Is evolution proven science or theory

[PRB]

from a scientific focus....why is it proven science?

[Dusty]

It's bullshit.

[PRB]

within the same species yes....and it is a duplication of already existing DNA....does it create a totally new DNA chain?
i.e....does it change the pattern of a HOX gene or its purpose to create a dif species

[PRB]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

No. Domains with independent functions mix to combine and produce new complex functions.

Over several generations.

A distinct species is created when a population of that species is physically isolated form the rest, forming its own distinct gene pool. Natural selection will produce mutations and traits that the rest of the species will not develop. Eventually, so many mutations will build that the two species are incompatible with each other and cannot interbreed.

Viola - a distinct species.

Damnit, PRB, now I've got TWO posts in this hodgepodge!

interesting, an example please. And that is an example of devolving is it not...or a lessening of DNA strain?

[PRB]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

It occurs over several generations of organisms through gene duplication. This addition is usually free from selective pressure, so there is no negative effect on the host organism.




And that, in a nutshell, is why my involvment in this discussion is limited to the above fact.

or too put it another way...Has a mutation been observed which has added new and beneficial genetic information to the pre existing gene pool which was inherited from the parents of the mutant?

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by PRB

or too put it another way...Has a mutation been observed which has added new and beneficial genetic information to the pre existing gene pool which was inherited from the parents of the mutant?

Experiments have been done on thousands of successive generations of fruit flies for over a century to test exactly that question.

The conclusion: <crickets chirping>.

[PRB]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

See post #23.... or antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Or human lactose tolerance.

it is a scientific fact that bacteria can become resistant to antb's via mutation via an anti pen enzyme...this mutation, is caused by a resorting or loss of the parent bacterias pre existing DNA, not a creation of new genetic information

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

See post #23.... or antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Affirming the consequent.

How do we know the bacteria had increased viability because of improved information in the mutated section of DNA?
It could very well have had increased viability because of lost information.

This would be consistent with PRB's view.

<edit>

Looks like PRB beat me to the trigger.

[PRB]

Darwinism is not the mutation of existing DNA within a species that changes that species to creat a sub species......what we've been discussing.
Darwinism is the creation of a new species, a complete and dif strain of DNA, from a mutation in another dif species.
Someone give me a scientific example of a DNA change that included HOX gene mutation that added beneficial replicating DNA that translated to a complete species change.....as that is Darwinism.
Since this had to happen thousands of times we must have lots of examples.

[PRB]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

Absolutely.

Just ask the radiation resistant fungi inside Chernobyl.

When a fungi or bacteria becomes resistant

However, bacteria, fungi etc multiply radidy, accumulating genetic losses due to mutation....those are micro changes within the same species and we've agreed these exist. It is not a new organism, just a rearangement of its DNA with mutation.......iotw, it ain't a bird.

[PRB]

That's because I am older than 47 ....I'll look into that, looks interesting, the theory of it.
Can she, or does she, point to a definitive example in the macro sense or is she postulating at this point.
Being widely 'accepted' as a theory doesn't overy impress as Darwinism is so widely 'accepted' in the same vein.
If there is macro proof then that is a totally dif story.

Trapper, break it down for me in a nutshell....how has her theory changed the then know operational DNA experience of natural barrier, and mutation and natural selection?

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by PRB

That's because I am older than 47 ....I'll look into that, looks interesting, the theory of it.
Can she, or does she, point to a definitive example in the macro sense or is she postulating at this point.
Being widely 'accepted' as a theory doesn't overy impress as Darwinism is so widely 'accepted' in the same vein.
If there is macro proof then that is a totally dif story.

And knowing your preference for the macro discussion that is exactly why I chose Margulis' work. We are going to start at the beginning and bring it forward ala Margulis. In the end, I think you will see evidence of how we humans are evolving. And by the way I am going to ask you to think of humans as complex symbiotic organisms (fact: most of our cells and our DNA is not human).

[PRB]

my position is that the DNA code barrier and gene depletion coupled with natural selection make Darwinian style species 'creation' impossible.
Micro, within species development is possible and factual with gene depletion.

[PRB]

Dusty, guys, want to have a scientific discussion only....we all may benefit from that...these evo have been deleted before because it got personal, don't want that.
Just want to deal with the common evo explanations on a 'scientific' basis.

If this is too touchy for you just read and observe....I enjoy the non emotional discourse...if it gets silly I'll delete the thread.

I know we have lots of smarter scientific types than myself but I've never seen a convincing factual presentation....all periphery arguments

[GratefulCitizen]

What are the initial assumptions upon which the theory is built?

For example:
What are the initial conditions?
What is the specific time scale/ when does it "start"?
Do the laws of chemistry and physics operate continuously in a manner consistent with what we now understand them to be?

There is nothing wrong with having initial assumptions as every theory has to have a foundation.
They just need to be clearly identified.

Given the initial assumptions, logical conclusions can be drawn and tested against known evidence.