Dr Collins, top geneticist, and CHRISTIAN....

[Youwerecreated]

When a species becomes through evolution unable to breed with another species, THAT is macro evolution!

Sorry you missed that!

Mutation rate? I use the US Government laboratory statistics. Where is YOUR evidence for what mutation rate?

Really if you did you would see that neutral and harmful mutations are a serious problem for your theory. Beneficial mutations are so rare the only one they can point to,and even then when you look at the bacteria when they are introduced to the population they don't do well. That is no different then what happened to the drosophila when they were put back in the population with healthy fruit flies . That is natural selection at work.

This right here shows what you do not understand. I and others have told you this a few times so far. This is where you fail in genetics.

How do I fail in genetics if I don't buy your theory on how a beneficial mutation can take over a population and a harmful mutation cannot ? How can a beneficial mutation take over a population when they're so rare ? How can a beneficial mutation take over a population when it is outnumbered by neutral and harmful mutations ? Do you not understand how critical these questions are to your theory ? This time tell me how this happens. You can have variations and changes in traits that is limited ,but to take and dominate the gene pool is just foolishness. You need to many beneficial mutations to happen for the kinda change your theory calls for. The mutations you need are so rare and you can't identify any beneficial mutations. This is what you gloss over but you claim i am glossing over. The truth is no mutation can take over, the parents DNA determine the offspring. Why is a persons DNA so reliable in identifying individual ? Because we are distinct from each other,that contradicts your theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ok j or whoever is playing the game I know you think beneficial mutations can take over a gene pool,so let's simplify the question. Please identify these beneficial mutations and tell me how they benefited the organism ? Penicillin resistant bacteria does nor answer these questions.

 

[JScott]

He called you a *sir* because you are a pompous and ignorant ass, and usually that would make you male.

But elitist lesbians can also be pompous asses.

Wow, YWC will be appalled when he sees that. Oh by the way, rock.......under......

Youre very religious I can tell.

I guess when someone is so "blessed" and "Godly" as that Christian claims to be, the use of insults and display of such bigotry is part of the whole package that gives them such a false sense of superiority !!!

I wonder if Jesus was like Alliebebe. I hope not.

 

[AllieBaba]

He called you a *sir* because you are a pompous and ignorant ass, and usually that would make you male.

But elitist lesbians can also be pompous asses.

This person CLAIMS to be a Christian? How revealing is that post! A corner on the market of bigotry and disrespect, I guess that's SUPPOSED TO BE a "Christian" virtue.

Why, because I called you an ignorant and pompous ass?

You are.

And so are elitist lesbians.

That doesn't show bigotry against anyone except asses.

Have you provided evidence that evolution has resulted in speciation yet?

I didn't think so. Continue to post irrelevancies about changes within species. It's laughable.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How do I fail in genetics if I don't buy your theory on how a beneficial mutation cab take over a population and a harmful mutation cannot ? How can a beneficial mutation take over a population when they're so rare ? How can a beneficial mutation take over a population when it is outnumbered by neutral and harmful mutations ? Do you not understand how critical these questions are to your theory ? This time tell me how this happens.

Harmful mutations result in a population that is vulnerable to predators or inability to survive successfully within their environment for any number of reasons, (lack of food, etc.).

The video I served up a few dozen posts above here clearly describes this in moths. This concept of "neutral or harmful mutations" being predominant within a species population is not confirmed by any evidence. If it were, neither you nor I would be alive now. We are the result of several hundreds of millions of "beneficial" mutations over approximately 3 billion years of cellular evolution.

Quite honestly, I am discouraged by some of the logical fallacies I keep seeing here, by the refusal to provide any evidence to back up those fallacies, (peer reviewed science) and the steadfast desire to wage war against any ethical human beings who have dedicated their lives to honest scientific research. It troubles me that someone's allegiance to their religious beliefs prohibits them from any open-minded curiosity. That is what the discipline of science is, open-minded curiosity. I'm really distressed when I see ANY human being so steadfast in a refusal to engage in such activity,and to confuse and misstate the evidence, to redefine the terminology, and to ask illogical questions like
How can a beneficial mutation take over a population when they're so rare ?

