Researchers Trace Evolution To Relatively Simple Genetic Changes

[carlosMM]

I'll try, but it probably won't convince you.

let me make it easy for you:

bring evidence for a global flood that can be the biblical flood.

 

[HighlandWarrior]

hehe, you fall into the same old traps again!

First of all, you use the 'all at once' thingy again. it is as dumb as it is for eyes or wings! You declare that the impossible cannot happen, thus the possible is impossible - what great logic!


maybe you could do something smart instead, and get a book on paleobotany?
Check out the many intermediate forms from the fossil record.....

and: what Darwin didn't know - is well known today. So if Darwin didn't understand something, does it mean we can't know it either?
Darwin didn't know jetliners - does that mean we today can't know how to build them?

Now, for your school website: it is not meant to contain all information. Rather, it is a summary. Actually, to a sane and educated person with some basic knowledge of plants it shows nicely the evolutionary paths. Not to someone who's uneducated, that's true.

but I doubt an internal Mercedes web page would give you the ability to build an SLK either

i guess you didnt read past my first sentence.

what is the benifit of a stamen with no pollen? what would cause only those flowering plants with a stamen(of half a stamen however it evolved...) to dominate the flowering plants with no stamen? what is the evolutionary benifit of it? also, since this flowering plant never had a stamen gene, how did it make a new gene for stamen growth? if evolution is a theory, it has been proven by the scientific method correct to "evolve" from a hypote"noose" to a theory?

 

[MeteorPunch]

@carlosMM: I'll try to post something, but it won't be until tomorrow at least.

 

[carlosMM]

i guess you didnt read past my first sentence.

I did - you again assume that you need both at the same time and in todays function.

if you did as I suggested and simply took a textbook and read up on the topic you'd see that you are wrong. But noooooo, you're too lazy!
You dare doubt the experts based on ignorance and lazyness. Such arrogant behaviour will be punished one day, I can only hope.

what is the benifit of a stamen with no pollen?

An idiotic question, and a loaded one, but you are too ignorant to know it is BS.

but, as I can see you'll never pick up that textbook:

a stamen and pollen are simply derived versions of older structures. They became what they are by a series of tiny changes. never was there a point where suddenly a new structure emerged.

Basically, a stamen is nothing but the megasporangia fused and reshaped.
Pollen is nothing but a microspore.
And a modern day flowering plant still does the same as algae do, only that the haploid generation is embedded in the diploid one.

Let's see: did you know that plants change between a diploid and a haploid generation? Did you know that seeds are NOT comparable to human gametes, but rather to a developed embryo? Did you know that a moss does the same thing as a flowering plant or fern (nourish one generation on the other), but that in mosses the large and 'green' (chlorophyll-bearing) generation is the haploid one?


No?


So how dare you doubt the experts?

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[HighlandWarrior]

I did - you again assume that you need both at the same time and in todays function.

if you did as I suggested and simply took a textbook and read up on the topic you'd see that you are wrong. But noooooo, you're too lazy!
You dare doubt the experts based on ignorance and lazyness. Such arrogant behaviour will be punished one day, I can only hope.


An idiotic question, and a loaded one, but you are too ignorant to know it is BS.

but, as I can see you'll never pick up that textbook:

a stamen and pollen are simply derived versions of older structures. They became what they are by a series of tiny changes. never was there a point where suddenly a new structure emerged.

Basically, a stamen is nothing but the megasporangia fused and reshaped.
Pollen is nothing but a microspore.
And a modern day flowering plant still does the same as algae do, only that the haploid generation is embedded in the diploid one.

Let's see: did you know that plants change between a diploid and a haploid generation? Did you know that seeds are NOT comparable to human gametes, but rather to a developed embryo? Did you know that a moss does the same thing as a flowering plant or fern (nourish one generation on the other), but that in mosses the large and 'green' (chlorophyll-bearing) generation is the haploid one?


No?


So how dare you doubt the experts?

