|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biblical Creationism Requires Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Organicmachination Member (Idle past 5738 days) Posts: 105 From: Pullman, WA, USA Joined: |
Yes, science, by its definition and by its methods, unless the science happens to be mathematics, will not every conclusively say anything about anything.
But that doesn't change the fact that using the information we get from Genomics, we can make countless working medicines, diagnose countless diseases and clone many organisms, accurately, predictably and safely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1621 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
ill agree.
but it also means it should not rule out the possibilities of man being the start of man, and apes a evolution off that start. just because man initially is less complicated in by whats "apparent" doesn't mean it didn't have other traits that might be more valuable. especcially considering environment. weather is getting very bad here tornado warnings and such. if i miss a reply im hiding in a closet =) keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
but it also means it should not rule out the possibilities of man being the start of man, and apes a evolution off that start. If apes evolved from humans why are there still humans? (sorry couldn't resist}
just because man initially is less complicated in by whats "apparent" doesn't mean it didn't have other traits that might be more valuable. Seriously though, what you need to project into the past has to be tied to the fossil evidence. This has nothing to do with complication or simplicity of DNA groupings of genes into arbitrary chromosomes and the arrangement of chromosomes within an organism (no set pattern required, the numbering and naming is just arbitrary tags so we can talk about them). We'd have to be able to look at the chromosomes of older genomes: it would be interesting to know how many chromosomes Neanderthals had. I've not been able to find that piece of information. Enjoy. Note: I searched this site for reference to the numbers of chromosomes in the various articles we had on Neander DNA and did not find any. Edited by RAZD, : ) Edited by RAZD, : added note re moose comment. by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
We'd have to be able to look at the chromosomes of older genomes: it would be interesting to know how many chromosomes Neanderthals had. I've not been able to find that piece of information. You may wish to look at The Mammuthus Moment: Are You a Neanderthal?. That would seem to be the better place to pursue this discussion line. Please, no replies to this message. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1621 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
If apes evolved from humans why are there still humans? (sorry couldn't resist} if dogs came form wolves, why are there still wolves? > an ape is an ape. a man a man. if we share the same tree, at one point the starting point (which can either be called man or ape, depending on how you pursue the tree)was not either current man, nor current ape. it was the first man. (or the first ape, if thats how you want to look at it.) whatever your looking for in the fossil records, it would have attributes that would allow it to evolve either direction. and Lucy seems to hold those traits in current data. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
I have no trouble whatsoever in understanding the word "or", but you seem to be struggling to distinguish between valid evidence and ad hominem attacks.
I felt there was little point in dealing with your "repeating the spin" since the rest of my post had dealt with that. If you actually bother to look at the references I provided in my list, or ever read the article I linked to, you will see that there is NO attempt to redefine recombination or mutation to make them synonomous. As a few examples of why you're barking up the wrong tree can I recommend the following reading material.
Note recombination will produce variation faster than mutation alone (assuming "normal" mutation and recombination rates). http://biomed.brown.edu/.../BIO48/4.Mutants.Link&Recomb.HTML The reference makes a clear distinction between mutation and recombination, there is NO attempt to say the are the same thing, quite the opposite, in fact.
Mutations in the DNA mismatch repair system increase mutation and recombination. They may thereby promote the genetic divergence that underlies speciation, after which the reacquisition of a functional repair system may sustain that divergence by creating a barrier to recombination. ........ These results demonstrate the establishment of an incipient genetic barrier between formerly identical lines, and they support a model in which the mismatch repair system can influence speciation dynamics through its simultaneous effects on mutation and recombination. Just a moment... The reference makes a clear distinction between mutation and recombination, there is NO attempt to say the are the same thing, quite the opposite, in fact.
Recombination occurs through both homologous crossing over and homologous gene conversion during meiosis. The contribution of recombination relative to mutation is expected to be dramatically reduced in inbreeding organisms. NCBI The reference makes a clear distinction between mutation and recombination, there is NO attempt to say the are the same thing, quite the opposite, in fact.
A coalescent-based approach was employed to estimate the rate of mutation, the rate of recombination, and the size distribution of recombination fragments from samples Influence of Mutation, Recombination, Population History, and Selection on Patterns of Genetic Diversity in Neisseria meningitidis | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic The reference makes a clear distinction between mutation and recombination, there is NO attempt to say the are the same thing, quite the opposite, in fact.
