Longstride:

Look!
A gap in the theory of Evolution

Quick! ...fill it with God

sinequanon:
Enough of the red herrings! It is the coelacanth we are talking about.

Explain how a process of [size=16pt]RANDOM[/size] MUTATIONS can slow down to a trickle or stop for 400 million years.

even if I tell you that there was no unfavorable condition for it to be better adapted to, hence natural selection trickled down, you'll say I'm halfwit with infant biology skills..so let me not go there.
let's agree that evolution cannot explain that yet, that makes evolution wrong ..right?
Wait, I've got an idea ...it was created in twenty four hours along side all the diversity of animals... That's a better theory

Longstride:
[size=18pt]even[/size] if I tell you that there was no unfavorable condition for it to be better adapted to, hence natural selection trickled down, you'll say I'm halfwit with infant biology skills..so let me not go there.

Longstride:
let's agree that evolution cannot explain that yet, that makes evolution wrong ..right?

Longstride:
Wait, I've got an idea ...it was created in twenty four hours along side all the diversity of animals... That's a better theory

sinequanon:


LOL! I can see you are toying with giving this ignorant explanation!

It is a body blow, but I understand your panic about your underlying belief in god resurfacing.


I can't help you with your panic and preoccupation with god.

you seem to have a terrible misconception.

Evolution has nothing to do with my disbelief in gods
I did not believe in god long before I learnt of evolution.

If the theory of evolution crumbles to pieces ..the god belief will still be irrational.


An atheist is not necessarily an evolutionist.
I have friends that have little or no knowledge of science ...they still don't believe in god.

You think that the theory of evolution is a "refuge" for atheists and if it crumbles, they will run to church
That's very illogical.

sinequanon:


As I have often mentioned, what you are really saying is that your belief in the Theory of Evolution is no more than refuge from your belief in god. You see the irony? You believe in "god".

That is why you and Dapo are mentioning "god" instead of facing the question.

Longstride:



even if I tell you that there was no unfavorable condition for it to be better adapted to, hence natural selection trickled down, you'll say I'm halfwit with infant biology skills..so let me not go there.
let's agree that evolution cannot explain that yet, that makes evolution wrong ..right?
Wait, I've got an idea ...it was created in twenty four hours along side all the diversity of animals... That's a better theory

sinequanon:


As I have often mentioned, what you are really saying is that your belief in the Theory of Evolution is no more than refuge from your belief in god. You see the irony? You believe in "god".

That is why you and Dapo are mentioning "god" instead of facing the question.

Dapo777:


He doesn't believe in the Bible god, but he believes in spirits, ask him how spirits created diversity.

Or better still he should create a better theory that can explain diversity. Let's see how the op would do that, without burrowing evolution concept.

Longstride:
if I wanted [size=16pt]to go deeper[/size] ...I'd have given you this.
https://ecologicablog./2013/08/24/coelacanths-are-not-living-fossils/

Longstride:
even if I tell you that there was no unfavorable condition for it to be better adapted to, hence natural selection trickled down, you'll say I'm halfwit with infant biology skills..so let me not go there.

They do not live in an environment that suggests unusual pressure to improve molecular mechanisms, such as DNA replication and repair, resulting in a very low mutation rate

Longstride:
you seem to have a terrible misconception.

Evolution has nothing to do with my disbelief in gods
I did not believe in god long before I learnt of evolution.

If the theory of evolution crumbles to pieces ..the god belief will still be irrational.


An atheist is not necessarily an evolutionist.
I have friends that have little or no knowledge of science ...they still don't believe in god.

You think that the theory of evolution is a "refuge" for atheists and if it crumbles, they will run to church
That's very illogical.

That’s how the story goes at least, and ever since it’s discovery journalists have talked about the fish that has been “left behind by evolution”.

It is one of the few species to have hardly changed in tens of millions of years and now scientists believe this physical stability is mirrored in the coelacanth’s genome – the 3 billion “letters” of its DNA code.

“We found that the genes overall are evolving [size=14pt]significantly[/size] slower than in every other fish and land vertebrate that we looked at. This is the first time that we’ve had a big enough gene set to really see that,” said [size=14pt]Jessica Alföldi, a research scientist[/size] at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Massachusetts.

[size=14pt]Charles Darwin[/size] first coined the term “living fossil” to describe species that have endured unchanged due to limited competition with other animals.

Bioessays. [size=14pt]2013 Apr[/size]

Abstract
A [size=14pt]series[/size] of [size=14pt]recent[/size] studies on extant coelacanths has emphasised the slow rate of molecular and morphological evolution in these species. These studies were based on the assumption that a coelacanth is a 'living fossil' that has shown little morphological change since the Devonian, and they proposed a causal link between low molecular evolutionary rate and morphological stasis.