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

no one is allowed to doubt the "experts" of science

a stamen and pollen are simply derived versions of older structures. They became what they are by a series of tiny changes. never was there a point where suddenly a new structure emerged.

is there a fossil record of these changes? i'd like to see some proof before i go reading a book with alot of "thinks" "may haves" and "we believes"

 

[Mise]

no one is allowed to doubt the "experts" of science

I suppose if your doctor said you needed an operation but your barber said you just needed some frogs and snails and puppy dogs tails you'd take trust him over the professional??

 

[carlosMM]

no one is allowed to doubt the "experts" of science

no, but nobody who is as lacking in information may do so based on his lack!

if your read up on the topic (you can always ask me where to get info, I'm always willing to point you to literature and web sources as well as point out easy to do experiments, and so are others here) and THEN doubt them based on KNOWLEDGE or own EXPERIMENTS, then you' be welcome.

is there a fossil record of these changes? i'd like to see some proof before i go reading a book with alot of "thinks" "may haves" and "we believes"

there is ample evidence.
I sadly do not know (off the top of my head) a book that is up to date on paleobotany, but any basic paleobotany course will contain the necessary info. Also, most botany 101 courses should contain this. Maybe you can find something on the web? I'll look.

 

[Smidlee]

no where does it say how they actually evolved only what "some scientists think"

how is that good enough to accept? that's very poor proof. i expect much better from a rock solid theory i'd be a lunatic fundie religious zealot to not accept...

So you are finding Darwin's "The little eyeball that could" story too hard to swallow too, huh? Sound like something from the tweyelight zone to me.

 

[Smidlee]

plants? i'd like to know how flowering plants evolved! seems very random a plant would grow a pistil and stamen and an ovule and everything else all at once! if not at once what would be the benefit to the flowering plant to have a just a pistil, or just a stamen not to mention pollen itself on the stamen?

http://scitec.uwichill.edu.bb/bcs/bl14apl/flow1.htm

The flowering plants or angiosperms emerged in the Cretaceous period, some 130 million years ago. Their origin Charles Darwin described as "that abominable mystery".

school website about plant evolution...

http://www.bio.miami.edu/tom/bil160/bil160goods/12_toland.html

read for yourself, tell me if you're convinced about plant evolution after that.

there is a lot in common in manufacturing plants and green plants which both use the laws of thermodynamics can produce a product. Yet the green plants are a lot more efficient than any man-made factory even with our knowledge of the law of thermodynamics.
This is also true when compare to the human brain to a super-computer. The greatest enemy of a PC is heat. the brain is many time more powerful than a big super-computer yet it's uses extremely low wattages compare to even a normal PC. This is probably one reason many engineers rejects evolution since it claims what they design with the complex mathematic of thermodynamics was done better and a lot more efficient by random mutation.

 

[Mise]

there is a lot in common in manufacturing plants and green plants which both use the laws of thermodynamics can produce a product. Yet the green plants are a lot more efficient than any man-made factory even with our knowledge of the law of thermodynamics.
This is also true when compare to the human brain to a super-computer. The greatest enemy of a PC is heat. the brain is many time more powerful than a big super-computer yet it's uses extremely low wattages compare to even a normal PC. This is probably one reason many engineers rejects evolution since it claims what they design with the complex mathematic of thermodynamics was done better and a lot more efficient by random mutation.

What an absurd arguement! If you gave me 4.6 billion years I'm sure I could come up with a plant as efficient as a tulip...

 

[HighlandWarrior]

So you are finding Darwin's "The little eyeball that could" story too hard to swallow too, huh? Sound like something from the tweyelight zone to me.

ive found it hard to believe since 3rd grade when we learned how the earth was formed. matter does not just come from nowhere, somehow the matter that formed the earth came from somewhere, but where? matter cannot be made from nothing. i refuse to accept a theory that has not been proven by the scientific method.

@carlos, point me in the direction a good site on origin of life.