Natural selection acts on genetic variation that comes from two principal sources: mutation and recombination. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/107319.html The reference makes a clear distinction between mutation and recombination, there is NO attempt to say the are the same thing, quite the opposite, in fact.
under the joint action of mutation and recombination http://www.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/...preprints/reco6.ps.gz The reference makes a clear distinction between mutation and recombination, there is NO attempt to say the are the same thing, quite the opposite, in fact.
Since mutation and recombination are independent of each other... http://www.math-inf.uni-greifswald.de/...ull/prep/2001/20.ps The reference makes a clear distinction between mutation and recombination, there is NO attempt to say the are the same thing, quite the opposite, in fact.
Mutation, Recombination, and Reassortment as Evolutionary Forces Mutation, recombination and segment reassortment contribute to the evolution of most DNA and RNA viruses. Sometimes one form of genetic change appears to be more prominent than another, and sometimes the concerted action of recombination or reassortment with mutation is apparent, (i.e., antigenic drift in influenza virus, following the origin of a new antigenic type through reassortment) [snip] Reference to a diagram in the text[snip]. Fields, B.N., Knipe, D. M. & Howley, P.M.(2007) Fields Virology 5th Edition, Volume 1, p 397 (Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, publishers; ISBN0781760607)
Shortened link for RAZD The reference makes a clear distinction between mutation and recombination, there is NO attempt to say the are the same thing, quite the opposite, in fact.
Like mutation, recombination is an important source of new variation for natural selection to work upon. However, also like mutation, recombination places a genetic load upon the population. Evolution - A-Z - Recombination The reference makes a clear distinction between mutation and recombination, there is NO attempt to say the are the same thing, quite the opposite, in fact.
Recombination, therefore can be a lot faster than waiting for mutation to assemble the good, AB chromosome (here AB is referring to the terminology used earlier in the section, my addition) Shortened link to source The reference makes a clear distinction between mutation and recombination, there is NO attempt to say the are the same thing, quite the opposite, in fact. This lists selected highlights from the first 30 results returned by Google on a search which resulted in about "2, 380,000 results" according to Google. To summarise, I have demonstrated that there is no attempt to redefine "mutation" and "recombination" to mean the same thing, in fact there is a clear attempt to specifically say that they are different. So your Spin Recognition Tip
If they try to redefine either "mutation" or "recombination" to make them synonymous, they're up to no good. is completely irrelevant. My previous post dealt with the suggestion that evolutionists would deny that recombination exists and showed that this was, in fact not the case and a totally baseless accusation on your part (I provided evidence for you to look at). So your assertion that
The bargain basement evolutionist will just repeat the spin or deny that recombination exists. has been refuted with regard to both "repeat[ing] the spin" AND "deny[ing] that recombination exists. You say
But the general public is never exposed to this information. The information is in the public domain and is available to anyone throught he public library system and the internet. I people want to know more about it they're perfectly free to get the information, however, door-to-door canvassing of the information isn't practical, don't you think? Are you suggesting that every time an article or book is published, it is the responsibility of scientists to carry out the equivalent of neighbourhood leaflet drops? The very fact that they publish their data tends to run counter to your analogy of "trade secret". Those who wish to engage in genuine debate on the subject and who do so from a position of informed opinion tend not to make the howlers you have. You say
It starts to give us some perspective when we see the years of hard study by so many persons all trying to piece together a little fraction of the work God did in one day Which day would this be? Is it the
Third day: God commands the waters to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear (the third command). "Earth" and "sea" are named. God commands the earth to bring forth grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees or is it the
Fifth day: God commands the sea to "teem with living creatures", and birds to fly across the heavens (sixth command); He creates birds and sea creatures, and commands them to be fruitful and multiply. Or is it the
Sixth day: God commands the land to bring forth living creatures (seventh command); He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles. He then creates Man and Woman in His "image" and "likeness" Which one constitutes the "one day"? Seems to me that life was created over three separate days, according to Genesis Ch 1:1 - 2:3. Here's a link to a Wiki digest of the relevant passage Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia Or how about what Creationwiki has to say about it?
