[EonBlueApocalypse]

[Jason2]

(Original post by KasanDude)
Ok, you're probably replying to a different thread than you thought. This is the one you started, trying to prove that DNA was evidence of god. And so far you've failed.

But I don't mind, I'll play along.

Evil (we'll define this as bad things happening to people) has happened over the years to people regardless of gender, race, nationality. Also, after the evil has happened, it has never achieved the goal that was set by the person responsible.

I.E. Hitler didn't succeed in creating a Third Reich, ergo his "evil" was "pointless" in that it ultimately had not achieved the desired outcome.

Thus, evil is "pointless."

And thus the suffering of all the Jews was pointless too, right? Of course your gonna say it isn't.

[Jason2]

(Original post by Gwilym101)
Adaptation causes speciation. A species adapts to its environment and spreads as it is more successful. Eventually this species will spread so far that different populations of this species come under different selective pressures. As these populations are so far apart they don't reproduce together and continuous adaptations lead to them being so different they can not reproduce together when brought together again, thus they are different species.

Land creatures did not "suddenly one day developed wings" they developed means of increasing hang time in the air whilst jumping. Or in the case of birds feathers initially used for insulation and displays that happened to increase hang time and thus distance whilst jumping. Subsequent adaptations enabled them to make more use out of this, eventually leading to self sustained flight.

The article you linked has so many holes in it is swiss cheese in article form. It assumes that an early bird had air sacs before the capacity to fly. It also assumes that air sacs are needed for any form of flight, when they aren't (bats don't have them). It also says the probably didn't evolve from a "Known Therapod Dinosaurs", of all the Dinosaurs in existance ever, we've only found evidence of a relative handful due to the conditions needed for a creature to become a fossil.

By the way its far more amusing to see some one who thinks an invisible man in the sky (who shockingly resembles Zues, Jupiter and Odin) magically made all animals as they are.

Mutation is source of change not corruption, you really need to learn about evolution and stop thinking you know more than someone who is doing a degree in the subject.

Lol land creatures just kept jumping until they developed wings? ****ing genius!

[KasanDude]

(Original post by Jason2)
And thus the suffering of all the Jews was pointless too, right? Of course your gonna say it isn't.

Technically, it was. You should be able to figure that out.

Allegedly, the romans cruscified him to stop him teaching his religion. Christianity is alive and well 2000 years after that.

So like I said: the intended point of the crusifiction was not achieved, making it "pointless."

I'm suprised you know so little about the religion you've been defending all day...

[ByronicHero]

lol

[KasanDude]

(Original post by Jason2)
Lol land creatures just kept jumping until they developed wings? ****ing genius!

No. but you can see lots of species in between the land and air bit. "Flying" squirels have evolved to the point where they can float a great deal across fields to other trees. Over time, the squirells with better webbing between their limbs and longer limbs will have a better chance of evading predators, therefore they will be more likely to mate and pass their genes down. Eventually their limbs will become so long that they'll start flapping to gain altitude. Give it a few thousand years after that and all that will be left are actual flying squirels.

Now show me similar proof of creationism.

[Jason2]

(Original post by KasanDude)
No. but you can see lots of species in between the land and air bit. "Flying" squirels have evolved to the point where they can float a great deal across fields to other trees. Over time, the squirells with better webbing between their limbs and longer limbs will have a better chance of evading predators, therefore they will be more likely to mate and pass their genes down. Eventually their limbs will become so long that they'll start flapping to gain altitude. Give it a few thousand years after that and all that will be left are actual flying squirels.

Now show me similar proof of creationism.

Well, a flying squirrel doesn't actually fly, it glides. And it hardly shows evolution into a completely new specie.

And as I have to keep informing you, mutations are never beneficial. They usually weaken the cell, and at worst kill it. If you expect any rational human being to believe that, say, weakened scales in dinosaurs can mutate into complicated bird feathers then you are massively deluded. I mean, it would need a lot of new genetic information and, as we know, mutations do not add information. It's bit like cars; different makes and models; yet they're all cars. You just can't provide evidence that shows complete new organisms being made through mutation.

