a mutation..look what can be done with breeds of dog

 

[eots]

Isnt God awesome...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As the earth changes so too must life change, it must evolve and adapt; absent evolution life would have been extinguished on this planet long ago – indeed, life may never have developed absent the process of genetic mutation and evolution.

 

[sealybobo]

Lik

Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence.
Ben Jacob E1, Becker I, Shapira Y, Levine H.
Author information

Abstract
Bacteria have developed intricate communication capabilities (e.g. quorum-sensing, chemotactic signaling and plasmid exchange) to cooperatively self-organize into highly structured colonies with elevated environmental adaptability. We propose that bacteria use their intracellular flexibility, involving signal transduction networks and genomic plasticity, to collectively maintain linguistic communication: self and shared interpretations of chemical cues, exchange of chemical messages (semantic) and dialogues (pragmatic). Meaning-based communication permits colonial identity, intentional behavior (e.g. pheromone-based courtship for mating), purposeful alteration of colony structure (e.g. formation of fruiting bodies), decision-making (e.g. to sporulate) and the recognition and identification of other colonies - features we might begin to associate with a bacterial social intelligence. Such a social intelligence, should it exist, would require going beyond communication to encompass unknown additional intracellular processes to generate inheritable colonial memory and commonly shared genomic context.
Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence. - PubMed - NCBI


15276612

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

You ignorantly assign human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.

Mr right said there isnt one solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.

Wait? The dude doesnt accept any scientific evidence. Its not that it doesnt exist. He just doesnt like any of it.

If only men 2000 years ago wrote about it then he'd believe because they were so smart back then. Lol

Like I daid. You're delusional. There are many respected scientists who think evolution is wrong. I guess they're scientific illiterates too?

Whether or not any scientists believe that evolution is wrong doesn't mean that they are respected. The bulk of scientists who don't accept evolution are, in fact, still respected for valid works they have done, but not for their position on evolution. And the fact remains that there are few of these scientists, not many. And every single one of them are evangelical creationist Christians.

not true

You are wrong. Explain why he is wrong.

 

[sealybobo]

Isnt God awesome...
View attachment 39848

If god is a fishing lure sure.

 

[Hollie]

natural selection not evolution

Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution. You didn't know this? Huh.

not all of evolution is incorrect.. mutation is also claimed as a mechanism of evolution,.but its not

If your family is a species of anteater, and one has a longer snout (a mutation) than the rest, it can reach further into the ant hill to reach more ants to eat. The longer snout confers an advantage over the rest, making it more likely to live long enough to reproduce. And it confers that advantage to its children. And so on and so forth. So for you to say mutation is not a mechanism of evolution but natural selection is demonstrates that you don't know what a mutation is and you don't know what natural selection is. But we knew that already. Right?

Or it could just mean that one of your family members (I won't name names) lies a lot, and so has Pinocchio syndrome.

having a gene for a larger nose is not a mutation..look what can be done with breeds of dog

You're just slow. Natural selection is a process that acts upon those mutations that confer an advantage for survival.

 

[Hollie]

Isnt God awesome...

Not so much. It wasn't the gawds who developed streaming media.

 

[eots]

Isnt God awesome...

Not so much. It wasn't the gawds who developed streaming media.

it is not plural, there is just one all originating source to all of creation

 

[Hollie]

Isnt God awesome...

Not so much. It wasn't the gawds who developed streaming media.

it is not plural, there is just one all originating source to all of creation

Except for all the other alleged gawds as sources. To the back of the line you go with your poser gawds.

 

[orogenicman]

natural selection not evolution

Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution. You didn't know this? Huh.

not all of evolution is incorrect.. mutation is also claimed as a mechanism of evolution,.but its not

If your family is a species of anteater, and one has a longer snout (a mutation) than the rest, it can reach further into the ant hill to reach more ants to eat. The longer snout confers an advantage over the rest, making it more likely to live long enough to reproduce. And it confers that advantage to its children. And so on and so forth. So for you to say mutation is not a mechanism of evolution but natural selection is demonstrates that you don't know what a mutation is and you don't know what natural selection is. But we knew that already. Right?

