@Axeroberts asks [quote] is there any DNA evidence showing the steps from one specie to another[/quote] Short answer: Yes, a ton.
Longer answer below copied from postings by newjaninev2
[sep][sep][sep][sep]
Humans and chimpanzees both carry inactive genes acquired from viruses. This occurs because some viruses insert a copy of their genome into the DNA of whichever species they infect. These are called retro-viruses... HIV is one such.
Where such viruses infect the cells that produce sperm and eggs, they can be passed on across generations.
The human genome contains thousands of these remnants of long-past infections... now rendered harmless... and so does the chimpanzee genome.
Most of them are in exactly the same place on both genomes. That’s astonishing, so I’ll repeat it: most of them are on [/\b]exactly the same place[/b] on both genomes.
Let’s choose an explanation from a few (non-exhaustive) options:
1. astonishing coincidence
2. when the gods created humans they decided to sprinkle around several thousand retro-viruses, and they put the preponderance of retroviruses at matching sites on both species because... umm... because... well... because... stop questioning the gods!
3. The majority of retroviruses match because [b]both species inherited them from a common ancestor,[/b] who had itself accumulated them from the line of its own descent.
The small number which do not match are the remnants of infections that each species has warded off independently since divergence from the common ancestor... as predicted by the Theory of Evolution.
_________________________
All species carry ‘silenced’ genes… these are genes that once caused certain proteins to be produced, but now no longer function in the original manner. Such genes are called pseudogenes.
Nearly all mammals have functional genes for expressing an enzyme [i](L-guluno-?-lactone oxidase)[/i] that allows the production of vitamin C, which is essential for proper metabolism.
I say ‘nearly all mammals’ because primates cannot produce their own vitamin C. In humans, there is a set of four genes that code for vitamin C production. As you may know, these genes are composed of many, many smaller units called nucleotides, so these four genes contain a very large number of such nucleotides (the human genome has 64 billion nucleotides}. The first three genes are fully functional, but the final gene in the sequence has a mutation in a single nucleotide, and this mutation prevents the sequence from completing. That’s why humans need to obtain vitamin C from their food… because the mechanism for producing it has become a pseudogene.
Across all primates (chimpanzees, bononbo, humans, and apes) not only is it the final gene in the sequence that is silenced, but within that gene the [b]same nucleotide[/b] carries the mutation that is responsible.
Now, why would this be?
1. astonishing coincidence
2. when the gods created all the species they put genetic pathways for vitamin C production into all mammals, but then inactivated a single nucleotide from among the four genes necessary for that production, inactivated the same nucleotide in all cases, and did that only in primates. They obviously thought this to be a tremendous joke to play, because we carry around 2,000 such pseudogenes.
3. All mammals developed the ability to produce vitamin C, but around 40 million years ago, in the ancestor common to all primates, that ability was removed by a mutation in a single nucleotide, and the deficit was passed to all primates due to [b]common descent during evolution.[/b]
_________________________
Why restrict ourselves to our common ancestry with all other apes?
We can easily go much further back and and see that humans have common ancestry with fish and with reptiles
In a female mammal there is a pair of tubes along which eggs travel from the ovaries to the uterus. These are called the Fallopian Tubes (salpinges). Sometimes when a human egg is ejected from an ovary it does not make it into the fallopian tube. This is because, quite oddly, the fallopian tube is not actually connected to the ovary. Rather, the opening of the fallopian tube envelops the ovary, like a too-large garden hose resting on a too-small spigot. The two are not actually attached, and sometimes an egg gets squirted out of the ovary and into the abdominal cavity instead of into the fallopian tube.
When this happens, it is usually of no consequence. The egg simply loses viability after a few days and is resorbed by the peritoneum - the thin wall of highly vascular tissue surrounding the abdominal cavity. No problem.
However, if an egg falls into the abdominal cavity and sperm arrives within a day or so, it might find this egg and fertilise it. The resulting embryo, completely unaware of how far it is from home, begins the process of growth, division, and tunnelling into whatever nearby tissue that it can find, usually the peritoneum but occasionally the outer covering of the large or small intestine, liver, or spleen. This is called an abdominal pregnancy
Abdominal pregnancies pose serious risks. In developing countries, they usually result in the death of the mother. In developed countries, they are easily spotted with ultrasounds and treated with surgical intervention to remove the doomed embryo and repair any damaged tissue or bleeding.
