Evolution is now A FACT OF LIFE

[schmuck]

---

when you say there's an increase/acquisition of traits thru evolution, how do you explain these acquisition of traits?

the underlying explanation in DNA is that there is only a reshuffling of 4 bases, and nothing more. On the DNA level, was there anything added or acquired?

Evolution is acquiring of traits for survival.. but this *acquisition* is not really acquisition, but just a mere reshuffling of DNA, and getting the right sequence to achieve that trait required for survival. So its not really acquisition, its just a race of getting the combination correct in time for survival. Otherwise, if you don't adjust your DNA at the right time, either you adjust it too early, or adjust it too late, then you basically wont survive. That's where evolution is, I think, mistaken in its definition. There is no acquisition of traits.

correct, acquisition means getting new code sequences.

But where did you get the definition nga ang "acquisition", as used in evolution, means the increase in 4 bases?
mao na akong nakalibgan.

[bluedes]

correct, acquisition means getting new code sequences.

But where did you get the definition nga ang "acquisition", as used in evolution, means the increase in 4 bases?
mao na akong nakalibgan.

getting new code sequences? how the heck do you get new code sequences? from what i've learned, getting new code sequences is a misnomer.. please explain what you mean by this..

[Tirong-say]

Creationism aka Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, which side are you?

No offense,but how come that the evolution side of the scale is empty.......he-he

[brownprose]

No offense,but how come that the evolution side of the scale is empty.......he-he

bitaw hehehe ... the number speaks that not one scientific paper has been presented by creationists for peer review.

[schmuck]

getting new code sequences? how the heck do you get new code sequences? from what i've learned, getting new code sequences is a misnomer.. please explain what you mean by this..

heard of mutation?

[brownprose]

“The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right — mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive ancestors. Our genes show that scientific creationism cannot be true. The response to all those who thump their bible [sic] and say there is no proof, no test and no evidence in support of evolution is, ‘The proof is right here, in our genes.” Source: Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, “Darwin vindicated!”

Notes about Caplan. Caplan is the recipient of many awards and honors including the McGovern Medal of the American Medical Writers Association and the Franklin Award from the City of Philadelphia. He was a person of the Year 2001 from USA Today, one of the fifty most influential people in American health care by Modern Health Care magazine, one of the ten most influential people in America in biotechnology by the National Journal and one of the ten most influential people in the ethics of biotechnology by the editors of Nature Biotechnology.He holds seven honorary degrees from colleges and medical schools. Discover magazine in December, 2008 named him one of the ten most influential people in science.

Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things. ~ Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Human Genome Project.

Other notes about Collins: Francis Collins was recently appointed by President Obama as the 16th Director of the National Institutes of Health. Collins' accomplishments have been recognized by numerous awards and honors, including election to the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences. He also received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and was a Kilby International Awards recipient in 1993.

Science has already declared it [evolution] to be a fact beyond any reasonable doubt

[brownprose]

@schmuck and bluedes

Useful links to your discussion
- Genotype - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Genetic programming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[brownprose]

For the creationists and atheists. This may be a good read.

"An Evolution for Evangelicals" by Kathleen Parker. Interesting article from Washington Post ---> Kathleen Parker - A Physician-Geneticist Seeks to Foster Both Faith and Science - washingtonpost.com

Excerpts of her article: “Helping fundamentalists evolve can only be good for civilization."

[Ger]

...guess i'll comeback later for the conclusion.

xbot_got_muted

[Thugstaz Hustlaz]

You're not making sense. Random mutation is not the whole essence of evolution. Read, Adaptation,
Genetic drift, Gene flow, Mutation, Natural selection, Speciation

Hey, don't put words in mouth. I said until and unless randomness/natural selection can be proven to be evolvers, that leaves the door open for some as-yet unknown influence that can have an ultra-organizing effect on things. In the past genes were "unseen" but were nonetheless exerting tremendous influence on what was seen. It's not like there aren't precedents.



twkzzzzzzz.....!