Nothing "takes over" a population. The concept is silly. A "beneficial mutation" appears in succeeding generations within a species. PLUS, rare is NOT non-existent, rare is simply rare, not impossible. Out of millions of mutations, thousands are beneficial to the next generations, the "harmful" mutations and "neutral" mutations either doom the species or have no effect at all. That's how it works. Please review the video again and think about the moth's coloration and the banana's random appearance among plantanes.

A mutation is defined as "beneficial" because it aids in the ability of the species to survive! Really, sometimes I wonder if any creationist thinking macro-evolution disbelieving posters here ever bothered to listen in high school biology classes, or if they were all home schooled from some of the material we saw here earlier, written by lay persons, (non-scientists) pretending to write about science, but really writing about Christianity. Pretty disingenuous of those writers to PRETEND they were writing science texts, when they were really writing about their religion.

No it is not silly,because this new information must take and spread through the population. This does happen but on a small scale not on a grand scale to where a a completely new distinct kind arises. What some of those creationist were writing of was no different from what evolutionist write. Both were writing and interpreting according to their religion. The creationist admits his faith and an evolutionist does not. Evolutionist call their religious beliefs science.

The bible say's ten times in genesis,"kinds bring forth after their kinds" after all the testing and evidence that has been observed,what happens ? "kinds bring forth after their kinds".

No one else seems to want identfy beneficial mutations. Will you identify these mutations for us ? i want to know, do they exist ? If they exist i have never viewd one naturally nor through inducing them through x-rays and chemical baths. We can avoid getting lost in the terms and definitions if we just go to the source of the problems.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How do I fail in genetics if I don't buy your theory on how a beneficial mutation cab take over a population and a harmful mutation cannot ? How can a beneficial mutation take over a population when they're so rare ? How can a beneficial mutation take over a population when it is outnumbered by neutral and harmful mutations ? Do you not understand how critical these questions are to your theory ? This time tell me how this happens.

Harmful mutations result in a population that is vulnerable to predators or inability to survive successfully within their environment for any number of reasons, (lack of food, etc.).

The video I served up a few dozen posts above here clearly describes this in moths. This concept of "neutral or harmful mutations" being predominant within a species population is not confirmed by any evidence. If it were, neither you nor I would be alive now. We are the result of several hundreds of millions of "beneficial" mutations over approximately 3 billion years of cellular evolution.

Quite honestly, I am discouraged by some of the logical fallacies I keep seeing here, by the refusal to provide any evidence to back up those fallacies, (peer reviewed science) and the steadfast desire to wage war against any ethical human beings who have dedicated their lives to honest scientific research. It troubles me that someone's allegiance to their religious beliefs prohibits them from any open-minded curiosity. That is what the discipline of science is, open-minded curiosity. I'm really distressed when I see ANY human being so steadfast in a refusal to engage in such activity,and to confuse and misstate the evidence, to redefine the terminology, and to ask illogical questions like
How can a beneficial mutation take over a population when they're so rare ?

Nothing "takes over" a population. The concept is silly. A "beneficial mutation" appears in succeeding generations within a species. PLUS, rare is NOT non-existent, rare is simply rare, not impossible. Out of millions of mutations, thousands are beneficial to the next generations, the "harmful" mutations and "neutral" mutations either doom the species or have no effect at all. That's how it works. Please review the video again and think about the moth's coloration and the banana's random appearance among plantanes.

A mutation is defined as "beneficial" because it aids in the ability of the species to survive! Really, sometimes I wonder if any creationist thinking macro-evolution disbelieving posters here ever bothered to listen in high school biology classes, or if they were all home schooled from some of the material we saw here earlier, written by lay persons, (non-scientists) pretending to write about science, but really writing about Christianity. Pretty disingenuous of those writers to PRETEND they were writing science texts, when they were really writing about their religion.

Observed mutations are the result of disease,deformity,and weaker organisms,do you deny this ? mutations we observed always seem to result in premature death. Humans we see them gain information until they reach maturity. After maturity and in many,many cases before maturity information begins getting lost and you have deletions. This is humans deteriorating from a loss of information in front of our eyes. It's happening to both you and i and it can't be denied. Whether information gets lost or rearranged it usually is not a good thing for the organism.

 

[Woyzeck]

Have you provided evidence that evolution has resulted in speciation yet?

I didn't think so. Continue to post irrelevancies about changes within species. It's laughable.

Sorry what. Are you seriously saying that speciation, by nature an evolutionary process, has nothing to do with evolution?

