Creationists

[FurthurBB]

Now if you wish to cover mutations you can see when mutations cause change from a mistake it usually is harmful to organisms.

Beneficial mutations are so rare they cannot do what evolutionist say.

In this post you admit that mutations aren't always harmful to organisms.



Sometimes you slip up and accidentally admit to believing science. Because that's exactly what biologists say, that most mutations are harmful or neutral but in minority cases they can be beneficial. Beneficial meaning they increase an organisms chance to survive and breed and pass on the beneficial mutation.

Not a slip up, but we can discuss a few so called beneficial mutations and see if they were really beneficial to the whole human race.

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

For honest answers.

Mutations

When talking about mutations and evolution, humans are the wrong species to look at because we have one of the highest genetic loads of any organism, for the ninth time. Unless of course you want to look at human cancer cells, which do give a lot of information because they have much variation and a very low genetic load. Although most on this board will not understand that almost every mutation is beneficial to a cancer cell, which is basically a different organism once it is no longer responding to signals, when they obviously do not benefit you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You didn't say much.....

You talk of theories and evidence but you never go into details that is what your side does.

I believe none of you know the theory well enough to argue for it or you're afraid we are gonna poke serious holes in your theory.

if you want to learn about the theories, go back to school, no one here is getting paid to teach you.

Don't need the education just testing to see what they do know, and read the whole thread, don't come in the middle of it and you will see why i contiue to ask them the same question.

The only one here teaching is the one you tell to go back to school.

 

[FurthurBB]

In this post you admit that mutations aren't always harmful to organisms.



Sometimes you slip up and accidentally admit to believing science. Because that's exactly what biologists say, that most mutations are harmful or neutral but in minority cases they can be beneficial. Beneficial meaning they increase an organisms chance to survive and breed and pass on the beneficial mutation.

Not a slip up, but we can discuss a few so called beneficial mutations and see if they were really beneficial to the whole human race.

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

For honest answers.

Mutations

It would be nice if any of your bible bloggers ever had any education in biology.

But then again if they were educated in biology, they wouldn't be evolution deniers.

more like, if they didn't they would lie about it. Creationists are some of the biggest liars around. Do they think god really wants them to lie for him/her/it?

 

[Youwerecreated]

By the way, your statement that a positive mutation has to be present in "all humans" for "macroevolution" to take place is completely wrong.

If "macroevolution" were to take place in the human species, it would be through a new species branching off from us. The most likely way for this to happen is if a human population were to be isolated from all other humans for a few million years. Conceivably this could happen as a result of space colonization. The different population groups and the different circumstances of life on the other planet would cause the two populations to diverge through evolution. Eventually (but again, we're talking at least a million years) the colony population could be changed enough that it and Earth humans would no longer be interfertile. Whatever mutations had occurred in the colony population would not exist at all in the Earth population, let alone be present in "all humans."

It has to spread through the population to be considered macroevolution.

 

[daws101]

Your sides main argument is DNA similarity that everything is related to each other but that is supporting what the bible states.

24. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.

The term earth represents dry ground.

25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.

Gen 18:27 Abraham answered, "I am nothing more than the dust of the earth. Please forgive me, LORD, for daring to speak to you like this.

Gen 3:19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are, and to dust you shall return.

So if all things came from the ground would that not show support for DNA similarity ?

But the information in the DNA shows large diversity why ?

We don't have a "main argument", DNA is a piece of the evidence of evolution but there's many many pieces of evidence of evolution.

Like I already showed you with these quotes, kind can mean he's the guiding hand behind evolution. It doesn't say every species stayed the same.

All things comes from the ground could be interpretted to mean elements on the ground are what started live and evolved into the plants and animals we see today.

You don't have to take the science-hating side, you can believe your Bible without sounding like a crazy fundamentalist kook, most christians take the sane side and they embrace science. But you choose to sound like a kook for whatever reason.

How do you get around this ?

26. And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."
27. And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them

simple! it's a poetic guess by and author or authors who were ignorant to even the most fundamental science and biology.driven by the same fear of the unknown that you are.
it's also a not credible source as it has been edited many times to fit a narrow POV.
so any information taken from it is erroneous.

 

[FurthurBB]

Who's an evolution denier?

Please quote and link.

Lee Spetner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read all about it. He essentially invented his own version of evolution.

Yep but in the process destroyed the mutation argument.

No, actually that backs it up. What have I told you? Mutations are not beneficial or harmful, they just are. It is the environment that changes. Unbelievable that a scientist, even a physicist would make such an elementary mistake.

 

[koshergrl]

Not a slip up, but we can discuss a few so called beneficial mutations and see if they were really beneficial to the whole human race.

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

For honest answers.

Mutations

It would be nice if any of your bible bloggers ever had any education in biology.

But then again if they were educated in biology, they wouldn't be evolution deniers.

more like, if they didn't they would lie about it. Creationists are some of the biggest liars around. Do they think god really wants them to lie for him/her/it?

As I've pointed out, I've had a year of college biology, YWC has certainly had his college biology. The ones who come across as uneducated idiots aren't the believers. At least not in this thread. It's the babies who think that the hours they spend on PBS and watching 30-year-old National Geographic specials in the basement actually give them some level of understanding about the topics they have chosen to opine on.

 

[Youwerecreated]

In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions.

[All snipped except the pertinent part.] [You could have done this yourself if you had understood what you were quoting.]

If left-handed proteins and nucleic acids are necessary for life, then right-handed proteins and DNA will be eliminated by natural selection. There is no need for chirality to occur "randomly." Evolution is not random. This is not a problem.

Then you do not understand genetics. random mutations would have to produce the exact opposite.

