ThinkFreely:
Its a not question of how you see it, it’s a question of what evidences suggest. You cannot deliberately ignore the million of questions evolution has answered because of a few ones it hasn’t.
Evolution doesn’t in anyway suggest the existence of any creator.

One must not make up crap in ones head and claim that is how things are.

One must do science, as in evaluate with well developed senses.

ThinkFreely:
Its a not question of how you see it, it’s a question of what evidences suggest. You cannot deliberately ignore the million of questions evolution has answered because of a few ones it hasn’t.
Evolution doesn’t in anyway suggest the existence of any creator.

I didn't ignore them. I did say there are changes within species. That is microevolution makes some sense. But you are the one making it sound as if evolution has it all. It is irrefutable. I am telling you to let go off that assertion bro. There are valid questions evolution hasn't answered. I mean big time questions at that, especially under macroevolution.

Of course, that is how I see it with evidence. Many scientist would not accept a thing from religion, as if they have all the questions answered in evolution. Some even accept rubbish in the field of abiogenesis and move on without question while calling religious people irrational. How many come out to say that we have some big time shit in this evolution? They will present it as if we-have-all-the-facts for a single pin we believe in, but then paint religion as if they are dumb since they think religion has no fact to back their claims.

They should also know that they live by some sort of faith. After all, macro evolution is based largely on assumptions. Isn't that a sort of faith?

So, you guys should spare us the noise of we have all the facts. It's not true.

...

JMAN05:


I didn't ignore them. I did say there are changes within species. That is microevolution makes some sense. But you are the one making it sound as if evolution has it all. It is irrefutable. I am telling you to let go off that assertion bro. There are valid questions evolution hasn't answered. I mean big time questions at that, especially under macroevolution.

Of course, that is how I see it with evidence. Many scientist would not accept a thing from religion, as if they have all the questions answered in evolution. Some even accept rubbish in the field of abiogenesis and move on without question while calling religious people irrational. How many come out to say that we have some big time shit in this evolution? They will present it as if we-have-all-the-facts for a single pin we believe in, but then paint religion as if they are dumb since they think religion has no fact to back their claims.

They should also know that they live by some sort of faith. After all, macro evolution is based largely on assumptions. Isn't that a sort of faith?

So, you guys should spare us the noise of we have all the facts. It's not true.

you talking a lot about micro and macroevolution...
Microevolution can’t work independently from macroevolution.

This is why you can easily make vaccine for a DNA viruses and vaccines for RNA viruses are harder. The rate of evolution of a DNA virus is similar to that of the human host, while that of the RNA virus is faster.

In biology, pharmacology, medicine name it, Evolution is everything, the enterprise of science doesn’t even make any sense without evolution. You are using the macro and micro evolution thing in the wrong context, they can’t occur independent of each other. And accumulated microevolution in a multicellular specie will eventually lead to macroevolution. Talking about micro and macro evolution as a separate entity doesn’t make any sense.

Just tell me one application of creationism. We will end this, if you give me one application of creation in modern science then we are good.

ThinkFreely:
you talking a lot about micro and macroevolution. It doesn’t make any sense...
Microevolution can’t work independently from macroevolution.

This is why you can easily make vaccine for a DNA viruses and vaccines for RNA viruses are harder. The rate of evolution of a DNA virus is similar to that of the human host, while that of the RNA virus is faster.

In biology, pharmacology, medicine name it, Evolution is everything, the enterprise of science doesn’t even make any sense without evolution. The macro and micro thing is nonsense coined by creationists.

Just tell me one application of creationism. We will end this.

Macro and micro doesn't make any sense. So you don't know there is a difference. While you can prove a minor changes in s specie, but to state that reptiles gradually brought about humans is a huge leap. Something you can't prove through experiment.

It is not like the genetic makeup of a coronavirus, which sample you can test. My guy there is a huge difference. That is why there theory falls flat in the face of what happened during the Cambrian period. Macro evolution is not about things you go to a lab to test. So don't bring the issue of what happens in the field of science here. It is mostly micro evolution that is accepted cos it's provable. Not when you start talking about what happened millions of years ago when you were not there. Making assumptions of what you didn't see nor can reproduce in a lab.

One application of creationism on what? I believe in creation.

I'm a scientist, specialized in biochemistry with a special interest in nucleotide biochemistry.

The issue of evolution and creationism has been a bone of contention over years and surveys has been carried out in different countries to account for the percentages that believe in either of the two.

This is a project I'm working on and I believe nairaland holds a substantial sample size for me to get a figure from Nigeria.