 

[Youwerecreated]

No it is not silly,because this new information must take and spread through the population. This does happen but on a small scale not on a grand scale to where a a completely new distinct kind arises. What some of those creationist were writing of was no different from what evolutionist write. Both were writing and interpreting according to their religion. The creationist admits his faith and an evolutionist does not. Evolutionist call their religious beliefs science.

The bible say's ten times in genesis,"kinds bring forth after their kinds" after all the testing and evidence that has been observed,what happens ? "kinds bring forth after their kinds".

No one else seems to want identfy beneficial mutations. Will you identify these mutations for us ? i want to know, do they exist ? If they exist i have never viewd one naturally nor through inducing them through x-rays and chemical baths. We can avoid getting lost in the terms and definitions if we just go to the source of the problems.

The word "kind" is not a scientific term, it is an imprecise, general term, used in the Bible and by "creationists". Christians used this term to keep the races separate for hundreds of years. A race is not a "kind" ! Race, by the way, answers your last question...Will you identify these mutations for us ? i want to know, do they exist ?

Race is a beneficial mutation within Homo Sapiens. The so-called "white" race, (Caucasian) emerged as a beneficial mutation to skin pigmentation in northern climates, approximately 30-40 thousand years ago. Lighter skinned people can manufacture more vitamin D with the same amount of exposure to sunlight.

People from distant lands have strikingly similar genetic traits, study reveals: 01/03

"Scientists said yesterday that they have discovered a tiny genetic mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans tens of thousands of years ago, a finding that helps solve one of biology's most enduring mysteries and illuminates one of humanity's greatest sources of strife."

...

"In fact, several scientists said, the new work shows just how small a biological difference is reflected by skin color. The newly found mutation involves a change of just one letter of DNA code out of the 3.1 billion letters in the human genome -- the complete instructions for making a human being."

Scientists Find A DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin

Here we are playing word games again. And what is the difference between terms like,kind,or family ? The real reason they're not scinence terms are because they don't add support,and confusion to the theory. We identify each race,each breed,why do we need to add terms to define new so called species ?

Bottomline we see variations within kinds and it's not deniable, but we do not see what you call macro-evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Look ,we can agree that there is mass amounts of information contained in our chromosomes and add the fact of adaptations,that is how we get the diversity we see today.

 

[AllieBaba]

Have you provided evidence that evolution has resulted in speciation yet?

I didn't think so. Continue to post irrelevancies about changes within species. It's laughable.

Sorry what. Are you seriously saying that speciation, by nature an evolutionary process, has nothing to do with evolution?

I'm saying you're lying when you say there's proof that one leads to the other.

 

[AllieBaba]

Wow, no response. Go figure.

You're lying when you say speciation as a result of evolution is proven.

Liars.

 

[AllieBaba]

You're also lying when you say I have ever denied that changes take place within species.

Of course you have to lie to propagate the lie that is the Theory of Evolution as it is taught in our public schools.

 

[Woyzeck]

Have you provided evidence that evolution has resulted in speciation yet?

I didn't think so. Continue to post irrelevancies about changes within species. It's laughable.

Sorry what. Are you seriously saying that speciation, by nature an evolutionary process, has nothing to do with evolution?

I'm saying you're lying when you say there's proof that one leads to the other.

But it's there, and calling me a liar doesn't make it any less true. We have mountains of evidence for speciation via evolution, because it's primarily the same evidence that evolution is true!

We can trace other species in the genus homo to a common ancestor we share. Homo erectus is thought to be the common ancestors of Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo sapiens.

That's just the top millimeter of the iceberg of evidence. What often catalyzes speciation is geographic isolation of two separate populations of organisms. The classic example is Charles Darwin and his finches of the Galapagos Islands. They were isolated from other mainland finches and evolved separate traits than they did. They accumulated enough to be classified as a different species of finches. Islands like the Galapagos are wonderful examples of speciation.

To put it simply:

Geographic isolation from another population + time = new species.

 

[Woyzeck]

Wow, no response. Go figure.

You're lying when you say speciation as a result of evolution is proven.

Liars.

You had no response to the evidence I replied to you with awhile back.

Who's pants are on fire now?

 

[AllieBaba]

Sorry what. Are you seriously saying that speciation, by nature an evolutionary process, has nothing to do with evolution?

I'm saying you're lying when you say there's proof that one leads to the other.