Despite creationists’ laughable claims of an ‘intelligent designer’, abdominal pregnancies are 100% the result of unintelligent design. Any reasonable plumber would have attached the fallopian tube to the ovary, thereby preventing tragic and often fatal mishaps. An ‘intelligent designer’ would never have created the small gap between the human ovary and Fallopian tube, so that an egg must cross this gap before it can travel through the tube and implant in the uterus.
In reality, the gap is a remnant of our fish and reptilian ancestors, who [b]shed eggs directly from the ovary to the outside of their bodies.[/b] The Fallopian tube is an imperfect connection because it evolved later as an add-on in mammals.
_________________________
Unlike other primates, humans walk on two legs (bipedalism). Gorillas, chimps, bonobos and orang-utans amble about using their feet and their knuckles (quadrupedalism). However, moving around on four limbs can be inefficient. On open ground, bipedalism bestows an evolutionary advantage by allowing humans to move much faster than other primates, but that comes at a cost (with evolution, there are no free lunches)
The intestines and other visceral organs are held together with thin sheets of connective tissue called mesenteries. Mesenteries are elastic and act to keep the gut loosely in place. Because we are bipedal, with an upright posture, these thin sheets should be suspended from the top of the abdominal cavity. Instead, they are attached to the back of the abdominal cavity. That makes sense for the other quadrupedal primates, because their gut is then well-supported when they walk on all fours. However, it makes no sense for us... [b]unless we have common ancestry with the quadrupedal primates.[/b]
Because of the stress of supporting our internal organs from the back, the mesenteries can easily tear, causing internal haemorrhaging and damage to our gut, requiring surgical intervention (this is a common injury in traffic accidents… mainly affecting those stupid enough not to wear a seatbelt). It can also happen to people who sit for long periods of time (drivers, office workers, etc) simply because of the stress and strain of the gut being attached to the back, rather than the top, of the abdominal cavity.
YOU, @Axeroberts, made the claim [quote] because animals don't turn into another specie overnight. And there gradual evolution doesn't exist. Looking at a bear with different colour fur is certainly not the evolution you think is happening.[/quote] YOU claimed that speciation doesn't exist, doesn't happen.
That is the claim I'm opposing here; don't keep trying to change the subject. The fossil record is overflowing with evidence of new species appearing and species going extinct. That article you linked involves folks tweaking the details of the processes. None of them agree with your claim that speciation doesn't happen.
This is so important I decided to post it at top level.
@Axeroberts says [quote]speculation is not fact. there is a point of speculation that is left to the imagination. why don't you just admit that?[/quote] Scientific theories are a lot more than "speculation." Scientific theories must make testable predictions and/or explanations; otherwise they are not in the realm of science. And to be accepted, they must make better predictions and/or explanations than alternate theories.
Why don't I admit what you mentioned? I will admit a whole heck of a lot more! There is no such thing as proof positive in science. You can disprove a theory with counter evidence but no accumulation of positive evidence constitutes [i]proof positive.[/i]
Let's take Newton's law of gravity. Sure, it predicts eclipses years in advance with better than a part per billion accuracy. Does that amount to a proof? No way! In fact, Newton's law makes wrong predictions about the precession of Mercury's orbit while Einstein's general relativity explains Mercury accurately. (Side note: we still use Newton's laws because they predict accurately enough for many situations; you just need to know when to step up to Einstein.)
If certainty is what you crave, then stay away from science. Science requires an attitude of skepticism towards all theories and all data. Science is always waiting for the next improved theory to supplant the existing pretty good theory, or the next startling observation to falsify the existing theory.
Where evolution enters the picture is evolution is the best explanation for the DNA record and the fossil record. Evolution has not yet explained everything, but it engenders the least skepticism. I could go on a lot further in this vein, but you've demonstrated a refusal to read my long pieces.
