Evolution: Part Three - Page 9

quote DPrinceSky

1.) Genes mutate and these mutations determine the properties of an animal.
2.) Certain Animals survive better then others.

(1.)+(2.)=Evolution

It does amaze me how often this one comes up. How does that at all prove evolution? Survival of the fittest can exist without evolution happening; it does. Gene mutations can happen without evolution happening; they do. We might assume, as many do, that these two can prove evolution, but they can't. How do the two processes above prove that evolution happens, or even can happen?

quote Galacticdramon

So thermodynamics and entropy, basic mathematics and effectively everything else which you don't want to believe in is bollocks? You're a good example of what I was talking about. You're assuming things and dismissing anyone who goes against it because you don't like it.

thank you for assuming i assumed things. i assumed nothing. ive read alot of supposed proofs against evolution and they all have been bollocks.

im a physicist and a mathematician, and i got 100% on biology at a level. trust me, i know more about thermodynamics, statistics and entropy than you. i asked you for one proof against evolution. you havent given one. entropy, thermodynamics and statistics in no way disprove evolution.

quote Galacticdramon

Actually, you could say there's no proof against it. We didn't see it 'not happen' as such, so there's no proof of that sort. That's a popular argument, well done for picking up on it.

again, youre making all the negative assumptions about me. stop being so *bleep*ing sarcastic and saying "well done for saying we didnt see it not happen" because i didnt mean that in a technical sense. while we didnt see it not happen so your statement about proof was invalid from the start, theres also no indication that evolution didnt happen anywhere. so *bleep* you very much for not only assuming the worst about me and my reasons but also being a hypocrite and trying to make an example out of me for assuming things.

quote Galacticdramon

I'll challenge you to this, Arjy. Give me one proof that evolution can happen if you're so certain it can.

i never claimed science could prove evolution, unlike you who said it could disprove it. i said theres no evidence against evolution which there isnt.

but even so, let me see, evidence for evolution.

mutations happen. we definitely see that happening. mutations that noticeably change the genotype we've seen. look at the flu virus. people get vaccinated against the flu, but they get the flu again later in life! wow how the *bleep* does that happen! ill tell you how. they look at the virus under the microscope and it has developed antigens on its surface that the human doesnt recognize.

no, it hasnt just changed in response to it, because a population of viruses can be observed to mutate randomly to have new antigens on it. if we observe these mutations (which we have under the microscope), and some of those mutations mean a vaccine would be ineffective against it, thus it would survive when its non-mutated companions wouldnt because it has a genetic advantage, it will replicate and pass those antigens that render it immune onto all its copies. all the other viruses die out except the "children" of this mutated virus. therefore we have an organism adapting to its surroundings over time.

now theres microevolution proven, for a virus ie the process of variation, adaptation, and recombination of existing traits is proven.

if this happens over and over again, the genetic makeup of an organism can change so much that its not capable of breeding with other animals of its species that havent experienced these mutations. look at mules, they cant breed with donkeys or horses even though they are offspring of horses and mules, so weve proven that if an animals genetic makeup changes enough, it can stop being able to breed with members of the species it was originally from.

combine these two proven ideas and we have evolution. now evolution itself isnt proven, but microevolution is proven, and this development of new species through changes in the genetic makeup is proven, and together these indicate evolution. so we have the idea that variation, adaptation, and recombination of existing traits causes a change in the genetic makeup, and this happens over generations to the extent that the genetic makeup has changed enough that an organism becomes a completely new organism. both of which on their own are proven, and the two occuring together is obviously going to happen (and noone has of yet found a non-bollocks argument to suggest why it wouldnt) therefore evolution is obviously going to happen. but alas, it cant be proven, because its very slow and we havent been around long enough to observe it. theres my horrendously strong evidence for it, not proof. and recall, i never said there was proof for what i believe, only you did.

so wheres your "proof"? or evidence?

wrong. viruses mutating antigens that render it immune to the bodys defence systems. been observed under the microscope.

nope, literally just surface markers changed, nothing else. the virus survived and all the other viruses died because of that one mutation. thats a beneficial mutation.

they lost the surface markers that made them susceptible to attack, and gained ones that werent susceptible to attack. no adverse effects.

and, you can add genetic code. again its been seen under the microscope. its caused by the enzyme DNA polymerase slipping in DNA replication. it can also be caused by unequal crossover during mitosis.

quote Naked Snak3

You are delusional. Period.

Rather than name calling, why not prove his points wrong? That's the point of Intellectual Debating, for a mature group of people to debate, not name call.

At least give an example of how he's delusional.

Don't have enough background in Biology to.

One question I have for evolutionists.

Even if an organism was to change somehow (I'm talking about an animal here, not a virus) wouldn't that change just get swamped in the population, maybe appear down the road every once in a while, but not become a permanent and immediate change?