 

[FurthurBB]

This has already been tested and proven, again your bible bloggers don't provide the earth-shattering evidence you were praying for.

Gain-of-function mutation in FGFR3 in mice leads to decreased bone mass by affecting both osteoblastogenesis and osteoclastogenesis

Not to mention gene and even whole genome duplication events which we have seen take place recently add tremendous information to the gene pool, something creationists ignore.

 

[koshergrl]

"That is not a problem".

Lol...this is an example of Dragon's "science". To make retarded proclamations based upon nothing except his own ignorance and representing NOTHING that has been verified via scientific observation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh, well, if DRAGON says so, it must be so.

More evidence of the idiocy of pseudo intellectuals who poo-pooh their betters.

No it's that science says it, Dragon is just repeating what has already proven.



Idiocy is when people deny scientific facts that have been proven in a lab, which is what we're seeing on display in this thread from the fundamentalist science-hating crowd.

Where is the proof name the experiment that proved it ?

 

[Dragon]

It has to spread through the population to be considered macroevolution.

Wrong. You don't seem to understand what "macroevolution" (the evolution of a new species) involves. Perhaps you're thinking of it in terms of one species TURNING INTO another one? So the new one exists and the old one is gone?

That's wrong. It's possible for a new species to emerge from an old one, and the old one still to exist. In that case, any mutations responsible for the new species would not exist in the old one -- they would NOT have "spread through the population."

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, idiocy is pretending that our understanding of things should never be challenged, you nitwit. Just because something has been proven in a lab doesn't mean there are no more questions to be asked, nor does it mean that what was "proven" can't be "disproven" or discovered to be completely false somewhere down the line.

It happens all the time. As those who actually work in the fields of science know. If they stopped every time something is "proven in a lab" we would would still be in the dark ages.

That's what's great about continous scientific experimentation and studying. You have no use for that, you just blindly believe whatever a book a few thousand years old says about science.

Something proven in a lab doesn't mean it was proven? Now that's some neat fundamentalist chatter!!!

Beneficial mutations have been proven in the lab, then a guy writes a blog about how it can be cuz he says it can't be, despite the facts going against him and YWC loves every word of it and takes that for fact, rather than the facts proven in the lab.

Beneficial mutations yes positive mutations no.

How does a positive mutation become a permanent part of the genepool ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Logical fallacy.

Dogs and wolves are the same species. They can mate and have fertile offspring.

Apes and humans are not the same species. They cannot mate and have fertile offspring.

So the parallel between them is a false parallel.

Uh oh you just caught them, now they have to explain how chimps and humans could breed and produce offspring.

they wouldn't and cannot.

Something we agree on and they agree to so how do they prove descent ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Logical fallacy.

Dogs and wolves are the same species. They can mate and have fertile offspring.

Apes and humans are not the same species. They cannot mate and have fertile offspring.

So the parallel between them is a false parallel.

Did you notice how they totally ignored the DNA similarity between mice and worms with humans and the many other animals I posted. By their reasoning you would have to say they are our relatives to and that presents a problem for their evolutionary tree.

wow, sometimes your level of understanding is unbelievable.

Really,try this on for size,the bible say's all things were created from igredients of the ground would that be an argument on behalf of DNA similarity ? and not ancestry ?

 

[Dragon]

random mutations would have to produce the exact opposite.

Your source stated that a random process would generate equal numbers of left- and right-handed DNA. If right-handed DNA is incapable of supporting life, it would be eliminated by natural selection, which would perfectly explain why all life we see now is left-handed.

For that matter, if all life is descended from ONE instance of randomly-generated DNA, then the fact that all life we see has left-handed DNA is the purely coincidental result of the fact that that one instance of randomly-generated DNA happened to be left-handed.

Either way, there is no need at all to postulate a random process generated a large pool of DNA, all of which is left-handed in defiance of probability.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Jean Auel (clan of the cavebear) hypothesised that humans interbred with non-human neandertals or cro-magnons, whatever they were. And offered exactly zero insight on how the two separate species came into being.

Evolutionist hated it when neanderthals were declared human.

lol! this is just nonsense.

they were hoping it could be a transitional fossil that linked humans and some sort of apelike creature.

 

[FurthurBB]

What I post I clearly understand.

LOL oh, really?

Well here's a chance to demonstrate that. In your own words, exactly what is a "mutation"?

You're allowed to look up the answer, but it must be in your own words so as to demonstrate that you understand it and aren't just cutting and pasting.

Oh boy, It is a damaged gene ,and It is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of the gene.

Wrong. A mutation is a change in DNA/RNA sequence. It does not have to be in a gene, in a promoter region, or even in binding regions. it does not have to affect a gene in anyway to be a mutation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

We come a LOT closer to knowing than you do, though. And yet, you think you do.



Yes, and it also COULD be the result of aliens who separately planted the two species using a common pool of genetic material because they employed the same contractor.

The difference is that there is actual evidence in favor of evolution, and none in favor of creation. So the fact that either is a plausible explanation for this one datum of genetic similarity does not make them equally appropriate.

Briefly what is the engine that drives macro-evolution ?

If the term engine throws you what is the mechanism let's see if you agree with BB that posted in this thread.

And let's look at the reality of this engine.

Well, again, modification with descent. How many times do you have to ask?

No,no,and no again. The preferred theory now is Neo,that is positive mutation+natural selection+large spans of time equal macro-evolution.

 

[Dragon]

they were hoping it could be a transitional fossil that linked humans and some sort of apelike creature.

"Transitional fossil" is a creationist term. It carries no weight with scientists. Your statement as to what was hoped is, therefore, incorrect. You are exaggerating the degree to which creationist arguments are taken seriously among biologists from, well, zero (which is the reality) to something in the plausible zone.