DO YOU BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION OR CREATIONISM? GIVE REASONS FOR YOUR ANSWER. Thanks everyone as you participate in this survey.

Choose from the following options:
1. I don't believe in evolution because it's against my religion
2. I don believe in evolution because I don't know how it works
3.I believe in evolution but I don't know how it works
4. I believe in evolution and I know how it works.

Seun, mynd44 and lalasticlala can kindly help us to move this to front page, so we can get more participants. It's a work l intend using for my current research. Thanks

You better think further and deeper than just being a scientist,Stop trying to justify your atheist traits.God is behind all the wonders you are seeing around you.

JMAN05:


Macro and micro doesn't make any sense. So you don't know there is a difference. While you can prove a minor changes in s specie, but to state that reptiles gradually brought about humans is a huge leap. Something you can't prove through experiment.

It is not like the genetic makeup of a coronavirus, which sample you can test. My guy there is a huge difference. That is why there theory falls flat in the face of what happened during the Cambrian period. Macro evolution is not about things you go to a lab to test. So don't bring the issue of what happens in the field of science here. It is mostly micro evolution that is accepted cos it's provable. Not when you start talking about what happened millions of years ago when you were not there. Making assumptions of what you didn't see nor can reproduce in a lab.

One application of creationism on what? I believe in creation.

So what happens to accumulated microevolution in a multicellular organisms over thousands and millions of years in a constantly changing environment?

Radiometric dating of fossils, do they prove micro or microevolution? Cos I don’t know what you are saying about not being able to test macroevolution in lab.

I think you really do not understand evolution deeply. The difference between micro and macro evolution is just timeframe. It has nothing to with the inability to test anything in the lab.

You can analyze DNA samples from fossils in the lab and check for similarities to establish macroevolution. It’s not rocket science to say that birds are the closest relatives of dinosaurs alive after analyzing DNA or glycan samples gotten from their fossils and comparing them with living species of animals. This is actually done in a lab and people have established this fact.

I don’t understand what you mean by macroevolution cannot be tested in a lab.

Don’t allow people tell you things that doesn’t make sense. You can test by yourself how closely related you are to every specie of primates in the world. You just need to get their DNA samples, analyze them and make a comparison with yours in “lab”. You can establish macroevolution with that.

JMAN05:


Macro and micro doesn't make any sense. So you don't know there is a difference. While you can prove a minor changes in s specie, but to state that reptiles gradually brought about humans is a huge leap. Something you can't prove through experiment.

It is not like the genetic makeup of a coronavirus, which sample you can test. My guy there is a huge difference. That is why there theory falls flat in the face of what happened during the Cambrian period. Macro evolution is not about things you go to a lab to test. So don't bring the issue of what happens in the field of science here. It is mostly micro evolution that is accepted cos it's provable. Not when you start talking about what happened millions of years ago when you were not there. Making assumptions of what you didn't see nor can reproduce in a lab.

One application of creationism on what? I believe in creation.

let me give you another logical reasoning on microevolution using SARScov 2.

SARScov 2 gain entry into host cells using The Angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE 2) present in the lungs. This enzyme has homologous in those animals that are closely related to humans.
For example chimpanzees, SARScov 2 will easily infect a chimpanzee than say a rabbit because we are genetically closely related to chimpanzees than rabbits.

Let me give you another example, Ebola virus can infect all great apes and even some other primates, it can’t infect rabbits or lab rats because we share some genetic attributes with other apes. The virus interacts with T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain which have similar structures in all Great Apes. It’s an evidence that we are closely related to other apes, we share diseases because our genomes are closely related than any other order of species.

You can extract these proteins from different animal species and study the amino sequence, that will give you an idea of how close we are related to them.

It’s common sense.

ThinkFreely:
So what happens to accumulated microevolution in a multicellular organisms over thousands and millions of years in a constantly changing environment?

Radiometric dating of fossils, do they prove micro or microevolution? Cos I don’t know what you are saying about not being able to test macroevolution in lab.

I think you really do not understand evolution deeply. The difference between micro and macro evolution is just timeframe. It has nothing to with the inability to test anything in the lab.

You can analyze DNA samples from fossils in the lab and check for similarities to establish macroevolution. It’s not rocket science to say that birds are the closest relatives of dinosaurs alive after analyzing DNA or glycan samples gotten from their fossils and comparing them with living species of animals. This is actually done in a lab and people have established this fact.

I don’t understand what you mean by macroevolution cannot be tested in a lab.

