04 Jan 15
Originally posted by lemon limeNo, the theory relies on reproduction of DNA, DNA affecting the phenotype, the possibility of mutations to occur and natural selection. It explains how more complex life forms evolved from less complex ones. The theory of gravity doesn't "rely on" the motion of planetary bodies, it explains them.
The theory relies on the idea of lower life forms gradually changing into progressively higher and more complex forms of life... and that idea [b]hasn't changed.
If you believe a process of evolution only affects DNA, then you are forgetting the link between DNA and what DNA causes to happen. You're presuming new information can easily aris ...[text shortened]... u are presuming egg before chicken it may be because it just happens to better suit your theory.[/b]
I'm aware of the concept of "irreducible complexity." Unfortunately, it's just a way of saying "I can't imagine that X is true, therefore X is false," which is not very compelling. If you are curious about how some feature evolved, I'm sure you can find some theories and plausible explanations. However, the theory of evolution does not, in and of itself, provide a mechanism to reverse-engineer this process.
04 Jan 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI just now looked at what you were responding to, and it seems the only problem you had was my reference to "species". If e-coli has some other classification then it's my fault for using species as an all purpose word.
Evolution works at the level of DNA, not species. The classification of different organisms into species (by humans, not nature) predates the discovery of DNA. So your question seems to indicate you don't know what evolution is.
Evolution must necessarily separate various life forms into categories and put them into some kind of reasonable looking order... so it's not clear to me what your objection to classification is. Or were you simply objecting to my use of the word species?
04 Jan 15
Originally posted by lemon limeYou simply don't understand what evolution is. Nature doesn't care about our classification schemes for organisms. Evolution works at the level of DNA, not at the level of species.
I just now looked at what you were responding to, and it seems the only problem you had was my reference to "species". If e-coli has some other classification then it's my fault for using species as an all purpose word.
Evolution must necessarily separate various life forms into categories and put them into some kind of reasonable looking order... so i ...[text shortened]... your objection to classification is. Or were you simply objecting to my use of the word species?
04 Jan 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI'm aware of the concept of "irreducible complexity." Unfortunately, it's just a way of saying "I can't imagine that X is true, therefore X is false," which is not very compelling.
No, the theory relies on reproduction of DNA, DNA affecting the phenotype, the possibility of mutations to occur and natural selection. It explains how more complex life forms evolved from less complex ones. The theory of gravity doesn't "rely on" the motion of planetary bodies, it explains them.
I'm aware of the concept of "irreducible comple ...[text shortened]... y of evolution does not, in and of itself, provide a mechanism to reverse-engineer this process.
It wouldn't be very compelling for me either if it was that simple. But you don't have to "imagine" what irreducible complexity is. There is this thing called the "internet"....
04 Jan 15
Originally posted by lemon limeI know what it is. It's saying "I can't imagine that X is true, therefore X is false."
[b]I'm aware of the concept of "irreducible complexity." Unfortunately, it's just a way of saying "I can't imagine that X is true, therefore X is false," which is not very compelling.
It wouldn't be very compelling for me either if it was that simple. But you don't have to "imagine" what irreducible complexity is. There is this thing called the "internet"....[/b]
04 Jan 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorra*gasp* Are you saying two monkeys cannot have a human child?
You simply don't understand what evolution is. Nature doesn't care about our classification schemes for organisms. Evolution works at the level of DNA, not at the level of species.
And Mother Nature doesn't care about stuff like that? Hoo boy, I guess I better learn more about evolution... and find out what evolution cares about.
04 Jan 15
Originally posted by lemon limeDo you want me to recommend some reading on the basics?
*gasp* Are you saying two monkeys cannot have a human child?
And Mother Nature doesn't care about stuff like that? Hoo boy, I guess I better learn more about evolution... and find out what evolution cares about.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
04 Jan 15
Originally posted by RJHindsSingle-celled organisms (like bacteria) doesn't interbreed, they divide. Just thought that might be relevant. There is no he or she in bacteria, to put it simply.
They get the secret by breeding with each other. Turn your brain on, numbnuts.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by lemon limeIrreducible complexity is a cop-out. It's basically the same as saying: "I don't understand how this part of an organism could have been useful without this other part, so I give up." Real scientists look at the same problem and realise that every part of a complex organism could have evolved independently, serving other functions to begin with, and then sets out to demonstrate how this is so, as has already been done with the flagellum and several other so called "irreducibly complex" systems. Saying something is irreducibly complex because you can't see how it could build up incrementally is intellectual laziness, at best. Saying something is irreducibly complex even after it's been demonstrated not to be, well, that's just dumb obstinence.
But you don't have to "imagine" what irreducible complexity is. There is this thing called the "internet"....
04 Jan 15
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsEcoli doesn't breed, the ecoli in this experiment is asexual. Secondly, the differing variations of ecoli had nothing to do with each other in the experiment.
They get the secret by breeding with each other. Turn your brain on, numbnuts.
It would help the discussion Ron if you at least had a vague notion of what was being discussed instead of clogging up the thread with your usual ignorance and name calling.
04 Jan 15
Originally posted by C HessThat's not quite true. There is a process called conjugation by which they can exchange genetic information. So where reproduction happens at the same time as genetic sharing with us, it is a delayed process with bacteria.
Single-celled organisms (like bacteria) doesn't interbreed, they divide. Just thought that might be relevant. There is no he or she in bacteria, to put it simply.