No fossil is available either for extant coelacanth species or for the genus Latimeria itself 3. This suggests that palaeontologists – even those that are convinced that coelacanths are ‘living fossils’ – have considered morphological differences between extant and fossil coelacanths to be so extensive that they should be grouped in separate genera

The rate of molecular evolution in a lineage, the substitution rate, depends on the mutation rate and the rate of fixation of new variants, which itself depends on the selective values of these new variants and genetic drift 6. The mutation rate depends on environmental factors and on replication and repair mechanisms that are under selective pressure. The mutation rate is the result of a trade-off between the need for new variants to adapt to environmental changes and selection for a reduced mutation rate because mutations are more often deleterious than advantageous 15. The substitution rate depends chiefly on fixation of neutral and slightly deleterious mutations 16 and it is thus positively correlated with mutation rate and negatively correlated with population size because selection is more efficient in large populations 17. An unexpectedly low substitution rate could thus be the result of a peculiarly low mutation rate and/or an especially strong selection against deleterious mutations 16, 17.

there was no unfavorable condition for it to be better adapted to, hence natural selection trickled down,

They do not live in an environment that suggests unusual pressure to improve molecular mechanisms, such as DNA replication and repair, resulting in a very low mutation rate

Yada yada yada ........This is a fallacy. The whole point is that the mutations are random. Their explanation does not say why beneficial mutations should be any less for coelacanths.

Longstride:
sinequanon says the two quotes above contradict eachother.

Longstride:
okay you're right, evolution is wrong. What does this prove?

sinequanon:


I'd already edited my post. Both you and the article were talking nonsense, lol. You don't need "unfavorable conditions" for RANDOM mutations.



It seems to have proved to you that "evolution is wrong".

sinequanon:


I'd already edited my post. Both you and the article were talking nonsense, lol.

LOL
Funny guy

You don't need "unfavorable conditions" for RANDOM mutations.

It seems to have proved to you that "evolution is wrong".

Longstride:
okay you're right, evolution is wrong. What does this prove?

sinequanon:


It helps to demonstrate that most followers of the theory are RELIGIOUS.

Their belief in the HYPOTHESIS as being proven is based on FAITH.

This accounts for most atheists.

Longstride:
you seem to not understand the concept of natural selection.
You need unfavorable conditions for natural selection.

Longstride:
okay, they are religious and they have faith in science ...does that make their disbelief in deities wrong?

sinequanon:


Can't your read?

You don't need "unfavorable conditions" for RANDOM mutations.

You are confusing natural selection and mutation.

If you have mutations and no natural selection, then you would end up with the BIGGEST DIVERSITY of individuals, because natural selection is not culling the "weaker" ones. Instead, we have the opposite with the coelacanth.

Now, take you kindergarten explanation of evolution back to the drawing board and try to think it through.

They do not live in an environment that suggests unusual pressure to improve molecular mechanisms, such as DNA replication and repair, [size=16pt]resulting in a very low mutation rate.[/size]

sinequanon:


Why are you preoccupied with deities? Next you'll be asking me "does that mean Germany will retain the World Cup?" Neither appears in the OP.

What I have been interested in is why people DENY they have faith in science and follow it in a religious way.

Longstride:

They do not live in an environment that suggests unusual pressure to improve molecular mechanisms, such as DNA replication and repair, [size=14pt]resulting in a very low mutation rate[/size].

and by the way,

Longstride:
the evolution theory has not been able to explain everything..that's why it's said to have gaps.
And you seem obsessed with those gaps yet you haven't brought a theory with less gaps.

sinequanon:


uh-oh the highlight-to-nothing trick...you highlight something and hope that it looks like you are making a point. LOL!

They should be telling us what is UNUSUAL, not what is "not unusual". We want to know what SPECIAL things the coelacanth is doing differently from almost every other species, lol!

You can just see from the spin and double negatives that they are trying to be clever and obfuscate the argument.



What you are called obsession is known as "critical thinking". Try it, you may like it. It may even

if looking for articles that spot loopholes in evolution and opening threads about them is called "critical thinking", I'll pass.

Critical thinker, have you thought of what the true origin of species is yet? ...or you're too busy fighting evolution

Longstride:


if looking for articles that spot loopholes in evolution and opening threads about them is called "critical thinking", I'll pass.

Longstride:
Critical thinker, have you thought of what the true origin of species is yet? ...or you're too busy fighting evolution

sinequanon:
[size=18pt]THE COELACANTH[/size]

Daubed "the living fossil" because of its relative lack of evolution over 400 million years, scientists are desperately now trying to back-pedal.

A creature with such lack of diversity and evolution over 400 million years deals a body blow to the Theory of Evolution.

(I await some halfwit to try to explain, with their infant school biology skills.)

https://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/nathist.museum/images/coelacanth.jpg