Don’t allow people tell you things that doesn’t make sense. You can test by yourself how closely related you are to every specie of primates in the world. You just need to get their DNA samples, analyze them and make a comparison with yours in “lab”. You can establish macroevolution with that.

True, am not an expert in evolutionary science. That was not my field of study, neither is it now.

However, there are differences despite the similarity in DNA. DNA could be strikenly similar, but this does not mean that one evolved from the other. We do not have that prove of chimp to humans. 96% can account for a closeness to humans, but their are great differences between us and chimps.

Instead of thinking that there was a leap from chimp to humans, we understand the DNA as a code of instruction unique to a specie. Changes can occur within the chimp family, but it will remain chimp, nothing more. Mutation is largely harmful. Holding on to it as building block onto entirely new specie requires faith.

The theory of gradualism can't account for full formed organisms we observe in the fossil records. All the gradual links to another specie can't be seen in the record.

There are changes within a specie, this is micro evolution, a changed onto other species is macro. I understand that there are debates on this. So I see why you hold a different view.

JMAN05:


True, am not an expert in evolutionary science. That was not my field of study, neither is it now.

However, there are differences despite the similarity in DNA. DNA could be strikenly similar, but this does not mean that one evolved from the other. We do not have that prove of chimp to humans. 96% can account for a closeness to humans, but their are great differences between us and chimps.

Instead of thinking that there was a leap from chimp to humans, we understand the DNA as a code of instruction unique to a specie. Changes can occur within the chimp family, but it will remain chimp, nothing more. Mutation is largely harmful. Holding on to it as building block onto entirely new specie requires faith.

The theory of gradualism can't account for full formed organisms we observe in the fossil records. All the gradual links to another specie can't be seen in the record.

There are changes within a specie, this is micro evolution, a changed onto other species is macro. I understand that there are debates on this. So I see why you hold a different view.

So what explanation would you give to to similarities in protein amino acid sequence and DNA sequence and how these similarities fades away systematically as you study the sequencing from humans down to bacteria?

How do you explain that Apes share ailments with humans but some other order of classification do not? How do you explain that a group of birds share ailments but not with apes?

How else do you want to explain these similarities if we don’t share common ancestry?

Let me educate you again a little on evolution. Did you know? The invention of polio vaccine was purely evolutionary biology both on a micro and macro level?
The polio virus (picornaviridae) was cultured over generations in a monkey tissue culture. Because we share great similarities in certain enzymes and proteins with monkeys, the virus was able to evolve to a lesser infective strain in a monkey culture. The attenuated strain from the monkey tissue was now mass produced as vaccines. How do you explain the choice of the culture tissue? Why didn’t the virus grow in rat tissues or some other animal?
I have given several applications of evolution, both macro and micro. We simply cannot do anything in science without evolution.

I’m a specialist in virology, this is what I do everyday. We can’t save you without applying evolution. I can go on an on to show you application of macro and micro evolution in science. Science most especially biological science is senseless without evolution, whether micro or macro.
Again, mutation is not largely harmful, that’s wrong. Mutation happen at every meiotic division, mutation happen at every division of gamete cells including sperms and ova cells and that’s why you don’t look exactly like your siblings.

Mutations are most times not harmful, very essential and mutation overtime will result in the development of new species. Mutations are very essential for the survival of a specie, this ensures versatile gene pool and makes sure species do not go extinct easily as external conditions changes. You have a lot to learn about evolution before arguing against it.

Leave this for the experts

.

JMAN05:


There are valid questions evolution hasn't answered.

This made me laugh. I imagined going to evolution and asking it questions. Lol.

ThinkFreely:
So what explanation would you give to to similarities in protein amino acid sequence and DNA sequence and how these similarities fades away systematically as you study the sequencing from humans down to bacteria?

How do you explain that Apes share ailments with humans but some other order of classification do not? How do you explain that a group of birds share ailments but not with apes?

How else do you want to explain these similarities if we don’t share common ancestry?

They share 96% of our DNA. They haveare the only ones that have that level of percentage, so that's basically understandable.

However we are strikingly different from them. We have as much as 40 million differences between are nucleotides. It is true that it is only many thousands of those nucleotides that really makes much sense, at least as experts say. However 40 million is pretty much even as we can readily observed when will look at a human and a chimp. Perhaps other things other than the DNA still contribute to the differences between we and chimps.

t me educate you again a little on evolution. Did you know? The invention of polio vaccine was purely evolutionary biology both on a micro and macro level?
The polio virus (picornaviridae) was cultured over generations in a monkey tissue culture. Because we share great similarities in certain enzymes and proteins with monkeys, the virus was able to evolve to a lesser infective strain in a monkey culture. The attenuated strain from the monkey tissue was now mass produced as vaccines. How do you explain the choice of the culture tissue? Why didn’t the virus grow in rat tissues or some other animal?
I have given several applications of evolution, both macro and micro. We simply cannot do anything in science without evolution.

