Evolution is about how we EVOLVED, not about how life came about.  Your statement "I want proof that we evolved from a rock or a tree.or pile of hot  steaming shit.
 I want proof that my great great great great great great etc. grampa was hot soup." is so idiotic that I'm not going to even bother responding.

What's wrong with linking to a site? 

The following was compiled by Yellow_Number_Five: On Observed Speciation and Speciation Models:
Salamanders and Songbirds
More details on the salamanders, with additional links
London mosquitos
Another article on Himalayan song birds
Speciation by reinforcement

Lots of examples here
More examples
Speciation models
Links on examples and models
More on the London mosquitos
Ringed-speciation model and examples, plus links
In Drosophila (fruit flies)


On Behavior, Reciprocal Altruism and the Evolution of Behavior:
Behavior models (registration required)
The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals
Chimps show sense of fair play
Genes, altruism and evolution (with more links)
Reciprocal altruism
Kin selection and reciprocal altruism

On the Evolution of Complexity

Biochemistry
Evolution of human intellect and diet
Evolution of language
Music and the relation to language (registration required)
Evolution of religious memes
Bacteria flagella
Avida Digital evolution
More on the evolution of religion
Complex evolution in the laboratory
The eye
The brain

Ever hear about antibiotic resistance?

my case against evolution the myht

The Talk.Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy is loaded with bull shit.
 do not answers my question dude  .And you have not refuted any of my points. I have refuted yours and refuted your counter refutations. Can he get back to the debate or don't you have any counter-counter refutations left?

Ummmmm O.K. :stares blankly:

I want proof that we evolved from a rock or a tree.or pile of hot  steaming shit.

Are you on acid? I trust you are referring to the primoridal soup. Fucking idiot. It isn't a "pile of hot steaming shit", shit comes from animals, and three billion years ago there were no animals. You are referring to abiogenesis. 

One of the greatest mysteries in all of science is how the first life arose. Of course, here it is important to define life. Life is a set of autocatalytic chemical processes aimed at reproduction of the self. Unlike other chemical complex systems like crystals, biochemical molecules are remarkable for the reproductive capabilities. I suppose, by that definition, that Ribonucleic Acid is probably life. It is the building block from which all life was originally based, before being gradually phased out by DNA, although obviously RNA still retains a critical place in biochemistry.

The attempt to answer that has come in the form of a hypothesis known as abiogenesis . How did the organic polymerated strings of nucleic acids or indeed any necessary function of life arise? Whoever answers it will probably receive a Nobel prize from every field imaginable, although I imagine the awards will have to go to a great many people. There are numerous hypotheses out there, autocatalysis, RNA world, lipid-based world.

All The hypotheses begin with the Earth’s hydrogenesis, the formation of the oceans. Due to the polar nature of water, dissolving free ions with its slightly polar configuration, it is an ideal “primordial soup” to use the phrase, for the formation of simple self-replicating abiotic molecules. Due to the atmospheric difference of the Earth at the time, the Primordial Soup was very different. It was much warmer, an ideal incubator for the development of simple biomolecules. Experiments have shown that these simple amino and nucleic acids can arise in a hydrated anoxic environment provided there is sunlight. Molecules like Cytosine and Adenine are reasonably simple and will reassemble. This is not probable, but considering the vast size of the ocean and the span of time, the Law of Averages states it will eventually happen. The first abiotic reassembling molecules will vastly increase the chance that they will form life components like RNA; this is the basis of the RNA world Hypothesis.

 I want proof that my great great great great great great etc. grampa was hot soup.

You got it. Trace the common descent right back to proto-cells and eubacteria and it probably was.

 Show me just one example of this mount of evidence please, and I will look at it. Don't link me to a site.
If you can, just take one bit of evidence from off the site, and repost it here, thanks.

The evidence is massive, but I feel there is one piece that stands above the rest. Four words: Endogenous Retroviral Gene Insertion 

 Ok, so then if Evolution doesn't try and explain our origin, then why don't you be so kind as to tell me what it does try to explain? Hmmm?
 I can't wait to hear this one

The evolution of life begins when self-replicating biomolecules like ribonuecleic acid arise. So I guess it explains everything from RNA to man.

evolution is a set of psycho-physical mechanisms

it explains how we get from state (A) to state (B)

BUT, it says nothing about the origin of state (A)

That is like saying that gravity is false because it cannot tell us about how to make a ham sandwich.

