Natural Selection should be about all you need to know to find out Evolutionism is nonsense. We most certainly do know that offspring select genetic traits. Select out of a pool. Its true that we always knew that (animal breeding being an oldest profession) but, Now we can really sit down and examine that. So again, Natural Selection. Selection. Selecting out of an already existing pool. I would recommend a few people keep thinking about that. Do you want to believe that somewhere genetic information somehow, somewhere in another time somehow just started 'adding'? Fine. But dont blame that on science.
Oh, you are so cute! So innocent and unknowing of the way of things... Genetic information is added quite easily through mutation or replication errors. Also, bacteria can take up DNA from the outside environment and incorporate it into their own. It's a very popular lab method. So you've got about 2 million sperm on you about now, I'm guessing. While probably 95% of those contain genetic information that will produce nothing you don't yourself have an allele for, a small number of them can. Do you think Adam and Eve had cystic fibrosis? Do you really think noah could have produced three physically distinct races with the same exact dna that made him? People all over the place are born with tails, horns, two sets of genetalia, albinism, and a bunch of other stuff that would have crippled adam and eve if they had to carry all that so it could make it to the present. And here's a little troll just for you: :troll:
Im sorry but theres no way a man can look at a rock and tell the differance on the age of either 2000 years, or a million. A 2000 year old rock can look and feel like its been around for a million years and a million year rock can look like its been around for 2000 years. Theres no way of telling the differance, for they are massive amounts of time. Thats no evidence proving the evoloution theory.
Well of course, if you gave me two rocks, I would probably not be able to tell you which one was created when, but that's not how fossil dating is done. There are a number of ways it is done. Igneous rocks in the same sediment layers can be radioactive dated, which judges the age of the rock by the amount of radioactive elements in it with respect to the half life of the element. Fossils are stratified, meaning that older fossils are at lower layers in sedimentary rock that more recent ones. These stratifications do show evolution. Simpler organisms are deep into the rock, and more complex ones are closer to the top, generally speaking. Haven't you taken earth science or biology or something?
I love it! Lets get started.. No. New genetic information is never ever added. But what you are refering to is all the evidence you need to call Evolutionism 'disproven'. Mutations are bad. Replication errors are bad. ok.. at best they are 'benign' and/or disposed off. Dropped. Do you realise you just gave good hard evidence that not only does evolution NOT happen, but, Nature works AGAINST such a principle. Mutations and errors are the ALREADY existing information being mixed-up, twisted or not finished. Lets go over this again for those still not getting it: Evolutionism 'imagines' that somewhere NEW Genetic information was added and carried on. Reality shows us that already existing genetic information occasionaly DROPS out. Oh oh! Nope. But Genesis describes the fall of mankind and the degeneration of the Earth. What did you say... oh yeah, that genetic mutations occur. So far you are making a fantastic case for the scientific validation of Genesis. The three superficially distinct 'appearances' among humanity ARE EXPLAINED by Noah and his Three sons (and daughter-in-laws) because we SELECT (theres that science again) We select FROM gene pools. Shem, Ham and Japeth. Thanks again for making another great case for a DEvolving species here on Earth. People all over the place are born with genetic problems. Adam and Eve dont carry those. They have ALL the genetic information which after generation after generation in the fallen planet is DEGENERATING as we go. Good post btw.. you said what I was trying to say - the OPPOSITE of Evolutionism is repeatedly observed, tested and recorded. Over and over. We SELECT FROM genetic pools and occasionaly we LOSE or retard a bit of the pool. Exactly.
Proxima, how much genetics education have you taken? I ask because from what I have read geneticists seem to support evolutionary theory. They even use genetics to approximate the time (250 000 years ago) that the first homo sapiens existed. And they find out lots of other neat stuff. Broccoli, Brussel Sprouts, Cauliflower, and Cabbage have something in common. Know what it is? If so, what is your take on the process which created the first three?
Interesting point you brought up there... from a 'mathematical' perspective they do know that we all come from one woman. That was a fairly recent discovery. Oh wow.. what did Genesis claim and everyone thought was so funny before.. oh yeah, that we all descend from one woman. We DEscend. We do not Ascend. Thats about as cold hard scientific fact you can get. But by all means, if you really want to imagine that somewhere, somehow, in some distant time that things worked the opposite as they do now then go ahead.
My genetics textbook would have to disagree with you there, and I willing to take its word over yours, sir. Well that's quite the all-encompassing statement, isn't it? All mutations and replication errors are bad. Benign at best. Here's the truth, and I'm sure I've told you this before. The large majority, something like 95%, of mutations and errors have no effect. The large majority of those that aren't benign do indeed give the organism an evolutionary (reproductive) disadvantage. However, some mutations are good. Let's take polyploidy. I doubt you think Adam and Eve, being perfect, had more than 10 fingers, but many people who live in societies that are, reproductively speaking, isolated, have 6 fingers on each hand. Fully functional. That sounds like a positive mutation to me. How tall were Adam and Eve? I'm guessing pretty short. So with those genes, not mutating over the years, how have we gotten people like Andre the Giant, and these basketball players around 8 feet tall? That's definitely not bad. One more...Bacteria. Bacteria are becoming more and more resistant to antibiotics. What caused that, if not evolution? Did you know there is a kind of mutation called an "insertion?" What do you suppose that would be? Sure, the 5% or so of mutations that have any effect are mostly bad, but once in a while, it's a good one. That good mutation gets selected for, because it gives a reproductive advantage of one kind or another to the individual. If you're thinking that humans are gradually becoming more degenerate, well that's just stupid. We won't just keep going until we die out because of natural genetic mutation WRONG. Yes, sometimes it drops out, but I would say that just as much of the time, it is added, and sometimes during replication, there is a section that is replicated over and over for no apparent reason, which means the new cell will have more dna than the old. Who are you to give lectures on what is and what isn't in genetics? It's a mistake to think that mutations are necessarily bad. Just remember the Toxic Avenger. I think you don't quite understand what the word "scientific" means. I'm not sure what you're saying. My point was that one man, Noah, could not give rise to Three different races (what are they, by the by...black white arab?) without mutation, and even then, the odds would be crazily high. The chances of any particular set of alleles being given by one person is 1/2^23. So I take it you acknowledge mutation. That's all I was getting at. Mutation is the mechanism of evolution. If mutations occur, and they certainly do, evolution must happen. Well look who missed the entire point. Here's how it works. 95% of mutations are just fine. If adam and eve are perfect, 95% of their kids will be as well. Maybe more, depending on dominance of alleles. Bad mutations are selected out. People with cystic fibrosis usually don't pass it on because they don't live to reproductive age. People born without legs, or with cleft lips, or really anything that would make them either less effective at reproducing or less effecting at finding someone to reproduce with, have a harder time finding a mate, having offspring, and passing on undesirable genes. That's how it works. The theory is of a "Mitochondrial Eve." Since Mitochondria come exclusively from the mother, all human mitochondria can be traced back to one woman, but she sure as hell lived long before 6000 years ago. And on top of that, the mitochondrial eve came at least thirty THOUSAND years before the y-chromosomal "adam." Show me the science please. I want sources. Well you've certainly had no problem with that. By the way, you shouldn't be making these grand statements about how genetics works if you don't understand it. It's obvious that you don't. Seriously. It's apparent from your posts that you have no idea what you're talking about, and I'd like to reiterate BlackGuard's question...How much education have you had in genetics? And here's another smiley just for you: :dupe:
Freaker.. Im not even going to bother doing a point by point style reply to you because all you have really done is: Agree with me. Acknowledge the already existing information can mutate/switch/redundacy etc. Ok, But then, even after admitting all this is true... for some bizarre self contradicting reason you have decided that new genetic information somehow creates and adds itself to organisms. Huh? And I have to figure these 'magic good mutations' made which have this fabled 'new information' had to be occuring MORE often than the bad antievolution kind we see now at 95+%. One of the problems here is that you are not really sure what you are arguing for or against. Im not trying to slag you - but its clear you dont really know exactly how or why you are bringing Alleles into this. Thats fine. So, What would be more helpful is if you would just explain to me how new genetic information would,could or should have ever added itself to organisms? Where is this? Here is what we are looking for by the way: Say our Lizard looks like this genetically: abcdef. We ALREADY agree that Lizards do sometimes have a mutation: abcde or even, abcdeff So far we know have no evolution or we have devolution or 'at best' we have a redundant bit of already existing information. (that occasional lizard with two tails or heads) Here is what YOU believe happened (for some reason) and what YOU need to find before you can start using the word 'science' and having good reason: abcdefg Now that is the evolution you want and Id like to see. You want and need for some new genetic information to have (for some reason) created itself and then somehow passed onto the new generation of lizard. We all agree that mutations DEvolve the pool (especially if given millions of years wow!) but Need to know why you believe Evolution (meaning added new genetic information) occured. Simply math telling us that your magic new beneficial information was happening MORE than the rate of drops and losses btw. Answer?
Ok, I think I see the problem we are having here. Redundancy is not what you think it is. There are four kinds of DNA bases: A,C,T,G. These are organized into codons, a three-base sequence that codes for a specific amino acid. There is a codon that will start the transcription of DNA, and three that will stop the transcription of DNA. I don't remember what they are right now, but that's easy for you to look up if you really care. So the vast majority (95-98%) of our DNA doesn't seem to code for protein production from amino acids. When there is a start codon, and a number of other factors, translation starts and goes until it reaches a stop codon. So here's our imaginary sequence: ATG CTG ACT GTC TTC AAA AGA CTG GTT... ATG is the start sequence, and the stop is way down the line, maybe another 300 bases. If one base is inserted after the stop, you get a whole different gene. ATG ACT GAC TGT CTT CAA AAG ACT GGT T... Completely different sequence. If the gene originally produced pigment, the person may turn out to be albino, because the gene no longer functions. Because of the "frameshift" of the codon sequences (note that each codon after the error is different than they were), the stop codon may come much earlier or much later, wherever the three bases of a codon form a stop sequence. A replication error may give: ATG CTG ACT ACT ACT ACT ACT ACT ACT ACT ACT ACT GTC TTC AAA AGA CTG GTT... That will affect the gene. It may disable it, it may change it to something different. Keep in mind that most of this happens outside genes, in dormant DNA. This means that if a mutation inserts a start codon, it can create a new active gene. Original: (ATG is the start codon) nonfunctioning DNA AGT CTG GGA CTG ATT CGT AAC AAC ATG... New: T inserted in first codon, shifts other codons over, starts translation. ATG TCT GGG ACT GAT TCG TAA CAA CAT G... Since abcdef are all very complex, specific DNA sequences and unlikely to be reproduced in the same DNA by mutation or mistake in completion, it is far more likely that you'll get abcdefg than abcdeff. I hope that explains it.
That's not the case. Beneficial changes are far less common that benign and harmful ones. But the beneficial ones are more likely to be passed on. If in Generation 1 you have 90 normal people, 4 hunchbacks, 5 cystic fibrosis people, and 1 person who is more muscular, intelligent, and attractive to the opposite sex than normal, generation 2 would look something like this: 89 normal, 2 hunchbacks, 2 cystic fibrosis people, and 7 good mutants. Hunchbacks would have had a hard time mating, and cystic fibrosis, since they usually die before they reproduce, would only be in Gen2 because of mutation causing it between 1 and 2. The 1 superhuman from gen1 would have outcompeted these people for mates, and also would have outcompeted the normal people. Generation 3 would look like: 80N, 1H, 2CF, 17 Good Mutants. G4: 65N, 1H, 2CF, 32 Good Mutants. There will always be some hunchbacks and cystic fibrosis people resulting from bad mutation between generations, but since they are bad competitors, the superhumans will overtake them easily and gradually increase numbers in the total population.