I’m a specialist in virology, this is what I do everyday. We can’t save you without applying evolution. I can go on an on to show you application of macro and micro evolution in science. Science most especially biological science is senseless without evolution, whether micro or macro.
Again, mutation is not largely harmful, that’s wrong. Mutation happen at every meiotic division, mutation happen at every division of gamete cells including sperms and ova cells and that’s why you don’t look exactly like your siblings.

I agree that there are similarities but there are obvious differences in fact even large ones. Look at a human and a chimp, you would see some similarities. But there are obvious differences that to state that one premate will change to another is something that doesn't make any sense. Series of research has proven that this is true. One species does not change to another. That is what I call macro-evolution. It is true that you don't agree, you believe micro and macro are the same. Well I don't. There are experts that do not agree too.

Yes, we share most of our DNA. The production of a vaccine doesn't in itself mean that we are descended from them since vaccines could also be made from cocker spaniel and even other animals.

Now we share about 25% DNA with dogs however dogs and humans have almost the same number of genes. Now I am talking about a vaccine from that specie.

So, vaccine and closeness in DNA makeup is not a strong factor to support evolution from chimps. After all we humans have about 99.99 percent of DNA yet you observe obvious defferences from one human to another talk about a white and a black. Will know how hard it is for two whites to produce a black. Or for blacks to produce a white. That is just one example. Now think about a difference that is up to 4% in DNA.

Mutations are most times not harmful, very essential and mutation overtime will result in the development of new species. Mutations are very essential for the survival of a specie, this ensures versatile gene pool and makes sure species do not go extinct easily as external conditions changes. You have a lot to learn about evolution before arguing against it.

Leave this for the experts

You are the only one saying that mutation is largely beneficial, I don't know the source of your information. Research has only shown that at every 1000 you have one beneficial mutation. That is not being highly beneficial from my opinion. So what's the source of your own information?

From what I know, scientists that have been involved in interbreeding have not ended up producing new species. I mean they have not turned a chimp into a human.

So if a controlled research cannot do it I Wonder why mutation that is largely not beneficial can do it.

That is why if you go to the fossil record you will see several missing links. Macro-evolution doesn't work. the examples you provide only supports microevolution, changes within a specie.

JMAN05:


They share 96% of our DNA. They haveare the only ones that have that level of percentage, so that's basically understandable.

However we are strikingly different from them. We have as much as 40 million differences between are nucleotides. It is true that it is only many thousands of those nucleotides that really makes much sense, at least as experts say. However 40 million is pretty much even as we can readily observed when will look at a human and a chimp. Perhaps other things other than the DNA still contribute to the differences between we and chimps.



I agree that there are similarities but there are obvious differences in fact even large ones. Look at a human and a chimp, you would see some similarities. But there are obvious differences that to state that one premate will change to another is something that doesn't make any sense. Series of research has proven that this is true. One species does not change to another. That is what I call macro-evolution. It is true that you don't agree, you believe micro and macro are the same. Well I don't. There are experts that do not agree too.

Yes, we share most of our DNA. The production of a vaccine doesn't in itself mean that we are descended from them since vaccines could also be made from cocker spaniel and even other animals.

Now we share about 25% DNA with dogs however dogs and humans have almost the same number of genes. Now I am talking about a vaccine from that specie.

So, vaccine and closeness in DNA makeup is not a strong factor to support evolution from chimps. After all we humans have about 99.99 percent of DNA yet you observe obvious defferences from one human to another talk about a white and a black. Will know how hard it is for two whites to produce a black. Or for blacks to produce a white. That is just one example. Now think about a difference that is up to 4% in DNA.




You are the only one saying that mutation is largely beneficial, I don't know the source of your information. Research has only shown that at every 1000 you have one beneficial mutation. That is not being highly beneficial from my opinion. So what's the source of your own information?

From what I know, scientists that have been involved in interbreeding have not ended up producing new species. I mean they have not turned a chimp into a human.

So if a controlled research cannot do it I Wonder why mutation that is largely not beneficial can do it.

That is why if you go to the fossil record you will see several missing links. Macro-evolution doesn't work. the examples you provide only supports microevolution, changes within a specie.

in science we don’t claim to know everything, we don’t know it today doesn’t mean we won’t tomorrow. The presence of a missing link doesn’t totally discredit macroevolution, it’s just a call for more work because we are sure evolution whether micro or macro works.