The account in Genesis 1 meticulously describes the creation including what was specifically made on each day. Although many people argue that the days of the creation week should not be taken literally, the events are described in terms that are correlated with definitions of time. Since God created time and language, it is reasonable to assume that the most straightforward reading of these passages should take place. It then goes on to say
Day 3 - God created dry land and plants. And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning”the third day. Genesis 1:9-13 Day 5 - God created sea creatures and birds. And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." And there was evening, and there was morning”the fifth day. Genesis 1:20-23 Day 6 - God created land animals and man. And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:24-27 http://creationwiki.net/Day_of_creation as retrieved on 23 Jan 2008 04:31:46 GMT I was unable to lift the information directly from the Creationwiki site as it is experiencing technical difficulties, but the above was cached from creationwiki on 23.1.08 as the link makes clear. Again, it took him 3 separate days, not the one day you claim. How about The Institute for Creation Reearch? Well, they don't actually say anything about it that I can find, although they have plenty of stuff they want to sell me! Answers in Genesis provided a link to a page at another site ORDER OF BIBLICAL CREATIONWhat is the order of events in the biblical Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net and this page agrees that days 3, 5 and 6 were the days on which life-forms were created. Again, it took three days. Can I have a substantive reply this time instead of ad hominem remarks? To Admin If you feel this should be split into two separate posts, let me know and I'll happily oblige. Edited by Trixie, : Shortened link for RAZD, hope it works
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I'm detecting a lot of spin here! Recombination is pretty random - where it happens is not fixed at all (and neither the normal mechanisms of mutation or recombination "randomly mix up" DNA). More, recombination is unusual in bacteria because bacteria are haploid - they require a source of additional genetic material before recombination can occur. So what is the evidence that recombination rather than mutation is the source of the resistance ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Trixie
type: [url=insert your url here]this message is linked to an url[/url]and it becomes: this message is linked to an url Long urls force the page to be wider than the screen, and thus make reading the posts difficult.Please edit the one you have in Message 81 so we can read the page. For other formating tips see Posting Tips Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
RAZD, I'd already dealt with the one which was causing problems for me before I posted the reply. At the moment it's all working on my computer, even when I alter my browser window to 2 inches wide.
The one link I didn't shorten, which lives inside a quote window already has been fixed by the site I copied it from and is't causing me any problems. Could you let me know exactly which link is giving you problems because I'm not getting any so I don't know what you want me to fix.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It's the
Mutation, Recombination, and Reassortment as Evolutionary Forces Mutation, recombination and segment reassortment contribute to the evolution of most DNA and RNA viruses. Sometimes one form of genetic change appears to be more prominent than another, and sometimes the concerted action of recombination or reassortment with mutation is apparent, (i.e., antigenic drift in influenza virus, following the origin of a new antigenic type through reassortment) [snip] Reference to a diagram in the text[snip]. Fields, B.N., Knipe, D. M. & Howley, P.M.(2007) Fields Virology 5th Edition, Volume 1, p 397 (Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, publishers; ISBN0781760607)
http://books.google.com/books?id=5O0somr0w18C&pg=...etc one, that is too wide for my iddle screen. Thanks. by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5897 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: My inability to predict a grandmaster's moves on the chessboard does not make them random. Your inability to predict where recombination will take place does not make it random. And what are "normal mechanisms of mutation"? How can that which is normal produce abnormality? And if we were to call mutations "normal", what word would we use to designate that which is not mutated? As for bacteria requiring a source of additional genetic material before recombination can occur, I've been informed otherwise by more than one source I consider to be more reliable. And would you really agree with Taz that the same mutation is going to crop up fresh time after time, in spite of enormous odds against it? That right there should be a tip-off that it cannot be a mutation, but must be either the result of an exchange mechanism or recombination. Please try to resist your conditioning. I notice a couple of things. If you had said 'unpredictable' instead of 'random' you would have been correct. If you had said 'most common mechanisms of mutation' instead of 'normal mechanisms of mutation' you would have been accurate. Remedy these, and your post has a lot less potential to mislead. So which post was it that set of the spin detector, mine or yours?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
tesla writes: the fox study show that the power of choice can either slow down or speed up evolutions of living things. The 'power' of choice primarily affects behvioural evolution. It could only increase another selection pressure for a structure to facilitate the behaviour. A minor difference but an important one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5897 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: So you understood what I wrote, and yet you chose to behave is if you did not. Noted. As for this struggle, I cannot say whether your perception is flawed or your claim that you perceive it is false. I fully expect my opposition to present virtually no valid evidence and plenty of ad hom. I am capable of recognizing patterns, so you needn't worry on that score.
quote: Repeated that one 10 times. But just as the word "or" is readily understood; so is the word "some". Now follow closely: Some biologists are evolutionists. Some evolutionists are bargain basement evolutionists. Some bargain basement evolutionists employ the spin method to their writing. You would give the impression that you're very concerned about my education concerning recombination. What makes me so special? The ignorance regarding recombination is a plague hereabouts. How many times have you seen things called "mutations" when you knew they were actually the result of recombination? How many times have you taken the time to correct these errors? And yet you took a considerable amount of time on post #81, when there's no indication at all that I'm confused about this. Indeed, I was the one pointing out that recombination and mutation are two different things!