[tooosh]

You can't deduce there must be an intelligent being from the complexity of DNA and how we have never seen nature create it.

How has this thread gone so OT?!

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by Jason2)
Well, a flying squirrel doesn't actually fly, it glides. And it hardly shows evolution into a completely new specie.

And as I have to keep informing you, mutations are never beneficial. They usually weaken the cell, and at worst kill it. If you expect any rational human being to believe that, say, weakened scales in dinosaurs can mutate into complicated bird feathers then you are massively deluded. I mean, it would need a lot of new genetic information and, as we know, mutations do not add information. It's bit like cars; different makes and models; yet they're all cars. You just can't provide evidence that shows complete new organisms being made through mutation.

And they didn't say a flying squirrel actually flies.

What about mutations causing resistance to antibiotics in bacterium? Those are fairly beneficial to the bacterium. To say mutations are never beneficial is ridiculous.

[KasanDude]

(Original post by Jason2)
Well, a flying squirrel doesn't actually fly, it glides. And it hardly shows evolution into a completely new specie.

And as I have to keep informing you, mutations are never beneficial. They usually weaken the cell, and at worst kill it. If you expect any rational human being to believe that, say, weakened scales in dinosaurs can mutate into complicated bird feathers then you are massively deluded. I mean, it would need a lot of new genetic information and, as we know, mutations do not add information. It's bit like cars; different makes and models; yet they're all cars. You just can't provide evidence that shows complete new organisms being made through mutation.

Yes, a LAND creature that glides through AIR. Normally, squirrels stay on the ground. Yet in a heavily wooded area, where the ground is disadventageous, squirrels are just radomly able to glide? I didn't say that they CAN fly, I'm saying that in a few thousand years they will.

I mean what do you think that happened? Did god realize that he messed up and that squirels were just dying in forrests, so he changed a few and gave them extra skin between their limbs to facilitate gliding? If he does that for a squirel, why doesn't he STOP cancer in humans? I mean, according to you, he's capable of that...

[Gwilym101]

(Original post by Jason2)
Lol land creatures just kept jumping until they developed wings? ****ing genius!

Yes, there are two models explaining it. One is the Arboreal model, the other is the pouncing proavis model.

The arboreal model states the flight evolved in creatures that leapt between tree, such as the "Flying" Squirrel, which can leap incredible far with their gliding ability. Then another adaptation occured which enabled them to change direction accurately or generate thrust which was advantagous. Small adaptations kept happening that improved on this ability (bear in mind it happened of hundreds of millions of years, longer than humans have been on earth), and eventually the leaping creature had the ability to change altitude, direction and speed at will in the form of sustained flight.

The pouncing proavis model states that predators used leaping to catch prey and being able to jump further was an advantage. The ability to control direction after leaping is also advantagous, so would have been selected for. If you look at a bird taking off, they don't flap their wings and rise of the ground, the jump and use wings to increase initial thrust.

Considering you think adaption happens you don't seem to grasp the idea that speciation is lots of adaptions of an massive period of time.

But like i've said, and considering you clearly hadn't heard of either of these models, you have now backed up; you do not know enough about evolution to discuss it intelligently.

[Jason2]

(Original post by Alofleicester)
And they didn't say a flying squirrel actually flies.

What about mutations causing resistance to antibiotics in bacterium? Those are fairly beneficial to the bacterium. To say mutations are never beneficial is ridiculous.

That's only because the mutation blocked a normal function of which the drug was designed to take advantage; again, this represents a loss of information, not a gain.

[KasanDude]

(Original post by Jason2)
That's only because the mutation blocked a normal function of which the drug was designed to take advantage; again, this represents a loss of information, not a gain.

