Welcome جوري
In one of your post you mentioned that all mutations cause cancer and there are no positive ones. I don't know if your knowledge is really that lacking or maybe you only pretend to not know that evolution does not occur via changes od DNA in already developed organisms (unless you are talking about bacterias) but via mutation in gametes - reproductive cells. Humans are still evolving too. An example would be a mutant gene that allowed milk digestion in adults developed in two places separately. There is more than enough evidence to back it, all published in respected scientific journals.
Have a nice read:
1. Coelho, M., Luiselli, D., Bertorelle, G., Lopes, A. I., Seixas, S., Destro-Bisol, G. and Rocha, J. 2002. Microsatellite variation and evolution of human lactase persistence. Human Genetics 117(4): 329–339.
2. Bersaglieri T., Sabeti P. C., Patterson N., Vanderploeg T., Schaffner S. F., Drake J. A., Rhodes M., Reich D. E. and Hirschhorn J. N. 2004. Genetic signatures of strong recent positive selection at the lactase gene. American Journal of Human Genetics 74(6): 1111–20.
3. Tishkoff et al. "Convergent adaptation of human lactase persistence in Africa and Europe." Nature Genetics 39, 31-40 (2007).
Welcome جوري
In one of your post you mentioned that all mutations cause cancer and there are no positive ones. I don't know if your knowledge is really that lacking or maybe you only pretend to not know that evolution does not occur via changes od DNA in already developed organisms (unless you are talking about bacterias) but via mutation in gametes - reproductive cells. Humans are still evolving too. An example would be a mutant gene that allowed milk digestion in adults developed in two places separately. There is more than enough evidence to back it, all published in respected scientific journals.
Have a nice read:
1. Coelho, M., Luiselli, D., Bertorelle, G., Lopes, A. I., Seixas, S., Destro-Bisol, G. and Rocha, J. 2002. Microsatellite variation and evolution of human lactase persistence. Human Genetics 117(4): 329–339.
2. Bersaglieri T., Sabeti P. C., Patterson N., Vanderploeg T., Schaffner S. F., Drake J. A., Rhodes M., Reich D. E. and Hirschhorn J. N. 2004. Genetic signatures of strong recent positive selection at the lactase gene. American Journal of Human Genetics 74(6): 1111–20.
3. Tishkoff et al. "Convergent adaptation of human lactase persistence in Africa and Europe." Nature Genetics 39, 31-40 (2007).
Adaptation differs from speciation why not familiarize yourself the difference between macro and micro evolution and then come engage this topic when you can address it on a level
best,
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
here are a few posts I have written earlier for someone whose knowledge is beyond fifth grade biology.
format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
the proposed mechanism for evolution is as you mention indeed, or proposed to be through several mutations (frame shift, nonsense, missense, silent, acrocentric breaks in DNA or even jumping genes) the problem is in fact none of those mutations in documented science have conferred speciation-- in fact if you google any let's take any random example, say the translocation of the Philadelphia chromosome for instance t(9;22)(q34;q11). and you'll find that we end up with chronic myelogenous leukemia in lieu of mammoth to elephant.. just do that for each of the proposed mechanisms and see what you get..
also in terms of natural selection, research such things as trinucleotide repeat expansion disorders
Huntington Disease
Spinobulbar Muscular Atrophy
Spinocerebellar Ataxias (SCA types 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 17)
Dentatorubro-Pallidoluysian Atrophy
Non-polyglutamine Disorders
Fragile X Syndrome
Fragile XE Mental Retardation
Friedreich Ataxia (
Myotonic Dystrophy (DM, not MD)
Spinocerebellar Ataxias (
to name a few and you'll find that the least favorable traits are chosen and get successively worst with each generation.. thus, those of us who have a problem with some aspects of evolution theory, are skeptical from known science and observation rather than religious fervor!
We're not talking about squamous cells turning columnar with repeated insults for with whatever that is worth in many instances leads to development of cancer not a new species of human beings..
and btw if we're still evolving can we not 'devolve' I mean diamonds go back to carbon so why not we to unicellular organisms?
Atheists should familiarize themselves with the religion to which they subscribe so we're not laying out their tenets and having a good chuckle at their zeal!
best,
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
What the hell si the problem? Micro and macroevolution are fundamentally the same process, just at different scales. Evolution of life forms beyond the species level (i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature
What the hell si the problem? Micro and macroevolution are fundamentally the same process, just at different scales. Evolution of life forms beyond the species level (i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature
And you used totally wrong example (fallacy of false analogy). Diamonds are not result of evolution because diamonds are not alive. They do not have metabolism, they do not reproduce as living organisms do. They are just a particular arrangement of carbon atoms, created in specific conditions (sufficient pressure and temperature)
And you used totally wrong example (fallacy of false analogy). Diamonds are not result of evolution because diamonds are not alive. They do not have metabolism, they do not reproduce as living organisms do. They are just a particular arrangement of carbon atoms, created in specific conditions (sufficient pressure and temperature)
in fact that only thing that evolves in the way you'll have us believe are viruses and they're not considered living organisms and worse yet they need a host in order to evolve. Somehow you expect us to take a great leap of faith on something that is meant to be 'scientific' Why don't you describe the process as I have demonstrated in the PDF file I have shared above?
