naijadeyhia:



Dude I know all about the laws of natural selection which was why I asked about the possibility of genetically modifying a dogs DNA to a cats or having it naturally evolve into that and even Seun said its highly improbable so he has given his own answer before the explanation he gave. His answer invalidates his explanation.

Simple!

Dang! yo not still getting the gist man.
You don't frigging tamper with it, let nature take it's course.

The moment you self-hatch or tamper with a soon-to-birth chicken's egg, you expose it to suffering cause it ain't just got that strength yet and you aren't allowing nature take it's course. It'd die eventually.

You don't just fuse a dog's DNA to that of a cat, No!. There are other ways to go about it, i think seun pointed it out already.

Now calm your nerves. Later bro.

naijadeyhia:


So you are now saying evolution could be based on mans error of assuming a new breed is a different specie so erroneously tagging it as such? ...hmmmmm interesting.


Pls everyone note that this comment is from a professed biologist o.

That new breed was the begining, now consider the if the breed undergoes genetic changes too and it goes on to tenth generation.
Are you saying the tenth generational breed will still remain a pawpaw?!
And thats how evolution works, it takes TIME!

UyiIredia:
@ OP Your question isn't a good one if you want to rebut a belief in evolution. That said it still amazes me that such a bad theory grasped the minds of many people especially atheists. Lemme just quickly give one strong reason why the theory makes no sense at all. Each species has its own unique genetic code. Evolution requires that a species e.g. fishes changes into another e.g. reptiles. But this is not possible because that would require wide ranging modifications to the genetic code of a species. And if there's anything we've observed its that species conserve their genetic code. There's no means of adding new genetic information to get a new species from a former one. That can't happen.

My brother I did not want to make my question too complex before they say they do not understand hence why I used a very simple and probably bad but true theory as the basis of my OP.

Yet they cannot answer it.

Seun:

It's unlikely that a dog would give birth to a cat, but suppose you dumped some dogs on an island full of mice and small birds; nothing else. The dogs might start changing in ways that will make them similar to cats. Over a long period of time, they will become smaller and more agile. By chance, a puppy might be born with slightly retractable claws which would make it much easier to catch mice. That trait would spread quickly because it's enormously advantageous. Night vision will gradually improve because mice are nocturnal. Eventually you'll end up with an island full of dogs that are, essentially, cat-dogs. If the island remained isolated long enough, a time would come when if you mated them with normal dogs, there would be puppies but the puppies would be sterile, like tigers x lions. A time will come when the differences between them would be so great that, like cats, it'd be impossible to cross breed the cat-dogs with regular dogs. That's how evolution gives rise to new species.

Just goes to show how evolution involves wishful thinking.

naijadeyhia:



My brother I did not want to make my question too complex before they say they do not understand hence why I used a very simple and probably bad but true theory as the basis of my OP.

Yet they cannot answer it.

Okay. Alright.

naijadeyhia:


So you are now saying evolution could be based on mans error of assuming a new breed is a different specie so erroneously tagging it as such? ...hmmmmm interesting.


Pls everyone note that this comment is from a professed biologist o.

I never said "error" i meant; adaptation, mutation and of course evolution.

UyiIredia:


Okay. Alright.

Ahh Uyi is here..
Howdy bro?
What happend to you, you'v repented?!

Ofemmanu1:

That new breed was the begining, now consider the if the breed undergoes genetic changes too and it goes on to tenth generation.
Are you saying the tenth generational breed will still remain a pawpaw?!
And thats how evolution works, it takes TIME!

So your assumption is still that man could have made an error somehwere along the line and we just continued in that error right? Hmmmmm more interesting

waxxydude:
Dang! yo not still getting the gist man.
You don't frigging tamper with it, let nature take it's course.

The moment you self-hatch or tamper with a soon-to-birth chicken's egg, you expose it to suffering cause it ain't just got that strength yet and you aren't allowing nature take it's course. It'd die eventually.

You don't just fuse a dog's DNA to that of a cat, No!. There are other ways to go about it, i think seun pointed it out already.

Now calm your nerves. Later bro.

SO IF DELIBERATE ATTEMPTS TO MODIFY A DOGS GENES TO BE THAT OF A CAT CANNOT HAPPEN SO WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT RANDOMNESS OR EVOLUTION CAN ACHIEVE THAT TO PERFECTION?

Ofemmanu1:

I never said "error" i meant; adaptation, mutation and of course evolution.

We can decide to give that new breed a new name, and that's the begining of a new line of specie.


The above was your comment which suggests that man could have easily erroneously tampered with the process and rather than admit that they chose to continue in their error.
If you a biologist could reason this way today what stops another biologist from reasoning same way hundreds of years ago?

naijadeyhia:


We can decide to give that new breed a new name, and that's the begining of a new line of specie.