Or it could just mean that one of your family members (I won't name names) lies a lot, and so has Pinocchio syndrome.

having a gene for a larger nose is not a mutation..look what can be done with breeds of dog

They are mutations.

 

[orogenicman]

Isnt God awesome...
View attachment 39848

I know what you are trying to claim here, but that was addressed in the Dover trial and shown to be false. The judge even admonished the Discovery Institute's "expert" about it. Sorry.

 

[orogenicman]

As the earth changes so too must life change, it must evolve and adapt; absent evolution life would have been extinguished on this planet long ago – indeed, life may never have developed absent the process of genetic mutation and evolution.

Exactly.

 

[orogenicman]

More evidence for evolution:

40 million-year-old family tree of baleen whales

40 million-year-old family tree of baleen whales -- ScienceDaily

Summary:
New research is providing the most comprehensive picture of the evolutionary history of baleen whales, which are not only the largest animals ever to live on earth, but also among the most unusual.

Most other mammals feed on plants or grab a single prey animal at a time, but baleen whales are famous for their gigantic mouths and their ability to gulp and filter an enormous volume of water and food.

In a paper appearing in the UK journal Royal Society Open Science, Otago Geology PhD graduate Dr Felix Marx and Professor Ewan Fordyce present a comprehensive family tree of living and extinct baleen whales stretching back nearly 40 million years.

The pair says that similar family trees have been constructed before, but theirs is by far the largest and, crucially, the first to be directly calibrated using many dated fossils.

The research shows which whales are related and exactly how long ago every branch of the tree -- whether extinct or still alive -- first arose.

This new family tree allows the researchers to estimate:

(1) how many species of baleen whale have existed,

(2) similarities and differences between different lineages in terms of overall body shape, and

(3) how fast baleen whales evolved at any chosen time over the last 40 million years.

"We find that the earliest baleen whales underwent an adaptive radiation, or sudden 'evolutionary burst', similar to that of 'Darwin's finches' on the Galapagos Islands," says Professor Fordyce.

Dr Marx adds that this early phase of whale evolution coincided with a period of global cooling. At the same time, the Southern Ocean opened, and gave rise to a strong, circum-Antarctic current that today provides many of the nutrients sustaining the modern global ocean.

The researchers found that during their early history, whales branched out into many different lineages, each with a unique body shape and feeding strategy.

"Rather surprisingly, many of these early whales were quite unlike their modern descendants: Although some had baleen, others had well-developed teeth and actively hunted for much bigger prey than is taken by modern species," says Professor Fordyce.

Yet, after a few million years of co-existence, the toothed 'baleen' whales disappeared, leaving behind only their filter-feeding cousins, he says.

That extinction occurred between 30 and 23 million years ago and was about the time that the circum-Antarctic current reached its full strength, providing more nutrients that made filter feeding a more viable option.

The researchers say that the toothed 'baleen' whales disappeared perhaps because of increasing competition from other newly evolved toothed marine mammals, such as dolphins and seals.

They found that filter-feeding whales remained successful and diverse until about 3 million years ago, when the number of lineages suddenly crashed.

"This decline was driven mainly by the disappearance of small species of baleen whale, which left behind only the giants -- ranging from 6 to as much as 30 metres -- that plough the ocean today," says Dr Marx.

He says the disappearance of small whales likely resulted from the onset of the ice ages, which altered the distribution of available food, caused shallow water habitats to shift or sometimes disappear, and created a need for long-distance migration between polar feeding grounds and equatorial breeding grounds.

"This behaviour -- long distance-migration -- is still one of the hallmarks of all baleen whales alive today," notes Professor Fordyce.


Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by University of Otago. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference:

1. Felix G. Marx , R. Ewan Fordyce. Baleen boom and bust: a synthesis of mysticete phylogeny, diversity and disparity. Royal Society Open Science, 2015 DOI: 10.1098/rsos.140434

 

[eots]

DNA is ancient knowledge

 

[orogenicman]

DNA is ancient knowledge

View attachment 39855 View attachment 39856

How can that be when according to you creationists, the world is only 6,000 years old?

