Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WBA)   Maryland approves biology textbook without creationism. Also examining geography textbooks without Atlantis, physics textbook without ESP   (thewbalchannel.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

8141 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Feb 2005 at 9:30 PM (11 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



953 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-02-17 02:34:10 PM  
sharkroy

You're restating one of the fundamental creationist arguments: "X is too complex to have come into being by itself." It becomes quite persuasive once one does as you have and equates DNA to a book, watch, or other man-made object. Since we all know books and watches are made by people, DNA was therefore made by an intelligent creator too. It's just too complicated to exist otherwise.

The problem is that DNA is different than a book because it is a chemical substance that can change due to biological factors and be passed down to descendants through reproduction. Evolutionary theory essentially explains that the first single-celled organisms were born from fortuitous combinations of chemicals, and additional fortuitous combinations led to multi-celled organisms and ultimately to life as we know it today. DNA is simply part of those combinations. This argument may be unappealing to some, but that doesn't affect its legitimacy.
 
2005-02-17 02:36:41 PM  
Summary of creationist position: "I can point to several flaws in your theory, therefore I must be correct."

Can't stand that kind of crap.
 
2005-02-17 02:37:57 PM  
sharkroy: RNA can be what???

Artificially created. Nucleic acid can be combined with ribose and phosphate to create nucleotides, which combine together to form short chains of RNA.

And I hope you do realize that DNA does, in fact, write itself, and rewrite itself, over and over again. That's how it works.
 
2005-02-17 02:39:19 PM  
Addressing his question is pointless. Any kid who's dropped acid nows his point.

Who made the DNA? God. We get it.

Have you ever considered that something can simply exist and that was not created? To me, creation means there was a purpose, and yet we seemingly have no purpose except to exist. We establish phony and weak objectives to define our short existence but we have no purpose, at least none that we've discovered and come to accept universally.

Of course, if we do all of our searching in religious books written by men, we can easily answer the question of purpose. However, no religious book I have read has addressed the things that science has proven time and time again.
 
2005-02-17 02:40:59 PM  
Believe_It_Or_Not_I'm_Not_Home

There is a scientific defenition for a "code"
DNA falls into this definition.
Codes need a sender and a reciever.
Has anyone ever known of DNA gaining information?

just curious.
 
2005-02-17 02:43:51 PM  
Mordant

Well we certainly agree there. Take care.
 
2005-02-17 02:44:00 PM  
sharkroy:

There is a scientific defenition for a "code"
DNA falls into this definition.
Codes need a sender and a reciever.
Has anyone ever known of DNA gaining information?

just curious.


Do you even know what DNA is? Do you know where babies come from?
 
2005-02-17 02:46:40 PM  
For the last time "god did it" isn't an acceptable answer for anything.
 
2005-02-17 02:48:21 PM  
Hah... now there's an article about "The top 10 most useless limbs in the animal kingdom."
 
2005-02-17 02:48:23 PM  
It is blatantly clear that those arguing against evolutionary processes haven't the slightest clue what they are talking about. I'm leaving...Everytime you discredit them they move on to other talking points without addressing your previous argument that ripped them to shreds.....

Backward F*cking imbeciles
 
2005-02-17 02:52:22 PM  
There is a scientific defenition for a "code"
DNA falls into this definition.
Codes need a sender and a reciever.
Has anyone ever known of DNA gaining information?


If God made DNA, why did he make it so needlessly complicated? Why all the redundancy?
 
2005-02-17 02:53:01 PM  
Yes, first off, your claim is based on the assumption that DNA was the first self-replicator. That is almost certainly mistaken, and no current researcher believes it. Second, your criticisms are really directed towards abiogenesis, which is a specialty in the larger field of organic chemistry, and is quite seperate from evolutionary biology. Evolution is a process that happens to lineages of organisms once they already exist. It does not deal with the beginning of life (or the origins of planets, stars, the universe, etc.) so your critique is misguided in any case. Third, your "book" metaphor is extremely misleading. DNA is a complex chemical, and I agree with you in your implication that it is really amazing. But it is not a "book", so it doesn't "require an author". Further, even if one does say it was "deliberately designed", where does that get us? How does that claim advance scientific understanding in any way? I say it doesn't. In fact, it's a non-explanation and inspires people to simply "give up". "We've found the answer, God did it, no more research is necessary." If we accepted "God did it by magic" it would be the end of science altogether.


You know I could almost go with this except for one fact. Let us say DNA did ride the back of RNA in the beginning. (which is insanity by the way if you learn a little biochemistry). OK I give you that. That does not alter the fact that there is no mechanism for higher organisms to spontaneosly create traits. The first fish that crawled out of the water had to have evolved all the mechanisms necessary to breathe air. Not one at a time but fully functioning. I could even go with having both if you want to claim that but the trait had to come about before he could go on land. How was that code written? What combination of mutations could have made that come around. All evolutionists talk in terms of "fortuitous". That means that there was just plain luck involved. Luck is not scientific.
 
2005-02-17 02:55:23 PM  
God was an asshole, The_Devil's_Due. Everyone knows that.

And his son was a terrorist.

/sarcasm
 
2005-02-17 02:56:04 PM  
Who needs scientific evidence when we've got rhetoric and religious dogma?

Yeah, dinosaurs were on Noah's ark 4000 years ago. Sure buddy.

"I'm telling you people the earth revolves around the sun."
"Burn him!"
 
2005-02-17 02:56:09 PM  
sharkroy

Your argument isn't even persuasive on its face this time around because it's dependent on you making up definitions. So you're saying DNA is a "code," and a "code" is something that can't be altered due to natural processes. Well based on those criteria, sure, you win. But you made all of that up!