There, how's [b][i]that[/i][/b] for an admission??
@ElwoodBlues Bravo! I was once interested n this poster showing some mental discipline, and for a while seemed open to discussion and debate. but over time I saw the chauvinism of his theocratic stance. your well presented response the real answer to the creationists
@Pikachu If I see a photo of a chimp skull and a human skull and you see the same I could say the similarities are due to design. A designer would more likely use similar designs they know work. Random chance wouldn't. Shared ancestry doesn't happen in nature between kinds. It's make believe. This isn't my argument, I'm just saying the one seems more plausible than the other. You can't show evolution, I can't show creation. It's speculative.
[quote] If I see a photo of a chimp skull and a human skull and you see the same I could say the similarities are due to design[/quote]
You [i]could[/i] say that, sure. And perhaps if my examples had been about the similarity of human and chimp skulls you would have that opportunity. But you don't have to imagine hypothetical examples which you find easier to dismiss because i gave you two specific examples which you asked for and which i'd now like you to address in good faith.
[quote]This isn't my argument, I'm just saying the one seems more plausible than the other[/quote]
Oh I know. And i'm asking you to make that case. You're real bullish on the vague, ideological declarations but a bit thin when it comes down to actually addressing the data.
So i've done what you asked to "JUST SHOW EVOLUTION" in examples i think are compelling. If you want to hold the position that these examples are better explained using design....then do it. Explain them using design as the premise in a way which better accounts for the evidence than evolution.
Or is this another one of those "Don't know, don't care" situations?😏
I just did. Or at least i've just shown evidence which i feel is only consistently explained by evolution.
lol after all that digging your heels in and demanding i "Show evolution" i finally give it to you.... and you say [b][i] " Nuh uh, didn't happen. Creation!"[/i][/b] No attempt to address the evidence. No demonstration that you even tried to incorporate new information into your model. No thoughtful treatment at all.
Just a flat denial
You can do better than that. Or at least i assumed you could after being so insistent on being shown the evidence. Or was "A designer would more likely use similar designs they know work. Random chance wouldn't" you taking your best shot there? Because if so i can pretty easily dismantle that argument.
I'm not concerned. I'm happy to correct that misconception to anyone who wants to talk about it. Anyone who reaches their conclusion based solely on a picture and motivated reasoning is probably unreachable anyway.
lol agreed. They all resemble humans physically...in the same way a chimp resembles a human physically. But the fact that there is no obvious cut off between human and non-human demonstrates even to the layman that there is a smooth progression, a smooth evolutionary record between non-human apes and humanity.
I'm going to give you a tip: You're arguing from an ideological stance and not a scientific one. That puts you at an immediate disadvantage in this kind of debate. In order to attempt to overcome your handicap you need to take the time to familiarize yourself with the body of research and the evidence presented by the other side. Saying things like "Well it aint no fish" might serve as [i]something[/i] to say when you find yourself backed into a corner but they're not serving to put up an actual fight.
I say this because the more one learns about what evolution theory actually says rather than what they've been inoculated against, the more one realizes that it is simply a fact.
I have some criticisms but it's nothing I haven't covered with you before
One thing we never got onto is this idea and issue about the conclusions forced bt evolution. For example, do you believe in a common ancestor for all creatures roaming the Earth today?
a mighty wish. I support you motivations But I think this will be swamped with Science deniers, who , by definition cannot be educated. I will look back in to see how it roles out. best of luck,, I gt a few online resources you could use.
[quote]But I think this will be swamped with Science deniers[/quote]
So far it hasn't been. I've talked to @Axeroberts who seems pretty confrontational but hasn't really pushed back on the science i've shared with him and @Random3838 who says he doesn't deny evolution but isn't familiar with the evidence of "macro" evolution.
@Random3838 [quote]there is tons of evidence to support micro evolution. I dont know any substantial evidence to support macro evolution.[/quote] That's because there is no such thing as "macro" evolution. That's a word invented by creationists to disparage evolutionary theory. Literally every advancement made in evolution is microevolution. Millions of tiny, incremental steps over thousands of years.