The above was your comment which suggests that man could have easily erroneously tampered with the process and rather than admit that they chose to continue in their error.
If you a biologist could reason this way today what stops another biologist from reasoning same way hundreds of years ago?

That's it..
We continue in it.
Else, we destroy the universe.

Ofemmanu1:

That's it..
We continue in it.
Else, we destroy the universe.

Hahahahaha so now you swing again and agree to error.

Again everyone note: this is coming from a biologist o.

Cc seun

At least I know seun isnt a biologist and you ofemmanu1 knows more than seun does in that field.

naijadeyhia:



Create another thread if you want to prove the existence of God. This is about evolution. Do not shift our focus.

I don't need to, you need to open up your mind to understand this thing "Evolution".

You don't just zing to the lab to combine a dog and cat DNA to evolve a new specie overnight, NO, nature does that, and it takes Thousand of centuries, millenium. It's not done overnight bro, it's not.

And you'd be damned to think the present set of animals are same with ones found in million years ago.

[uote author=naijadeyhia post=47499989]


SO IF DELIBERATE ATTEMPTS TO MODIFY A DOGS GENES TO BE THAT OF A CAT CANNOT HAPPEN SO WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT RANDOMNESS OR EVOLUTION CAN ACHIEVE THAT TO PERFECTION?[/quote]
"

waxxydude:
I don't need to, you need to open up your mind to understand this thing "Evolution".

You don't just zing to the lab to combine a dog and cat DNA to evolve a new specie overnight, NO, nature does that, and it takes Thousand of centuries, millenium. It's not done overnight bro, it's not.

And you'd be damned to think the present set of animals are same with ones found in million years ago.

And I said stop trying to shift our focus.

Your science with its roots in evolution said categorically that it is IMPOSSIBLE to merge a dogs DNA with a cats DNA even if they attempt the genetic modificarion themselves for eons.

If Science cannot do it throufh deliberate actions how can evolution do it to perfection through randomness?

Ofemmanu1:

There was never a chance for Pasteur nor the scientists of his time to create the virus-eating bacteria.
It happened by an error..
It fcking happened and it was named "Bacteriophages"

Thank you for admitting they created it. Did it evolve naturally?

naijadeyhia:

Thank you for admitting they created it. Did it evolve naturally?

They couldnt create it, it happened by chance, an error.

Ofemmanu1:

They couldnt create it, it happened by chance, an error.

[b]History Edit

In 1896, Ernest Hanbury Hankin reported that something in the waters of the Ganges and Yamuna rivers in India had marked antibacterial action against cholera and could pass through a very fine porcelain filter[citation needed]. In 1915, British bacteriologist Frederick Twort, superintendent of the Brown Institution of London, discovered a small agent that infected and killed bacteria. He believed the agent must be one of the following:

a stage in the life cycle of the bacteria;
an enzyme produced by the bacteria themselves; or
a virus that grew on and destroyed the bacteria.[citation needed]
Twort's work was interrupted by the onset of World War I and shortage of funding. Independently, French-Canadian microbiologist Félix d'Hérelle, working at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, announced on 3 September 1917, that he had discovered "an invisible, antagonistic microbe of the dysentery bacillus". For d’Hérelle, there was no question as to the nature of his discovery: "In a flash I had understood: what caused my clear spots was in fact an invisible microbe … a virus parasitic on bacteria."[7] D'Hérelle called the virus a bacteriophage or bacteria-eater (from the Greek phagein meaning to eat). He also recorded a dramatic account of a man suffering from dysentery who was restored to good health by the bacteriophages.[8] It was D'Herelle who conducted much research into bacteriophages and introduced the concept of phage therapy.[9]

In 1969, Max Delbrück, Alfred Hershey and Salvador Luria were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for their discoveries of the replication of viruses and their genetic structure.[[/b]


Show me how that expose on bacteriophage said they came about by error or even mention pasteur?

They were discovered existing already as they were. So no link to it evolving or being created by "error". I think you need to change professions.

naijadeyhia:



Hahahahaha so now you swing again and agree to error.

Again everyone note: this is coming from a biologist o.

Cc seun

At least I know seun isnt a biologist and you ofemmanu1 knows more than seun does in that field.

Ohh comon!
That what's you wanna hear..
Since i neither have the time nor the magic to explain things to you.

Ofemmanu1:

Ohh comon!
That what's you wanna hear..
Since i neither have the time and magic to explain things to you.