 How does evolution explain the negative/positive feeback inhibition/activiation
pathway exhibited in so biochemical processes?

By precisly that, feedback loops. Glycolosis, Respiration, transcription, translation bla bla bla, none are irreducible processes that can be explained by autocatalysis. Evolution is dependent on the Autoctalytic cycle (I trust you know what that is).

 How does nature know how to make,
say, step 6 molecule, allosterically inhibit step 1 molecule?

What do you mean "know", it's all based on feedback loops. I strongly doubt by this statement that you have ever studied biochemistry.

 but how does such a level of complexity happen "by
chance" or by selection.

Autocatalysis

Read my essay called: My answer to creationist nonsense (different from the link MrRage gave you) and read the whole thing please. Not just the bits you like.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/yellow_number_five/evolution_of_life/5274 

Fucking idiot.
One of the greatest mysteries in all of science is how the first life arose. ho really??

Ok, so then if Evolution doesn't try and explain our origin, then why don't you be so kind as to tell me what it does try to explain? Hmmm?I did  ask you  first    punk  so  "answer me"  nigga













Anonymous master

  I'M the case against evolution , god ,satan, christiamity,judaism,and islam and or any other bull shit crap ...

Get bent, troll.

Don't worry about it, my brotha. It's a troll.

Then what does evolution explain?

My God ananymousmater, you fucking idiot.

The answers are in the link I gave you, but since you are too fucking lazy to look yourself, Ill put it in here:

Fallacy #7 The prototype/synchronicity error, aka “if man evolved from monkeys why are they still here” aka “50 organisms must undergo the same mutation for it to take hold” fallacy

Evolution works on individuals not species. This is one so many people don’t understand. For instance, I often hear people say synchronized random mutations do not exist in nature, then they uphold this as proof of intelligent design/creationism. They do not understand the fundamental axiom of genetic mutation every mutation has a prototype. We’ve been through this already. An organism has an advantageous mutation. It reproduces more than the other organisms because of this. The mutation gets passed to his children, they reproduce more because of it, they pass it to their children…mutations are not synchronized. With each generation, it will become more and more prominent in the pool, until it is universal. This gives the illusion of genetic synchronicity.

This brings us to another stupid argument: I often hear the argument, “if humans evolved from chimps, why are they still here”. A foolish argument. We can apply the previous axioms to this. Evolution by gene drift works on individuals, not species. If the new combination is successful, the individual will have a greater survival chance and reproduce more, passing the new gene to his children. As long as a gene exists in the pool, the individual and his offspring have the chance for further advantageous mutations to occur (and occur they will, for mutation happens during every single undergoing of mitosis, which happens millions of time per day). The survival of an organism matters little so long as s/he had reproduced, is the gene that matters. An old species does not “disappear” if a new one arises. It might disappear only if the new species is superior and destroys its predecessors (early humans most certainly undertook genocide against the Neanderthals).

 deludedgod hey you    Fucking nigger idiot.

Evolution Is Impossible

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy—also known as the second law of thermodynamics—stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best-proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems—in fact all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found—not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the `first law&#39, the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.5

The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists—that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.6

This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermo-dynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits. Evolution never occurred in the past, is not occurring at present, and could never happen at all

Fuck you troll

Have you ever studied thermodynamic biophysics?

The entropy function only works in fully closed systems without the influx/outflux of free energy. Life feeds on an axiom of entropy called Gibbs free energy, on a reverse function called Negentropy. Using adenosine triphosphate to correct the entropy.

Do you understand anything about anything?

How do you explain prkaryotic evolution?

How do you explain mTDNA migration

How do you explain endosymbiotic functions?

How do you explain Endogenous Retroviral gene insertion?

How do you explain retrotransposons?

How do you explain the fact that you are so fucking stupid?

Fallacy #2 Advantageous mutation is impossible

This one is ridiculous. To understand why, a short overview of genetic mechanisms and biochemistry is necessary.

DNA is made up of polymerated strings of bases, which are nucleotides bound to sugar-phosphate backbones. DNA has two functions:

Holds the code to create various proteins from amino acids

Regulating the rate of producing proteins: By definition, one gene is a string of nucleotides that codes for one protein

The language of DNA is base-pairs. DNA is entirely comprised of four molecules. Cytosine, Guanine, Adenine and Thymine. These are the nucleotides. The nucleotides are complementary. Like magnets, they will only fit to a certain opposite. G fits with C and A fits with T (A also fits with U, Uracil, but that is an RNA base). So there are only four possible base-pairs: CG, GC, TA and AT. But these four pairs will dictate every single protein imaginable.