 

[Smidlee]

What an absurd arguement! If you gave me 4.6 billion years I'm sure I could come up with a plant as efficient as a tulip...

And if you did, it would point to intelligent design.

 

[Perfection]

there is a lot in common in manufacturing plants and green
plants which both use the laws of thermodynamics can produce a product. Yet the
green plants are a lot more efficient than any man-made factory even with our
knowledge of the law of thermodynamics.
This is also true when compare to the human brain to a super-computer. The
greatest enemy of a PC is heat. the brain is many time more powerful than a big
super-computer yet it's uses extremely low wattages compare to even a normal PC.
This is probably one reason many engineers rejects evolution since it claims
what they design with the complex mathematic of thermodynamics was done b
etter and a lot more efficient by random mutation.

Well, photosynthesis isn't that effiecient, there's a number of phenomena that
dirastically reduce its efficiency (the presence of oxygen). Also you cannot expect
engineers to top nature yet, even though natural selection (not just random
mutation, natural selection is the key to evolution because it provides direction) is a slower mechanism,
it's been going on a lot longer and a lot more widespread then engineering has.
As for the engineers, while it may be true that a few nutcases may not believe in
evolution the vast majority of people in technical professions do.

 

[Perfection]

And if you did, it would point to intelligent design.

How so? Just because it's possible to design plants doesn't mean it happened.

 

[The Last Conformist]

ive found it hard to believe since 3rd grade when we learned how the earth was formed. matter does not just come from nowhere, somehow the matter that formed the earth came from somewhere, but where?

The Earth coalesced out of the solar nebula.

 

[Smidlee]

Well, photosynthesis isn't that effiecient, there's a number of phenomena that
dirastically reduce its efficiency (the presence of oxygen). Also you cannot expect
engineers to top nature yet, even though natural selection (not just random
mutation, natural selection is the key to evolution because it provides direction) is a slower mechanism,
it's been going on a lot longer and a lot more widespread then engineering has.
As for the engineers, while it may be true that a few nutcases may not believe in
evolution the vast majority of people in technical professions do.

We christians called this FAITH. While evolutionist is looking for their blessed hope: a natural mechanism which builds complexies of nature, we christians looks for our blessed hope; Jesus Christ which all things was created call us home. I guess we have to see who is right.
I love evolutionist's circular logic too. All real scientist believe in evolution because any scientist who questions evolution isn't a real scientists but is a nutcase. Nutcases have been right before.

 

[Perfection]

We christians called this FAITH.

That's where people know
they're right, but have no idea why, so just try to pass it off as a virtue!

While evolutionist is looking for their blessed hope: a natural
mechanism which builds complexies of nature,

Actually we already found
it! We're now just working out the details

we christians looks for our blessed hope; Jesus Christ which all
things was created call us home. I guess we have to see who is right.

Well, good luck finding it, noone has seem to find it

I love evolutionist's circular logic too. All real scientist
believe in evolution
because any scientist who questions evolution isn't a real scientists but is a
nutcase. Nutcases have been right before.

Well, that's a stupid strawman!

Real scientists tend to believe in evolution because there's a plethora of evidence for
it, see my thread for some of the compelling evidence. Creationist nutcases argue philosophically and try to poke lame holes while offering
no evidence. This is a masquarade of science. Creationists offer no (legitimate) evidence and thus are not worthy as being labeled creationists.

A scientist who questions evolution is not neccesarily a nutcase, but if he offers no
evidence or bases it on faith or religion or morality, then he is rightfully labeled so.

 

[HighlandWarrior]

The Earth coalesced out of the solar nebula.

where did that come from?

 

[Perfection]

where did that come from?

Are you just going to ask this until we get to the big bang?

 

[The Last Conformist]

where did that come from?

The fragmentation of a larger nebula into a number of smaller, denser, protostellar nebulae. Duh!

This isn't a path I'd like to walk down if I believed in a Creator ...