Every one who knows elementary evolution knows that mutations are the primary cause of evolution, it happens always and it’s usually not dangerous. Without mutations, every organism will go extinct. Without mutations you can’t get different phenotypes in a specie. this is elementary evolution. Mutation is very important for our over all survival.

Educate yourself more about it. Macro evolution work, it’s the basis for everything we do. You don’t understand how it works, you can’t culture polio virus in monkeys if we don’t share common macroevolutionary tree with them.

It works well, yesterday, today and everyday...try and educate yourself about these things because the problem here is that we have someone who doesn’t fully understand the subject matter trying to argue against it. Understand it first.

It’s not really cool seeing someone spreading pseudoscience based on lack of understanding.

ThinkFreely:
in science we don’t claim to know everything, we don’t know it today doesn’t mean we won’t tomorrow. The presence of a missing link doesn’t totally discredit macroevolution, it’s just a call for more work because we are sure evolution whether micro or macro works.

Every one who knows elementary evolution knows that mutations are the primary cause of evolution, it happens always and it’s usually not dangerous. Without mutations, every organism will go extinct. Without mutations you can’t get different phenotypes in a specie. this is elementary evolution. Mutation is very important for our over all survival.

Educate yourself more about it. Macro evolution work, it’s the basis for everything we do. You don’t understand how it works, you can’t culture polio virus in monkeys if we don’t share common macroevolutionary tree with them.

It works well, yesterday, today and everyday...try and educate yourself about these things because the problem here is that we have someone who doesn’t fully understand the subject matter trying to argue against it. Understand it first.

It’s not really cool seeing someone spreading pseudoscience based on lack of understanding.

So you among those scientists that fails to tell people the truth, that beneficial mutations are rare. Or you don't even know about that. Well, research has shown that to be true in case you don't know.

My brother change into another specie, what is called macro-evolution is a dream. The Evolutionist are at debates because they know it's true. Some favor gradualism while some favor punctuated equilibrium. The fact is, we don't see new organisms made. All research to do that through breeding failed. Turn a chimp to a man let me see.

JMAN05:


So you among those scientists that fails to tell people the truth, that beneficial mutations are rare. Or you don't even know about that. Well, research has shown that to be true in case you don't know.

My brother change into another specie, what is called macro-evolution is a dream. The Evolutionist are at debates because they know it's true. Some favor gradualism while some favor punctuated equilibrium. The fact is, we don't see new organisms made. All research to do that through breeding failed. Turn a chimp to a man let me see.

Mutations happen at every point of meoisis. This is elementary biology, this is why it’s important to understand the basis so no one will mislead you.

Mutation is why you don’t look exactly like your siblings.

A chimp cannot turn to a man, go back to modern biology for secondary school, calm down and assimilate evolution. You will understand how it works.

You don’t even understand mutations, it’s shows that you don’t know how it works.

ThinkFreely:
Mutations happen at every point of meoisis. This is elementary biology, this is why it’s important to understand the basis so no one will mislead you.

Mutation is why you don’t look exactly like your siblings.

A chimp cannot turn to a man, go back to modern biology for secondary school, calm down and assimilate evolution. You will understand how it works.

You don’t even understand mutations, it’s shows that you don’t know how it works.

Ok I didn't say that mutations don't happen they do, but it seems like I've understood where the problem is. It is in secondary school biology class that you will not be told that mutations are hardly beneficial. When you progress however, when you make research from advance sources you would discover that mutations are not largely beneficial it is just one in a thousand mutations that comes up advantaged. Most aren't beneficial.

It will do you well if you make more research on this.

JMAN05:


Ok I didn't say that mutations don't happen they do, but it seems like I've understood where the problem is. It is in secondary school biology class that you will not be told that mutations are hardly beneficial. When you progress however, when you make research from advance sources you would discover that mutations are not largely beneficial it is just one in a thousand mutations that comes up advantaged. Most aren't beneficial.

It will do you well if you make more research on this.

Actually it’s Just one in thousands of mutations that is not beneficial. Go back and read about crossing over of chromosomes during meoisis and read about other former of mutations.
Stop seeing mutation from only the angle of DNA damage.

ThinkFreely:
Actually it’s Just one in thousands of mutations that is not beneficial. Go back and read about crossing over of chromosomes during meoisis and read about other former of mutations.
Stop seeing mutation from only the angle of DNA damage.

Thanks for agreeing.

Evolution.
Makes more sense.