Chemistry has absolutely everything to do with nucleic pairing. A fits with T and C with G. They are dipolar covalents. One side is slightly positively charged, the other negative. They will bind to each other much more easily if they correspond. Trying to fit A with C or T with G is sort of like trying to force two north magnets together. This kind of error can only happen in an abundance of adenosine triphosphate. It's like protons. Have you ever wondered why they don’t repel? They smash into each other with such force that they bind (gluons). (DNA doesn’t smash into each other of course, but you get the idea. So if you have a CGAT on one string, you will of course have GCTA on the other. This is called complementary encoding, and is the basis of DNA.

There are four ways that DNA can innovate.

Intragenic mutation: Errors during mitosis can swap base-pairs around, creating new strings of bases, and a new gene

Segment Shuffling: Two different genes can recombine and form two new hybrids

Duplication error: Sometimes during mitosis, a parent cell will by accident only pass part of it’s genome to the daughter cell, thus it retains a redundant copy of a gene string. This copy is completely free to mutate based on random frequency probability.

Horizontal/vertical Transfer: During sexual reproduction, organisms exchange genes. If the organism is a diploid meaning that it’s offspring has the code of two parents, then it’s offspring will have a completely new genome, combing both parents. This is the most successful method of innovation. Or an organism, particularly prokaryotes, can actually exchange genes by means of one actually encoding a packaged gene for another, which incorporates it into the genome. This is horizontal transfer, a tool that Eukaryota do not have

There are two types of genes. Introns and exons, which have these separate functions. Exons code for proteins. Introns are mostly junk or redundant, but they flank all the exons. Sometimes they are just punctuation, dictating where a gene starts and stops, but their most important function by far is to regulate the speed of protein transcription, a mechanism we will look at it more detail later. Exons dictate how a protein will be assembled. They do this because a protein is essentially a string of amino acids or a polypeptide. Therefore, exons dictate the order of amino acids in a protein. They do this by representing each amino acid with a codon. A codon is three nucleotides. Three nucleotides make up an amino acid. There are 20 possible amino acids, but 64 possible codons, therefore, exons are highly sensitive. They are also sensitive because they are ordered very precisely. For instance, let’s look at a simple string of three codons in a gene: AGG CTT GCC. Now let’s assume that an extra base is accidentally inserted (Like a G for example). The new string would be totally different, it would look like this. GAG GCT TTG CC, so every base would be shifted down one, and the entire gene would change. This would be completely devastating. This is why DNA repair mechanisms quickly target such errors.

On the other hand, Introns, which are not so sensitive or precisely executed, or are sometimes just junk or redundant, mutate based solely on random frequency. As there are 44 codons that don't correspond to an amino acid, these are used in introns. Therefore, the next axiom of evolution is that evolution is driven by the Introns. Obviously it is more complicated, Introns can become exons during shuffling/shifting, and exons can become Introns, and sometimes exons can be mutated harmlessly, so long as the mutation changes only a tiny chunk of the gene, but this rule still applies.

Now that you understand genetic mutation mechanisms, this can be applied to how advantage mutation works.

Intron mutation can change more than just transcription rate. It can change the protein fold. So, in all likelihood an organism won’t end up with one enzyme or protein morphing into another, but an identical polypeptide folding into a new enzyme. Only exon mutation will "change" an enzyme because it will change some codons, thereby changing the protein string order. From a probability standpoint, the odds of gaining a useful mutation because you can fold a protein in a new way vastly outweigh the possibility that you can get from producing a new protein. Mutations can have chain reactions on the cycle. Same string but different protein will produce a different catalytic function therefore will change another intron somewhere else down the line, or perhaps change an exon and make a new protein which, because it is bound to the cycle, not random, will be useful. If mutations operated independently, and outside the cycle, evolution would never get off the ground.

It can be understand like this:

A useless mutation occurs: Nothing happens

A bad mutation occurs: The cell dies, or the error is targeted because it is disrupting the cycle

A good mutation occurs: A new protein, rate of transcription or fold function is made. This is useful. It alters the cycle, producing a knock on effect.