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Your document seems to be an old, creationist argument that probabilities of complex molecules appearing are so low that it would be impossible for life to emerge spontaneously. This is of course well, bullshit I don't have will to write an extensive reply now as I prefer to enjoy beer and Christmas food, so now I'll reply just briefly.
In the very first sentence they already made a grave mistake (or an overt deception). They assumed that assembly of RNA (or any other organic compound) was completely random. In terms of chemistry it would mean that chances of e.g. one atom of oxygen binding with two atoms of hydrogen are exactly the same as chances of one atom of oxygen binding with, for example... two atoms of helium. I can't imagine how some people even dare to call this "science". Even a 7th grade chemistry student knows that some atoms don't bond with other atoms at all while others can be a ppart of a very diverse array of compounds. Using creationist logic I may say that chances of water forming randomly are so low that ir would need a creator.
Eloquent as we can only ever expect from an atheist
format_quote Originally Posted by RedGuard
I prefer to enjoy beer and Christmas food
Whatever redeeming qualities you presume to have don't jive on the forum either!
format_quote Originally Posted by RedGuard
was completely random
If not random then designed which rather renders this logorrhea moot.
as stated go learn science past fifth grade biology and don't resort to logical fallacies and attempts at 'cool and macho' if that it what you were going for and in fact to try to evolve a little..
I can't believe that the benevolent pond scum evolved into an obnoxious atheist. Satan must be behind it. Life is basically molecular codes. So can numbers evolve? Can the number 2 evolve into 7? Evolution is not scientifically valid because no one has witnessed it happening or more accurately taken data of it happening. If all the scientists loaded their raw data and their observations and ideas into a super computer to prove evolution, the computer would just compute a reply of "insufficient data". I think politics is behind this evolution mania. A kind of collective oneness, out of Africa syndrome. But I don't buy it. I wish they would stop pushing their Marxist agendas, "everybody is the same, we evolved from a monkey in Africa" rubbish.
Evolution as a Marxist agenda... Lenin and Stalin laugh in their graves. If they liked it so much, why did they ban it as a an imperialist-capitalist conspiracy against dialectic materialism and banned it from education altogether?
Besides that, are you sure that no one witnessed evolution happening? No one? Not even once? I think you're mistaken as evolution of unicellular organisms in very well documented. An example would be the evolution of antibiotic resistance - those bacteria that survive contact with antibiotics keep reproducing while those who weren't die out, making it a perfect example of natural selection. The reason why we don't readily observe evolution in humans and other animals is because their lifespan/breeding speed is incredibly slow. For bacteria 1000 generations is just a few weeks. For animals (including humans) it's thousands or tens of thousands of years.
Richard Lenski runs an experiment of keeping 12 initially identical populations of E. coli since February 1988. In 2010 the population reached a milestone of 50,000 generations. All populations show remarkable evolutioanry changes, some fo which occured in all populations, some in just a few or one. One strain evolved the ability to use citric acid as a source of carbon, as it was present in the growth medium. Differences in average cell size and shape have also appeared.
Nah, of course there is evolutionary change - as there is change of gene pool of given population, proven to be caused by genetic mutations which were then selected for.
I don't even know how to reply to your post as it does not contain any criticism of the experiment. If you want, you can familiarize yourself with it on Richard Lenski's website (myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/index.html). It contains a detailed description together with genetic data and a list of publications. So maybe you can prove how errenously wrong he is? Just don't pull out Zionist conspiracies.
you don't know how to reply because you can't take said mutations and I have them listed above and actually use them to 'speciate' and it is also the reason you psycho babble like a fool then beat extra hard on your chest to self congratulate and then reference us to sites because you can't synthesize what you've read to mean what you say!
best,
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Inability to metabolize citrate under oxic conditions was considered to be a defining trait of E. coli bacteria. One strain eventually developed this abiltiy after circa 40,000 generations so it can eb considered a new species.
Inability to metabolize citrate under oxic conditions was considered to be a defining trait of E. coli bacteria. One strain eventually developed this abiltiy after circa 40,000 generations so it can eb considered a new species.
Truly unfortunate is your obstinacy and purposeful aversion to calling the terms what they're. If you don't understand the difference between adapting to changes and becoming something else all together then there is no point to this dialogue.
Taking 28 letters of the alphabet to make seemingly endless words doesn't equate to all words having the same meaning or common parent from which they evolved. simply means these are the building blocks of language.
Say I even accept that the E.Coli evolved into a new species of klebsiella or strep after direct manipulation, why don't you take the same means and apply it to humans? It is quite easy in fact to manipulate genes using vectors, so put the pedal to the metal and stop with the empiricism and give us something to sink our teeth into or simply buzz off!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
A Question which Atheists could not answer (OP)
I can't imagine how some people even dare to call this "science". Even a 7th grade chemistry student knows that some atoms don't bond with other atoms at all while others can be a ppart of a very diverse array of compounds. Using creationist logic I may say that chances of water forming randomly are so low that ir would need a creator.
Xyyzzz liked this post
Lenin and Stalin laugh in their graves. If they liked it so much, why did they ban it as a an imperialist-capitalist conspiracy against dialectic materialism and banned it from education altogether?
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks