Don't dictate beliefs

[Ooogah Boogah]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Macro evolution is the evolution of one kind to a whole new kind. I'm aware it takes along time, but at some point there has to be a line in the sand where the old kind ends and the new kind starts.
Again the only data on evolution that's been documented that I have seen has been the simple turning on or off genes. In lab creation of new genes ( not in nature ) and a test tube new DNA (again not in nature).

Not true at all. Have you ever seen a color wheel? At what point exactly, does green become blue?
http://www.webdesign.org/img_articles/15053/C...

That's how evolution works. The difference between each element and its predecessor is minute. But over many generations, blue could become red.

[KittenKoder]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Micro evolution is the mere turning on or off genes that already exist. Note the Russian Silver Fox on going 50+ year old study.
http://m.genome.cshlp.org/content/17/3/259.fu...
"The Farm-Fox Experiment, as it has become known, is, in essence, a fast-forwarded reconstruction of man’s first exercise in domestication"
So you believe you're better educated on the subject of evolution then
Berkeley's evolution team?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...
"Evolution at different scales: micro to macro
by the Understanding Evolution team
Evolution encompasses changes of vastly different scales — from something as insignificant as an increase in the frequency of thegene for dark wings in beetles from one generation to the next, to something as grand as the evolution and radiation of the dinosaurlineage. These two extremes represent classic examples of micro- and macroevolution.
Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:"

You know less about evolution than even I gave you credit for.

[polymath257]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Macro evolution is the evolution of one kind to a whole new kind. I'm aware it takes along time, but at some point there has to be a line in the sand where the old kind ends and the new kind starts.

And this is where your reasoning goes wrong. Look at my penny analogy. What is the 'line in the sand' where the amount of money in the pile goes from 'not a lot' to 'a lot'? The point is that there *isn't* such a line. The transition is gradual. In exactly the same way, each generation to the next would be 'micro-evolution'. There is no 'Big Jump' between any two generations. Where we draw the line is *our* choice for ease of language and not a part of the actual process.

Again the only data on evolution that's been documented that I have seen has been the simple turning on or off genes. In lab creation of new genes ( not in nature ) and a test tube new DNA (again not in nature).

Gene duplication is quite common. We have seen it in action in plants and seen the effects in animals (the globin family of proteins, for example).

[polymath257]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Macro evolution is the evolution of one kind to a whole new kind. I'm aware it takes along time, but at some point there has to be a line in the sand where the old kind ends and the new kind starts.
Again the only data on evolution that's been documented that I have seen has been the simple turning on or off genes. In lab creation of new genes ( not in nature ) and a test tube new DNA (again not in nature).

read and learn:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar...

[KJV]

Thinking wrote:

<quoted text>I don't eat bollocks because I don't believe in your god.

One has nothing to do with the other.
I suggest you try them seeing as to how possessed by them?

So are you a female that can't keep your mind off of testicles or are you gay and can stop thing about them?

[KJV]

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>Not true at all. Have you ever seen a color wheel? At what point exactly, does green become blue?
http://www.webdesign.org/img_articles/15053/C...

That's how evolution works. The difference between each element and its predecessor is minute. But over many generations, blue could become red.

There is a point where the shade of blue stops and the shade of green starts.

Say you are ten feet from a brick wall and every second to move half way to the wall. When do to touch the wall?

[KJV]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>You know less about evolution than even I gave you credit for.

Tell it to Berkeley's evolution team.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...

Or the Russians working on the silver fox experiment longer then you've been alive.

[KJV]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>And this is where your reasoning goes wrong. Look at my penny analogy. What is the 'line in the sand' where the amount of money in the pile goes from 'not a lot' to 'a lot'? The point is that there *isn't* such a line. The transition is gradual. In exactly the same way, each generation to the next would be 'micro-evolution'. There is no 'Big Jump' between any two generations. Where we draw the line is *our* choice for ease of language and not a part of the actual process.

[QUOTE]Again the only data on evolution that's been documented that I have seen has been the simple turning on or off genes. In lab creation of new genes ( not in nature ) and a test tube new DNA (again not in nature).
"

Gene duplication is quite common. We have seen it in action in plants and seen the effects in animals (the globin family of proteins, for example).

Yes but show me and the world the new DNA created in nature.( there is none documented to date )

[KJV]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>read and learn:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar...

I've read that, now where is the new DNA created in nature? Still none.

[Lil Ticked]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes turning on and off genes that are all ready there is micro evolution and yes that does take place. No new DNA created. No changing from one kind of animal to another.

Here is some fun stuff for ya.
http://cleverbot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/playlist...

[Adam]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
Basically if you grovel before their deity enough then he won't punish you with eternal torment, and they call this "salvation."
It's a psychotic mythology.

Nicely put. Its an amoral. No one with any principles who has thought it through, could accept such an absurd propisition as heaven and hell.

[Thinking]

That's because bollocks exist whilst your god does not.

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
One has nothing to do with the other.

[Hedonist]

Adam wrote:

<quoted text>
Nicely put. Its an amoral. No one with any principles who has thought it through, could accept such an absurd propisition as heaven and hell.

No, it's immoral. Science is amoral.

[polymath257]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
I've read that, now where is the new DNA created in nature? Still none.

Several of those papers showed exactly that. It is common in plants and less common in animals.

[KittenKoder]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Tell it to Berkeley's evolution team.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...
Or the Russians working on the silver fox experiment longer then you've been alive.

It's called an arbitrary label, since very few people can ever determine any real defining line between species, when a species becomes a completely different one is often just considered when they can no longer breed with the one referenced. The more we fill in the taxonomic tree, using the fossil record and genetics, the blurrier the lines between species get. The human line is so difficult to tell where one species ends and the next begins that they are having a hard time figuring out the specific order without utilizing genetics.

[KittenKoder]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes but show me and the world the new DNA created in nature.( there is none documented to date )

Are you really that stupid. "New World" DNA cannot occur naturally, it comes from evolved DNA, primitive or "Old World" DNA, and is the result of natural selection.

[polymath257]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
There is a point where the shade of blue stops and the shade of green starts.

Wrong. Blue and green are rather vague concepts, so there is certainly NOT a single point where things are blue on one side and green on the other.

Say you are ten feet from a brick wall and every second to move half way to the wall. When do to touch the wall?

We aren't talking about walls or Zeno's paradoxes. We are talking about things like species and colors which have fuzzy boundaries.

[Aerobatty]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>Wrong. Blue and green are rather vague concepts, so there is certainly NOT a single point where things are blue on one side and green on the other.

[QUOTE]Say you are ten feet from a brick wall and every second to move half way to the wall. When do to touch the wall?
"

We aren't talking about walls or Zeno's paradoxes. We are talking about things like species and colors which have fuzzy boundaries.

See:

http://i.imgur.com/xWpvw.jpg

[KittenKoder]

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
See:
http://i.imgur.com/xWpvw.jpg

The last letter is red, where's the blue in there?

[polymath257]

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
See:
http://i.imgur.com/xWpvw.jpg

A very nice link.

OK, KJV....where *exactly* did the letters in that link stop being red? What *exact* letter was the first blue one?