For a mutation to occur which can be preserved, junk must be turned into non-junk. It is really easy to play with the introns. The prokaryotes that are the basis of life have almost no junk DNA. It is evident that such small organisms evolved to have conservative genomes. They have useful introns. It may seem extremely unreasonable in terms of probability but DNA mutates all the time. If the shift is Duplicate error, a popular method, then the gene advantage can be conserved, because it is a redundant piece. Evolution is just mathematics. As long as a gene exists, it will fight to survive...at the chemical level there exists a ruthless primal battle in which the best of the best are constantly being selected, and the weak crushed. The only phenotype affecting genes that are conserved are the ones that affect reproductive capacity. That will cause it to be conserved and cumulatively mutated upon. This is the mathematics of evolution.

Genetic drift drives evolution. Some mutations are good, some are bad, most do nothing, but through the endless cycles, organisms evolve. The analogy I like to use is the telemarketer. About 90% of people hang up on them, but the 10% who say yes make the enterprise quite profitable.

The statement advantage mutation is impossible is a confusion of possibility and probability. Advantage mutation almost never happens…the operative word being ALMOST. But if you have mutations working at quantum speed and three billion years on your hand, your odds improve dramatically.

The knock-on effect is a good demonstrator. All proteins do only one thing, they act as a catalyst for the body's catabolic chemical reactions. Without proteins, you would have to set yourself on fire to release enough energy to perform respiration. This is obviously not practical. All proteins lower the activation energy for a chemical reaction by providing an active site which works like a lock and key model. The chemical fits into the protein receptor and is broken into smaller molecules. Therefore, one can imagine that a different fold will mean that protein will have a different catabolic function which could offer a significant advantage if it allows an organism to synthesize a new chemical. The most effective way to do this would probably be base-pair swap exon mutation, which will only change a small chunk of an exon. Normally, the amino confirmation will predispose a protein to fold in a certain way, although this process is not understood (that would be the Levinthal Paradox). Natural selection, it seems, has selected a chemical interaction set which encourages the protein to fold, because in it's primary and secondary state, it is useless.

Protein folding is also a useful demonstrator of life's autoregulatory weirdness. They fold into elegant shapes after being translated from mRNA only for a tiny piece of it to serve as an active site. The hemoglobin molecule is the bizarre case and point. It is a colossal macromolecular protein snugly wrapping a single haemite (iron). This is somewhat akin to building a nuclear powered transformer to plug in a lamp.
There are 100 nucleic acids and 300 amino acids that exist in nature, we use only 4 and 22. The sugars and phosphates snap together to form the base backbone in the exact same way that nucleic acids bond together. From a chemical standpoint, the phosphorylate-saccharide (ribose)-nucleic acid structure is sensible. There are 100 nucleic acids and 300 amino acids that exist in nature, we use only 4 and 22. There is no reason why life could not be based on other amino acids and nucleic acids. The sugars and phosphates snap together to form the base backbone in the exact same way that nucleic acids bond together. From a chemical standpoint, the phosphorylate-saccharide (ribose)-nucleic acid structure is sensible.

We can look at the knock-on effect with respect to folding like this:

1) A small mutation changes a few codons

2) A different protein is made with a new fold

3) This catalyzes a chemical in a different fashion, most likely a new product

4) This new product has a different effect on the cell membrane receptors, which keep up the autocatalytic cycle. It causes a different command to be followed, as transcription is driven when a stimuli causes a protein to bind to the introns that flank the necessary exon.

Transgenic technology has revealed that changing a gene can start making a gene down the line do bizarre things. Why? Simple. Genes can control each other. The knock-on is established by introns controlling exons which in turn produce proteins which control introns which control exons which… you understand. If evolution operated like individual genes doing individual things, it would not get on the ground.

Knock-on effects work all across the genome. After all, what do genes do, they produce proteins, or they regulate the production of proteins. What do those proteins do? Well...everything: The big functions are of course:

-Catabolism of biochemical families (nucleotides, coenzyme factors, carbohydrates)

-Anabolism (glycogen synthesis, lipid synthesis)

-RNA synthesis control

-Ion channels and membranes (cell membranes, nerve membranes, particularly oligolipoproteins for myelin) , transport mechanisms including inorganic transport, ion flux and carrying

-Exocrine systems and secretory pathways/chemical production

-endocrine systems and hormone control Autocatalysis

-Maintenance of cell signal transduction and energy release metabolic pathways

The thing to notice about all of these is they are all dependant on biochemical triggers. You change one thing, you change a cascade. Making a new ion channel will change the electrochemical gradient or allow a different material influx, which will affect how protein receptors bind to introns. A new ion channel could trigger a hitherto unused intron. There are so many complex factors to genetic evolution, it is not a clear cut process.