quote: Explain or deny: recombination is virtually unknown among nonbiologists. The terms "mutation" and "DNA" are so commonplace that anyone who is unfamiliar with them borders on being illiterate. The vast majority of things attributed to mutation are actually the result of normally functioning recombination. There is no effort to correct any of these fallacies; even when they are repeated non-stop in all sorts of "educational" media, including science magazines, TV programs, and school textbooks. Anyone attempting to correct these errors will be zealously opposed.
quote:If you really tried, I'm confident you could have figured out on which day God invented DNA. It's not a tricky question at all. Were it not for your mocking tone and dubious recent history, I'd gladly answer it. Shoot, I'd answer it anyhow; but I think there's a good chance you or Taz'd want to argue about that too. Bad choice with that quote from the first link, BTW. That fact alone is sufficient to slam the door on Darwinism of all present stripes. Bad choice in another sense on #5. When it says "Natural selection acts on genetic variation that comes from two principal sources: mutation and recombination", this implies that mutation is superior to recombination. The spin is subtle, but it's there. We know from the first source which one is superior, now don't we? Even if you take the two as rough equals, this is still spin. Recombination isn't just a little bigger - it's much, much bigger than mutation. This statement's a lot like saying "There are two exceptionally large objects in the solar system: Jupiter and the Sun". Actually, now that I think about it, I'll bet that among creatures that have other sources of genetic variation, the other sources contribute more than mutation. If so, that statement is out & out misleading. I might look into that if I cared just a little more... Upon review, #10 is probably the best of the lot, but #1 was close. The two snippets compliment each other nicely, from my point of view. I'm tempted to actually follow those links. Nah - with my luck there'd be lies or spin showing up in a paragraph or two. I'm just not in the mood. It's not everywhere one can find straight biology without evolutionism thrown in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
So basically the bottom line is handwaving and "I can't be bothered"
I'm tempted to actually follow those links. Nah - with my luck there'd be lies or spin showing up in a paragraph or two. I'm just not in the mood. It's not everywhere one can find straight biology without evolutionism thrown in. In other words, you suggest that the links will lead to lies and spin, and you do this while stating that you won't bother checking them. Are you scared they might not be lies and spin? Why don't you deal with the evidence? I provided it in refutation of your assertions and I maintain that it refutes your assertions (or should that be accusations?). Saying you can't be bothered to check it out is intellectual laziness at best. Until you provide something substantive, I don't really see any point in continuing discussion with you. However, the points that I made stand unrefuted by you, so far and any lurkers here will see that. I am not here to convince you that you are wrong. I am here to supply information so that others, who are not part of the thread, (e.g., lurkers), can see that your assertions are without merit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Yet another grandmaster would be far more successful at predicting the moves - because they are not random. But experts cannot predict where recombination will occur.
quote:Your response is based on confusing the mechanism with its output. To call the mechanisms normal is not to call any specific result they produce "normal". quote: Then perhaps you can provide references. Here's mine Recombination in Bacteria
It may seem somewhat surprising that bacteria can undergo recombination. After all, as was outlined in the module on recombination, the process requires two homologous DNA molecules, and bacteria have only one chromosome (and are therefore haploid). Bacteria, however, have mechanisms by which they can 'obtain' extra DNA, which creates opportunities for recombination to occur
quote: I'd say that it is better than your idea that recombination is responsible. However there's no need for the SAME mutation to crop up each time. You make the mistake of assuming that only one possible mutation could increase resistance to an antibiotic. But why would recombination do any better ? And where is your evidence ? What is the source of the DNA for recombination or exchange ? I'll add that the idea that I have been "conditioned" into not unquestioningly beleive whatever you say is even more laughable. Here's an actual study showing that disablng a mechanism that generates mutations prevents the development of antibiotic resistance. That's a lot more than you've offered.
Inhibition of Mutation and Combating the Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance
In this work, we show that preventing induction of the SOS response by interfering with the activity of the protease LexA renders pathogenic Escherichia coli unable to evolve resistance in vivo to ciprofloxacin or rifampicin, important quinolone and rifamycin antibiotics
quote: Yours. Since the changes you suggest make no difference to my post - unless YOU intend to spin them - you've got no real basis for your accusation. On the other hand there's plenty of spin coming from you - "Try to resist your conditioning" indeed !
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024