No you dont. This is a common myth sold by Evolutionists and it just cannot work. The idea that 99.9 'bad mutations' are no problem as long as the .1 is passed on. Wrongo. You dont need to know anything about anything but do some very simple math and after millions of years you are reducing the species. The very opposite of evolutionism is really happening. (or better put, one step forward while nine other steps disappear) I totally understand you have been repeatedly 'assured' that 99 bad 'doesnt matter' but it hugely, entirely DOES matter Big Time! But you still cant even start talking about that anyways. Where is 'G'. Our Lizard has ABCDEF but the fundamental question and the entirety of evolutionism is all about explaining when where and why the hell the lizard produced NEW, useful genetic information and added it? Seriously, that does not happen. It just doesnt. You believe it does for some crazy reason but why would you believe it? Any examples?
The development of new DNA in cells is not precise, it is a biological action. The mechanism in cells to rebuild the DNA code makes mistakes. This results in death more often than not. Sometimes changes occur in what is called non coding DNA. All plants and animals on earth contain some percentage of non-coding DNA that inactive code left over from some other evolutionary stage of reproduction errors that did not affect ability of the cell to function. There is something like a 30% failure rate in a developing embryo. It is not that difficult of a concept to see that there are factors that create random errors in the DNA code. Most of the time these errors result in cell death which is no big deal in a grown human with billions of cells. This is not so good for a developing fetus. Sometimes the change lies dormant and inactive. Sometimes the change doesn’t kill but creates deficiencies that lead to unsuccessful, un-reproductive individual. And once in a very great while the change leads to a beneficial trait that gives that individual an advantage over the others. Change in DNA is absolute proven fact. This fact disproves any notion of a fixed “gene pool”. Small changes in genetic traits over time lead to large changes and eventually different species. More Evidence of evolution: Some plants have far more chromosomes, this supports evolution as plants have been on earth far longer than animals. Look at how many diverse Australian species there are. These animals were land-locked for millions of years and developed in different ways than those on the large connected continents.
Do you realise what you just did there? I mean, do I really have to spell it out all over again or are we going to just keep pretending we are stupid or what? You just did a fairly good job of explaining why DNA is known to occasionally go wrong. Then just when you are doing good and actually citing real facts you just swerve off and for absolutely no reason you then decide to drop that 'conclusion' up there (see quote). Here, Im going to rephrase what you said without changing your intended meaning. Ready? We look at a big pool of infomation (DNA) and we noticed that it sometimes loses or wrecks bits of information. So, for some stupid reason I believe that over a long period of time that pool of information will add new information. Further more, Since it will add more information by losing or wrecking what it has... then it therefore must have done that before too. Seriously.. that is what you just did. Cant you see that is what you just tried to say here? It just boggles the mind that evolutionists can actually explain exactly why the very opposite of evolutonism IS happening. Cite references, Show research, Then for some mind-fucking-boggling reason, with total seriousness then 'conclude' that this explains why the opposite 'must' have happened. wtf indeed.
Try and keep up here. What I did was reword the entire thoughts to what they 'really mean'. Loss and damage ARE what happen. But see the standard word games of the evowarrior - say the words 'change and alteration'. See how that sounds better. Reread my post. Try and 'get it' before you come back with your amazing powers of observation again. Thx
It's not about sounding better. What they mean when they say "change or alteration" is "change or alteration". It's not always detrimental. the only one playing word games is you.
Yes the theory of Evolution which is a theory but often taught as fact in many of the schools, has become nothing more than the Old Shell game. You have to be quick to keep up with the changes, and if new evidence comes in that would disprove it, they keep the Shells moving.