The discovery of genes was probably one of the most important in the history of science. Before genomic sequencing, the human body or indeed any organism or indeed a single celled organism seemed unbearably complex. Of course, with the advent of new molecular biology techniques that was swept away. Everything can be explained in terms of metabolic pathways building macromolecules with remarkable properties. There are only thirteen families of Biochemicals (Terpenoids, Flavanoids, Carotenoids, Polyketides, Alkaloids Peptides, Polypeptides, Amino Acids, Nucleic Acids, Steroids, Enzyme Cofactors, Carbohydrates, Lipids and Tetrapyrroles). Everything can be explained in terms of these, and the manufacture, regulation, secretion and synthesis of these…can be explained by DNA. This explains everything from simple sugar metabolism all the way to the Progenitor…the stem cell with the potential to make a human body.

Fallacy #3 The probability of advantage mutation taking place is too low.

This error is almost exactly the same as the second.

With regard to probability, think about this. Things work at quantum speed at the size of molecules. Cells are always undergoing mitosis, copying, shifting, transcription, translation, receiving and processing chemical signals. Imagine the genome as a supercomputer and the environment, the determinate of what constitutes a genetic advantage that causes more reproduction like the password. The supercomputer has to guess the password. It does so by brute force. Go through the permutations. Mutations are happening so fast, so often, some are being chucked out in a blur, some are useless and ignored, the ones that are chucked out are automatically repaired because they are getting in the way, and then finally, the computer finds a permutation. Since this is not a disruptor, it is retained in much the same way that a useless mutation would be, passed on to children, who reproduce more...etc etc.

The environment is always playing around with genes, it just takes millions of years to nurture the ones it likes.

From a probability and mathematical standpoint, evolution makes perfect sense. There is a good example of this for contemporary society. The survival advantage of trait is inversely proportional to the amount of time it takes. It is relatively easy to observe genotype transition today. For instance, in parts of Africa where malaria is most prevalent, the allele containing the single copy of sickle-cell anemia can be found in almost 100% of the population. Another good instance of this is common lawn grass. Consider dandelions, a totally nuisance type of weed. As people of suburbia ruthlessly take their lawnmowers to the grass, the dandelions that happens to have genetic combinations that inhibit it’s Auxin growth factors find it useful because they are far more likely to survive, too short to be cut by the blades. These pass their genotype to their children who in turn will be unusually short and survive the lawnmower blades while their tall counterparts perish and in time, a new species, the lawnlion, may arise.

Not the entropy crap again...

Where would he be without insults, nonsense and cutting/pasting from creationist websites? I can't wait until Yellow and Tondagst show up here. By the way, as far as I know nobody here who posted so far is even black. Nutcase.

Judging by the fact, anonymous master, that your writing has been completely lacking in grammer or intelligence, you've got your fingers (the ones that are not up your ass) stuck on the Ctrl-C-V keys on creationist websites.

Go away, troll, or be a little more polite

imagine no evolutoin no god no bull shit
Go away, troll, or be a little more polite hoo really?? swhome how you stupid kike nigger

I dont quite follow, If you dont believe in God, how do you think life arose if you don't accept evolution?

can we ban this guy for obscene trolling?

I can guarantee you that if you do not stop being rude, ignorant, flaming, trolling and ignoring contradictory posts from this website's evolutionary biologists, you will be banned by the mods.

Now are you going to respond to my questions regarding endogenous retrovirals, mtDNA insertions, retrotransposons and genomic sequencing? 

do i have a choice?  here?

can we ban this guy for obscene trolling?

I can guarantee you that if you do not stop being rude, ignorant, flaming, trolling and ignoring contradictory posts from this website's evolutionary biologists, you will be banned by the mods.

Now are you going to respond to my questions regarding endogenous retrovirals, mtDNA insertions, retrotransposons and genomic sequencing?

In that case, troll, are you going to answer my questions?

you have no case here   you facking nigger  homo filthy kike

I take it you don't have a case since you just want to whine and throw ad homs. 

Good news, everyone.

The Troll is banned!

Yay!