Is this whole process frustrating? I hope not because I am "learning and being enlightened" so much by you

naijadeyhia:



[b]History Edit

In 1896, Ernest Hanbury Hankin reported that something in the waters of the Ganges and Yamuna rivers in India had marked antibacterial action against cholera and could pass through a very fine porcelain filter[citation needed]. In 1915, British bacteriologist Frederick Twort, superintendent of the Brown Institution of London, discovered a small agent that infected and killed bacteria. He believed the agent must be one of the following:

a stage in the life cycle of the bacteria;
an enzyme produced by the bacteria themselves; or
a virus that grew on and destroyed the bacteria.[citation needed]
Twort's work was interrupted by the onset of World War I and shortage of funding. Independently, French-Canadian microbiologist Félix d'Hérelle, working at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, announced on 3 September 1917, that he had discovered "an invisible, antagonistic microbe of the dysentery bacillus". For d’Hérelle, there was no question as to the nature of his discovery: "In a flash I had understood: what caused my clear spots was in fact an invisible microbe … a virus parasitic on bacteria."[7] D'Hérelle called the virus a bacteriophage or bacteria-eater (from the Greek phagein meaning to eat). He also recorded a dramatic account of a man suffering from dysentery who was restored to good health by the bacteriophages.[8] It was D'Herelle who conducted much research into bacteriophages and introduced the concept of phage therapy.[9]

In 1969, Max Delbrück, Alfred Hershey and Salvador Luria were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for their discoveries of the replication of viruses and their genetic structure.[[/b]


Show me how that expose on bacteriophage said they came about by error or even mention pasteur?

They were discovered existing already as they were. So no link to it evolving or being created by "error". I think you need to change professions.

Hahahahahaha.
Your last sentence got me cracking big time..
That is microbiology tho.
Well, i think we should channel this energy to how we can do our Nation good.

Ofemmanu1:

Hahahahahaha.
Your last sentence got me cracking big time..
That is microbiology tho.
Well, i think we should channel this energy to how we can do our Nation good.

I have taken you to the link excerpt showing how bacteriophage came about and you are laughing at your own ignorance?

I said show me there how it came about via error while they were trying to create it. Simply show me.

naijadeyhia:



I have taken you to the link excerpt showing how bacteriophage came about and you are laughing at your own ignorance?

I said show me there how it came about via error while they were trying to create it. Simply show me.

Yes, my error, i never disputed it.
It's your last sentence that cracked me up.
Sorry, my bad.
Meanwhile, have you read bout "error catastrophe" ?!
Why not check it out.

Ofemmanu1:

Yes, my error, i never disputed it.

Thank you for accepted the error again. This shows that even biologists are prone to errors. Thank you once again.

naijadeyhia:


Thank you for accepted the error again. This shows that even biologists are prone to errors. Thank you once again.

Humans are prone to errors, without it humans won't stay.
Youre welcome, it's no big deal.

Ofemmanu1:

Humans are prone to errors, without it humans won't stay.

We are saying the same thing. Scientists, regular people are human. So we are saying the same thing.

naijadeyhia:
I have a good question about evolution. If species are evolving, how come we don't see any doggie-cats? How about monkey-bats? Why I don't even see an ant with a human head or anything in nature that is in the process of evolving into something else. My cat is still a cat and has never evolved into a pig. Examine your pets. Maybe your parakeet or parrot is evolving into a buffalo? Do you see any buffalo fur on it? I do not see any practical, common-sense, evidence of any evolution taking place. It it were, we are bound to see some animals of the millions on earth "evolving" into a new life form. All the zoo animals I see in the zoos are not evolving. It ain't happening folks! Show me the proof. Show me the evidence. So far, God has shown his hand. He said he created the creatures and his creatures are visible proof of what he said has become visible before your very eyes. Now show me proof that evolution is real. I want to see it for myself. I want real evidence that would be held up in any court of law. Not speculation or theory... real proof.

Now don't be a Human Baboon about this subject or you will demonstrate yourself as proof-positive that some sort of dehumanizing evolution is taking place. Be sensible and respectful. It is a good question. How come we see not one evidence of any mammal, human or beast evolving? Seems to me, there is no evolution taking place except in the fantasy of the mind, the dreamer of dreams. Present the evidence to the judge so the jury can see the evidence and make a reasonable decision. Present actual evidence, not hearsay or preponderance. The real thing is needed. Can you deliver?

Cc cloudgoddess et al

So from what you have posted here, I can conclude that you know absolutely nothing about what evolution actually involves and what the Theory of Evolution actually states. Like most creationists, you are starting from below ground zero because not only do you not know the basics of the concept you're trying to refute, but in addition you have a huge pile of ridiculous and false misconceptions about it (taught to you by other creationists, perhaps your parents, pastors, and religious peers) that is literally blocking you from being able to process an accurate understanding.

Here are some of them:

If species are evolving, how come we don't see any doggie-cats? How about monkey-bats?

