Speaking of "blindly agreeing" with something - you fit the bill perfectly. You honestly think that "random genetic mutations" don't follow the laws of probability? Everything is probable, but that doesn't mean mutations will follow probability. There's too many factors (the degenerate nature of DNA, mutations in "junk" DNA, chromosomal translocation, mitotic errors, etc...) to say that mutations will follow a certain rate over time.
Also, even if you adjust the "generation" from 15, probabilities on this scale only increase when you decrease the factor (the 15) by significant proportions. Decrease it to one, you still have only 4.5 billion generations (and we all know the EARTH is 4.5 billion years old, not life on earth, which is much more modern....we are talking perhaps less than 1 billion years old - so your point is mute).
Again, you're assuming that generations are A. Linear and B. Take at least a year to occur. There are plenty ocforganisms that reproduce much faster than that. There are also multiple generations occuring at once, which is why we have a phylogenetic tree rather than a phylogenetic corn stalk. :P
More than just fossil evidence.....true - enough to fill in the gaps that are left (omg there are no gaps!!!!) because there are plenty of "time gaps" that are bloody significant. If you can tell me that you know what was happening at specific times in history, I will call you ignorant. So you don't blindly agree with scientists, you just look at what they have and decide that Occam's Razor is always true. Your "evidence" is basically like taking two words out of a million page book and saying that you understand how everything works because you found some of the linking words - like the!
I think you're underestimating the amount of evidence there is for evolution. Not only has it been tested for decades, but it's also been applied everywhere in biology and consistently held strong. We may be looking only at a tiny slice of history, but that hasn't stopped us from furthering our knowledge of evolution.
People who say that the genome and human DNA sequences vs. other animals is too similar not to have a common ancestor, did you consider that perhaps some of these DNA strains are important for life - aka without them, things aren't able to exist in their current form (therefore anything without those would not exist). Now you can look at it like there was a mutation that allowed all to have that DNA and then everyone branched from that, or that everyone had that from the beginning.
The point is that they may contain the same basic information, but as you move up the phylogenetic tree organisms start to get more and more genetically related. Or that genetic differences reflect known types of mutations, I believe it was Genetic_Code that mentioned the one of our chromosomes was strikingly similar to two of a chimp's chromosomes fused together.
Either way, the argument comes down to this - do you believe that life was placed on this earth in its "modern" form, or do you believe that a random virus landed on earth and spawned where we came from - and neither have any "legitimate" evidence.
The origins of life has nothing to do with evolution. It's all about speciation.
One last thing "Not true. Early forms of appendages are usually transitional forms of other appendages (such as fins to feet). Also mutation occur at an incredibly rapid rate. Most are either corrected, don't do anything, or reduce the chances of survival. But it only takes a single lucky nucleotide placement to give an organism a HUGE advantage. " Early forms of appendages were not functioning. A mutation of an early lung did not take in oxygen from air and therefore would not have any significant impact on that species.
If a mutation does not impact the survivability of an organism it will either disappear or perhaps be important later on in life. An early lung could not have formed if it did not increase the survivability of the organism. It's like the increasing complexity of the eye. Eyespots may have not been particularly good, but being able to detect light in any form will give a significant. It only takes a couple of cells, in which it only takes a few proteins, to allow an organism to "see." Thus, even more complex eyes will give younger generations an advantage, and so on and so forth. A nonfunctional lung cannot just spawn, it would have to develop over generations due to more complex forms conferring an advantage to offspring. If not, it would likely have not appeared at all.
For example, I have throat cancer (a genetic mutation that causes the uncontrollable growth of cells), those cells are not special or unique, they don't create a function that helps me survive.
Actually cancer cells do have a selective advantage, but ones that give them advantages over other cells, and not an advantage for you (the organism with cancer).
But maybe, someday, over billions of years, one would......but then you have an early form of lung. Well then that early form of lung needs even more time to modernize
See, you're assuming that evolution of organs is based on structure. The size and shape of a nonfunctional organ will not provide a selective advantage, while a similar structure that adopts the task of a lung IS advantageous. Over time, that structure will likely develop into a lungm, rather than a nonfunctional lung appearing and then developing into a functional lung.
So we get back to my original point that there isn't enough TIME to have done this......... And I stated I was a physicist simply because everyone was saying that if you use logic, you would agree with evolution. Physicists are the definition of logical thinkers (well most), so I was denouncing that fact that all logically people inevitably believe in evolution - not trying to add "cred" to myself.
We've seen species evolve in our labs and in the world around us in this short amount of time. I think a billion years is plenty. Also, logic in one area of science does not foolproof you against falling into common holes in logic in other areas of science. See: XKCD.
seabiscuit8686
Log in to comment