But it's there, and calling me a liar doesn't make it any less true. We have mountains of evidence for speciation via evolution, because it's primarily the same evidence that evolution is true!

We can trace other species in the genus homo to a common ancestor we share. Homo erectus is thought to be the common ancestors of Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo sapiens.

That's just the top millimeter of the iceberg of evidence. What often catalyzes speciation is geographic isolation of two separate populations of organisms. The classic example is Charles Darwin and his finches of the Galapagos Islands. They were isolated from other mainland finches and evolved separate traits than they did. They accumulated enough to be classified as a different species of finches. Islands like the Galapagos are wonderful examples of speciation.

To put it simply:

Geographic isolation from another population + time = new species.

Lie.

Provide the evidence, liar.

You're lying when you say it exists. And no, calling you a liar doesn't affect the lie itself, it just points out that you're a liar.

Which of course you are.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's really not that difficult to know how you get one breed or one race. You get them through isolation and segregation. Information gets bred out not in,If there was no cross breeding ,there would be no diversity we see today.

not that difficult to know how you get one breed or one race. You get them through isolation and segregation


Self contradiction much?

If there was no cross breeding ,there would be no diversity

Let's see if we can straighten this out, shall we?

Clarification 1) Isolation/segregation is ONE OF MANY ways in which evolution can bring about a sub species or new species, after many many generations of the same species living in isolation from each other. When the successive mutations in generations become great enough, and when the two isolated populations can no longer be made to interbreed, we have two species, "SPECIATION" has occurred.

Clarification 2) Genetic information within any species is exactly the same in number, regardless of race (or "breed" in animals) with the exception of statistically rare and "harmful" mutations. (For example, Down Syndrome human beings have an extra duplicate portion of chromosome 21.)

Clarification 3) Normally, in living plants and animals, the same NUMBER of genes, are passed on from one generation to all the succeeding generations, ( the genetic "information"). Although the actual genes may exhibit "variance" (mutation), the number of genes remains the same, and the genes are present in the DNA in every cell of that organism. No information is "lost" or "bred out".

Clarification 4) Breeding can only take place within a distinct and definite species., For example cats can't breed with lions, (even though they are of the same "family" of animals, they are not the same species), but black cats can breed with tiger cats, their genetic information is almost identical, same number of genes, just different patterns in a very few genes having to do with hair color, etc.

when a group is isolated from its family over time their dna becomes incompatible to breed back in to the family but Indies nor change then from being a cat whether a domestic cat or the lion. Cat is a cat,dogs are dogs. That is the clarification that was needed. I believe everyone us comprehending what I'm saying.

 

[Woyzeck]

I'm saying you're lying when you say there's proof that one leads to the other.

But it's there, and calling me a liar doesn't make it any less true. We have mountains of evidence for speciation via evolution, because it's primarily the same evidence that evolution is true!

We can trace other species in the genus homo to a common ancestor we share. Homo erectus is thought to be the common ancestors of Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo sapiens.

That's just the top millimeter of the iceberg of evidence. What often catalyzes speciation is geographic isolation of two separate populations of organisms. The classic example is Charles Darwin and his finches of the Galapagos Islands. They were isolated from other mainland finches and evolved separate traits than they did. They accumulated enough to be classified as a different species of finches. Islands like the Galapagos are wonderful examples of speciation.

To put it simply:

Geographic isolation from another population + time = new species.

Lie.

Provide the evidence, liar.

You're lying when you say it exists. And no, calling you a liar doesn't affect the lie itself, it just points out that you're a liar.

Which of course you are.

Go to a museum, the bones of our ancestor species are there. The Smithsonian I know for a fact has them, if not at the very least cast replicates of the actual specimens.

Calling me a liar and not even looking at what I've presented does not help your case.

 

[AllieBaba]

That's not prove that evolution leads to speciation.

You just don't understand science very well, do you? Do you know what "proof" means? Should I post the definition for you?

 

[AllieBaba]

I can go to Ripley's Believe It Or Not and see skeletons of monkey people. Is that evidence that they exist?

Shit no.

 

[Woyzeck]

I can go to Ripley's Believe It Or Not and see skeletons of monkey people. Is that evidence that they exist?

Shit no.

Seriously? Are you kidding me? You just compared the Smithsonian Institution to Ripley's Believe It Or Not?

Are you trying to be as obtuse, obstinate and as retarded as you can be?