Like all related species, dogs & cats split from a common ancestor millions of years ago via very small genetic changes that accumulated from generation to generation. Evolution isn't a random mashing together of different species.

Why I don't even see an ant with a human head or anything in nature that is in the process of evolving into something else.

Would a 10 pound head on a 1 gram body be beneficial to the survival of any organism? Would the development of such a creature even obey the laws of physics? Listen to yourself.

I do not see any practical, common-sense, evidence of any evolution taking place.

Because your view of "evolution" is straight out of Pokemon or Animorphs. No evolutionary biologist has ever claimed any of the things you've mentioned being possible via evolutionary processes.

Before I risk wasting my breath by continuing, I want you to first understand the total nonsense present in your post, and that NONE of that accurately describes the process of evolution. Then I will explain to you what actual evolution entails.

Ofemmanu1:

Yes, my error, i never disputed it.
It's your last sentence that cracked me up.
Sorry, my bad.
Meanwhile, have you read bout "error catastrophe" ?!
Why not check it out.

Error of catastrophe was proposed by Leslie Orgel in 1963 and it was originally a very popular theory because it made a great deal of sense. Although the theory per se has by now been largely discarded due to a lack of experimental supporting evidence, elements of the theory are still being investigated as possible factors in aging

UyiIredia:
Just goes to show how evolution involves wishful thinking.

Cloudgoddess is here now. Bye.

cloudgoddess:

So from what you have posted here, I can conclude that you know absolutely nothing about what evolution actually involves and what the Theory of Evolution actually states. Like most creationists, you are starting from below ground zero because not only do you not know the basics of the concept you're trying to refute, but in addition you have a huge pile of ridiculous and false misconceptions about it (taught to you by other creationists, perhaps your parents, pastors, and religious peers) that is literally blocking you from being able to process an accurate understanding.

Here are some of them:

Like all related species, dogs & cats split from a common ancestor millions of years ago via very small genetic changes that accumulated from generation to generation. Evolution isn't a random mashing together of different species.


Would a 10 pound head on a 1 gram body be beneficial to the survival of any organism? Would the development of such a creature even obey the laws of physics? Listen to yourself.


Because your view of "evolution" is straight out of Pokemon or Animorphs. No evolutionary biologist has ever claimed any of the things you've mentioned being possible via evolutionary processes.

Before I risk wasting my breath by continuing, I want you to first understand the total nonsense present in your post, and that NONE of that accurately describes the process of evolution. Then I will explain to you what actual evolution entails.

I will oblige you with a response and I will just focus on one aspect of your response.


Dogs and cats split from a common ancestor millions of years ago right? SHOW ME THAT ANCESTOR. .....I MEAN THE VERY FIRST ANCESTOR THEY ALLEGEDLY SPLIT FROM



if dogs and cats came from a singular ancestor how come generically there is no way you can merge a Dogs DNA with that of a cat even to the point of giving the cat dog legs or dog eyes or dog penis.

If you can answer these then I will assume you made sense with your response because FYI nobody brainwashed me afterall in school I also learnt biology, physics and chemistry. This is my personal research so dont go there.

Answer the questions.

Seun:
Cloudgoddess is here now. Bye.

Seun don run. See serious taking off.

cloudgoddess:

So from what you have posted here, I can conclude that you know absolutely nothing about what evolution actually involves and what the Theory of Evolution actually states. Like most creationists, you are starting from below ground zero because not only do you not know the basics of the concept you're trying to refute, but in addition you have a huge pile of ridiculous and false misconceptions about it (taught to you by other creationists, perhaps your parents, pastors, and religious peers) that is literally blocking you from being able to process an accurate understanding.

Here are some of them:

Like all related species, dogs & cats split from a common ancestor millions of years ago via very small genetic changes that accumulated from generation to generation. Evolution isn't a random mashing together of different species.


Would a 10 pound head on a 1 gram body be beneficial to the survival of any organism? Would the development of such a creature even obey the laws of physics? [/b]Listen to yourself.


Because your view of "evolution" is straight out of Pokemon or Animorphs. [b]No evolutionary biologist has ever claimed any of the things you've mentioned being possible via evolutionary processes.

Before I risk wasting my breath by continuing, I want you to first understand the total nonsense present in your post, and that NONE of that accurately describes the process of evolution. Then I will explain to you what actual evolution entails.

I helped u with some highlights in your post.

So evolution isnt random so what is it? Intelligent?

If evolutionary scientists cannot lay claim to any of my expectations being an evolutionary reality then then is APE to MAN or FISH to MAN a reality?


Before you talk about a 10 pound head not making sense on an ant first talk about how an ant sized human head wouldnt make sense to the laws of physics and science.