What's your "not" alternative, einstein99?
Evolution or not?

You know trysts, it really depends. I actually see non random evolution as pretty powerful stuff compared to random evolution( random mutations and natural selection). You know, the Italian Wall lizards developing cecal valves and enlarged jaws for eating and digesting vegetative material, and it happened in a few short years and generations. The Death Valley pupfish adapting to each different pool that they're found in, again adapting in a relatively short time period, too short for random processes.
Random mutations and natural selection has its limits and it's what I'm studying now where those limits are. Of course non random evolution has its limits and I think I know about where those are.

Evidence must be carefully sifted, sorted, and meticuously massaged from a variety of sources. Unfortunately most people won't take the time to do it, so everyone's an expert on the subject. I've been at it for a little over a year, and I wish I could spend a few hours a day on it, but with my work schedule and other activities, I might get a few hours a week at it.
Non random evolution is built into animals genomes.
Gene expression which in turn affects adaptive traits and characteristics in animals can be affected by environmental conditions and stimuli. Stress hormones are one of main contributors to the gene expression in animals, such as phenotypic plasticity( alleles) and cryptic genes, which can be expressed by transposons or jumping genes.

These quick environmental adaptations are the result of non random epigenetic changes in the animals epigenome.
Exactly how far non random evolution can affect the animal kingdom is unclear, but I believe the evidence doesn't allow for non random evolution to operate beyond families in a taxonomic system.

Random evolution from what I'm studying operates within a two mutational evolutionary process with slight fitness increase after the first mutation. That's not much and certainly wouldn't allow for enough genomic information build up to creatively affect animal structure, morphology,
and complex coherent systems within the animals physiology and cellular systems.

You know trysts, it really depends. I actually see non random evolution as pretty powerful stuff compared to random evolution( random mutations and natural selection). You know, the Italian Wall lizards developing cecal valves and enlarged jaws for eating and digesting vegetative material, and it happened in a few short years and generations. The Death Valley pupfish adapting to each different pool that they're found in, again adapting in a relatively short time period, too short for random processes.
Random mutations and natural selection has its limits and it's what I'm studying now where those limits are. Of course non random evolution has its limits and I think I know about where those are.
Interesting:)

alex-rodriguez wrote:
The natural selection of what works is not random.
Best explanation I have read from a biologist:
"Chance alone cannot explain the marvelous fit between individuals and their environment. And it doesn't. True, the raw materials for evolution--the variations between individuals--are indeed produced by chance mutations. These mutations occur willy-nilly, regardless of whether they are good or bad for the individual. But it is the filtering of that variation by natural selection that produces adaptations, and natural selection is manifestly not random. It is a powerful molding force, accumulating genes that have a greater chance of being passed on to others, and in so doing making individuals even better able to cope with their environment. It is, then, the unique combination of mutation and selection--chance and lawfulness--that tells us how organisms become adapted."
Repeat this process thousands of times over a period of millions of years and very gradually new species are developed, for example the evolution of whales from land animals, or the evolution of one species of fish to land animals. It works and biologists know it works. This is basic scientifc fact, not something biologists debate because there is no debate.
___________________________
'It works and biologists know it works', lets go with that.
I don't know that it works that way, do you? They say it works that way, how do we know. Doesn't this sound a little circular to anyone?
'This is a basic scientific fact', why because someone first said it and everyone else believes it and repeats it. Where's the proof, factual evidence, data, etc.
'Powerful molding force', I don't know that and I don't see any scientific evidence, do you?
It sounds more like just-so stories, hypothetical scenarios, guesses, and plain ol' cock and bull stories.
In all of the above explanations I didn't see one piece of factual evidence, did you? It sounds like some of the stories I tell in the card room on a Friday night. Bring some real evidence that we can dissect and look at. If you cant, maybe we should take turns telling some whopper stories while sitting around the campfire. ☺

you've been blocked player for your offensive language. I don't like to ever block anyone but that kind of abuse will not be tolerated. Have a good day though. 😊

I have read a newspapers couple months ago that the genetic code quantity of plants are bigger compare to primate.Why could this be happen considering primates are more inteligent than plants?.It apparently the complex one is the simpler.

extenza wrote:
I have read a newspapers couple months ago that the genetic code quantity of plants are bigger compare to primate.Why could this be happen considering primates are more inteligent than plants?.It apparently the complex one is the simpler.
_______________________
It's called the c-value paradox, and it really throws a monkey wrench in Darwinian descent. Its basically the size of the genome configured by its weight. Some bacteria have bigger genomes than humans. Within families of animals, genome sizes can vary by a hundred fold, which makes no sense for supposed evolutionary mechanisms.
Coupled with the c-value paradox is the junk DNA hypothesis which suggests that a lot of junk DNA,supposedly caused by mutational mishaps, resides within animals genomes. The only problem with this line of thinking is that Project Encode has found that over 80% of the human genome has now been found to have all sorts of
functional purposes, and the percentage is still climbing.
Evolutionists originally concluded that only one or two percent of our genome was functional and the rest was evolutionary junk. They've been proven wrong once again.
Maybe their theory is a bunch of junk? 😕

Don't you think we rely on Google just a little too much Alex. Anybody can put up just about any kind of information whether it's reliable or not. Everyone's a 'google', expert nowadays.
Einstein99 I applaud your efforts. Whatever evidence is produced by those who will not accept evolution as the "only" possible explanation will be marginalized by the evolutionists. Many good scientists have problems with evolutions tenants but it is such a polarizing topic that open discussion is all but impossible.

789321 wrote:
Einstein99 I applaud your efforts. Whatever evidence is produced by those who will not accept evolution as the "only" possible explanation will be marginalized by the evolutionists. Many good scientists have problems with evolutions tenants but it is such a polarizing topic that open discussion is all but impossible.
___________________
Just trying to shed a little light 789. New things are happening every day showing the complex cellular systems within our bodies. Having a Chemical engineering background gets me excited on all the new stuff that scientists are learning.
No abuse of people please, no religion or politics, and no condescension either.