Mutation is neither loss or gain. It is a CHANGE. Which you've just agreed took place...

[Jason2]

(Original post by KasanDude)
Yes, a LAND creature that glides through AIR. Normally, squirrels stay on the ground. Yet in a heavily wooded area, where the ground is disadventageous, squirrels are just radomly able to glide? I didn't say that they CAN fly, I'm saying that in a few thousand years they will.

I mean what do you think that happened? Did god realize that he messed up and that squirels were just dying in forrests, so he changed a few and gave them extra skin between their limbs to facilitate gliding? If he does that for a squirel, why doesn't he STOP cancer in humans? I mean, according to you, he's capable of that...

It's still a ****ing squirrel. What don't you understand about that? As it says in Genesis, each animal was created to reproduce after its kind.

[KasanDude]

(Original post by Jason2)
It's still a ****ing squirrel. What don't you understand about that? As it says in Genesis, each animal was created to reproduce after its kind.

Yes, and we're still technically apes. We've just evolved to the point where we look different.

[Jason2]

(Original post by KasanDude)
Yes, and we're still technically apes. We've just evolved to the point where we look different.

Well from bacteria to us, that's a pretty damn big jump. You have in no way proven that. You just prove micro-evolution, which I undoubtedly agree with.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by Jason2)
Well, a flying squirrel doesn't actually fly, it glides. And it hardly shows evolution into a completely new specie.

And as I have to keep informing you, mutations are never beneficial. They usually weaken the cell, and at worst kill it. If you expect any rational human being to believe that, say, weakened scales in dinosaurs can mutate into complicated bird feathers then you are massively deluded. I mean, it would need a lot of new genetic information and, as we know, mutations do not add information. It's bit like cars; different makes and models; yet they're all cars. You just can't provide evidence that shows complete new organisms being made through mutation.

Actually, most mutations do absolutely nothing to gene sequence. They affect junk DNA. How functional mutation normally happens is, in multicellular organisms, the control of gene expression can be modulated by short sequences of DNA that doesn't directly code for any gene. So a mutation in this sequence changes the amount that is expressed and therefore changes the embryology, usually in a small way that barely changes the organism, like the length of fingers, or the proportion of types of cells in the pancreas.

Now when you have a population, with genetic variation, natural selection favours better versions of genes. When you get recombination, two different, fully functional genes can shift position and shuffle between each other. So here you have two examples of how "mutations" can occur that cause functional changes but don't cause cell death.

The amount of genes you actually need to make a species is quite small. Humans only have about 20,000 if I'm not mistaken, and the majority of these are the same in all other eukaryotes, or at least have homologues (genes that are not exactly the same, or hugely similar, but serve the same role), so species differentiation is hardly out of the question at all.

Also, even if only 1% of mutations in coding DNA are viable, over time, this small amount of mutations will add up to differentiation.

And species differentiation? Mainly due to geographic location. Two small gene pools are split and each has a bottleneck that allows a limited set of genes through. Each can then have adaptations in different directions depending on their different environment, resulting (eventually) in different species.

Please lose this idea that all mutations are "bad"

[Gwilym101]

(Original post by Jason2)
It's still a ****ing squirrel. What don't you understand about that? As it says in Genesis, each animal was created to reproduce after its kind.

Okay, answer me this: Are Lions and Tigers the same species? Because they can reproduce together to create a Liger or a Tiglion, which itself can reproduce. They're both carnivorous big cats at the top of their respective food chains.

According to you no matter what differences they have "It's still a ****ing cat."

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by Jason2)
That's only because the mutation blocked a normal function of which the drug was designed to take advantage; again, this represents a loss of information, not a gain.

Regardless of whether you perceive it to be a loss or gain of information (it's neither FYI - it's simply a change), it's still beneficial to the organism is it not? Which would make your suggestion that mutations are never beneficial wrong.

[Arekkusu]

Information is more fundamental to the universe than energy and matter...