 

[orogenicman]

More evidence of evolution:

Human Evolution News -- ScienceDaily

 

[orogenicman]

More evidence for evolution:

Why is a dolphin not a cat? Repurposing non-coding elements in genome gave rise to great 'mammalian radiation'

Why is a dolphin not a cat Repurposing non-coding elements in genome gave rise to great mammalian radiation -- ScienceDaily

Summary:
A study of gene regulation in 20 mammals provides new insights into how species diverged millions of years ago. The findings demonstrate how methods and tools for genetic analysis of humans and mice can be adapted to study non-model species, such as whales and Tasmanian devils.

Mammals all share a common ancestor, and they share a lot of the same genes. So what exactly makes a dolphin not a cat, and how did we all start to diverge from one another millions of years ago? Part of the answer lies in how -- and when -- genes are regulated. This latest research explores the evolution of gene regulation in 20 mammalian species, and provides deep insights into the 'mammalian radiation', a time of rapid morphological evolution that occurred shortly after the asteroid impact that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Leveraging findings from a study comparing the genome sequences of 29 mammals, and with the help of conservation organisations such as the UK Cetacean Strandings Investigation Programme and the Copenhagen Zoo, the team were able to study and compare gene regulation in liver cells from 20 key species including the naked mole rat, human, Tasmanian devil, dolphin and sei whale.

"What we've shown is that evolution repurposes things that exist in all species, to make each species unique," explains Paul Flicek, head of Vertebrate Genomics at EMBL-EBI. "By looking at gene promoters and enhancers in many different mammals, we demonstrated that species-specific enhancers come from ancient DNA -- that evolution captures DNA that's been around for a long time, and uses it for gene regulation in specific tissues."

Evolution has two ways to turn changes in the genome into differences between species: it can change a protein sequence, or it can change the way promoters or enhancers control that protein's expression. Today's study also shows that in some cases evolution uses both strategies at once. When amino acid sequences evolve very quickly, important regulation changes occur at the same time: the protein-coding sequence and the corresponding regulatory sequence change synergistically.

Gathering the samples -- the experimental efforts were led by Diego Villar of CRUK CI -- took well over two years, and the experiments themselves produced a staggering volume of data. Analysing the results brought the team to a new frontier in bioinformatics.

"People spend a lot of time and money trying to understand human biology, so most of the tools we have are designed to study human genomes," explains Camille Berthelot of EMBL-EBI, who led the computational work. "The reference data we have for the less studied species, like the Sei whale or Tasmanian devil, are nothing like the pored-over datasets we have for the human genome. A lot of what we did involved benchmarking, and making sure the methods and algorithms were fit for this kind of comparison."

"What inspired this work was a desire to get on top of the mountain, look out and see what is going on in the landscape of molecular evolution across the breadth of mammalian space," says Duncan Odom of CRUK CI and Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute. "What's exciting about this study is that we now know we can start to answer questions about the functional genetics of many under-explored species -- questions we usually can ask only of humans and mice. We can use tools developed to study humans to understand the biology of all kinds of animals, whether they're blackbirds or elephants, and explore their relationship with one another. This research has given us new insights into mammalian evolution, and proven how powerful these methods can be."


Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by European Molecular Biology Laboratory. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference:

1. Diego Villar, Camille Berthelot, Sarah Aldridge, Tim F. Rayner, Margus Lukk, Miguel Pignatelli, Thomas J. Park, Robert Deaville, Jonathan T. Erichsen, Anna J. Jasinska, James M.A. Turner, Mads F. Bertelsen, Elizabeth P. Murchison, Paul Flicek, Duncan T. Odom. Enhancer Evolution across 20 Mammalian Species. Cell, 2015; 160 (3): 554 DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.01.006

 

[Hollie]

And more evidence:


29 Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[cnm]

not all of evolution is incorrect.. mutation is also claimed as a mechanism of evolution,.but its not

What??? Have you too not been reading the explanations?