Chemical changes take place in living things all the time. Some of those changes affect our DNA. Birth, to use your terminology, involves DNA "gaining information" because the parents' genetic information is combined. Evolution occurs as new organisms are born generation after generation, over long periods of time.

Your arguments are dependent on likening DNA to man-made objects and concepts, in this case a "code" like troops use in wars. DNA and other biochemical components of living things work on a level that humans typically have no immediate control over. Sure DNA "writes itself;" if it didn't, we wouldn't be able to have offspring. It's not like writing a book.
 
2005-02-17 02:57:47 PM  
If God made DNA, why did he make it so needlessly complicated? Why all the redundancy?

For someone that claims to know so much about science to ask awfully silly questions to make your case. 99.9% of all the species that has ever lived are gone. Even with all this redundancy death wants to destroy every living thing. Without all the redundancy built into living things we would not survive one generation much less thousands of years with all the obstacles life faces just to exist. That is a very silly question and I think you are smarter then that.
 
2005-02-17 02:58:15 PM  
sharkroy

One of many would be the Wright Brothers.
Using ideas found in birds and other flying animals of God's creation they invented the airplane.


You're mistaken about that as well. The reason the Wright brothers were successful, while their predecessors mostly were not, is that they specifically avoided trying to replicate birds. For example, they followed Lilienthal's (and later Chanute's) example of starting their experiments with fixed-wing gliders, and never even considered using the wings themselves as part of the propulsion system like birds do. They also placed the propulsion system of their first powered flyer in the rear, and unless you intend to argue that ducks fart themselves into the sky, you'll have to admit that this is also a substantial difference from birds.
 
2005-02-17 02:59:11 PM  
Walkingtall:

Nor is luck religious or creationist.
 
2005-02-17 03:01:10 PM  
For someone that claims to know so much about science to ask awfully silly questions to make your case. 99.9% of all the species that has ever lived are gone. Even with all this redundancy death wants to destroy every living thing. Without all the redundancy built into living things we would not survive one generation much less thousands of years with all the obstacles life faces just to exist. That is a very silly question and I think you are smarter then that.

I'm talking about redundancy in the genetic code.
 
2005-02-17 03:03:20 PM  
As we have discussed before, true science must be based on observations. Yet some scientists claim to be able to tell what happened on the earth long before there were any people to make observations...Rather than actual observations in the past, those who claim to be dating the rocks have only present observations of what the rocks contain and assumptions (guesswork) about what led to this composition. p251

An example of a dating method that gives a young age for the earth has been researched by Dr. Thomas Barnes, an authority on electricity and magnetism...When we project this trend backward in time, we find that the earth's magnetism was extremely great in the not-too-distant past. p252


---Earth Science for Christian Schools, Bob Jones University Press 1979


It is clear that the "Creationists" are not interested in scientific truth at all, they want everyone to believe the same lie that they believe - otherwise they might have to admit that they are stupid as well as being liars.
 
2005-02-17 03:04:45 PM  
BRILLIANT headline!
 
2005-02-17 03:06:48 PM  
walkingtall

Your argument is based on two fallacious beliefs about evolution.

First, you say that for evolution to be plausible, it has to explain, for example, how a fish's offspring spontaneously evolved to be able to breath air so it could travel on land. That would be a rather absurd theory, which is why no legitimate evolutionist would ever support it. Evolutionists cannot stress enough that visible evolutionary change in the vast majority of organisms is extremely gradual, occurring over vast periods of time. In between the first air-breathing offshoot of a fish were (and still are) transitional species that combined the ability to live in water with a limited ability to live on land. Over time, the progression results in the development of new species that have increased air-breathing capacity.

Second is your statement that evolutionary theory is based on the concept of "luck." Nothing can be further from the truth. "Luck" is randomness or chance. Evolution explains how species develop due to environmental stimuli; it does not advocate "luck," but predictable responses to such stimuli, like cold-weather animals adapting to live in that cold weather. It's only "luck" if you believe that anything in life that isn't guided by a divine hand is "luck."

Inaccurately describing evolutionary theory so as to make it look false or ridiculous does not strengthen your argument.
 
2005-02-17 03:07:15 PM  
Walkingtall:

Redundancies in the genetic code have nothing to do with protecting us during our evolution. According to your rationale, we have evolved and made it this far because the same genetic code was written multiple times? How does that propell us forwarded or help us?

If you're talking about resistancies and information addition to genetic code, I don't think we're talking about redundancies anymore. We're talking about evolution.
 
2005-02-17 03:07:46 PM  
You don't need faith in Evolution to assume that whatever gaps there are in the evidence will be filled eventually, because evolution has repeatedly been capable of correctly predicting. Evolution has passed the tests. Yes, like any other scientific theory, there's always a chance of something new showing up and proving it wrong, but as of yet, that hasn't happened.
 
2005-02-17 03:09:59 PM  
i.e. mutations
 
2005-02-17 03:10:54 PM  
That paragraph is exactly why evolution theory is false.
Walkingtall-------------------------------------
Mutations do not CREATE anything. They simply scramble what is already existing. To have new traits, code must be CREATED at some point. Like has been pointed out how does nature write code? There has never been an example of new code being written. I know all about the bacteria experiments both with being antibiotic resistance and the ability to use plastic but we are unable to prove this ability is new. We do not know enough about genetics to say this for a fact. It may be a new trait showing itself but that is a far cry for the code needed for this trait to manifest itself being written completely from scratch or even as an offshoot of existing code.
----------------------------------------------

Mutations can and do add new information. There are nucleotide insertions, and the alteration of one nucleotide can cause one protein to do a completely different job.

Again, you show your complete ignorance to basic biology.
 
2005-02-17 03:14:41 PM  
True story:
Once upon a time, when I was in third grade, my Catechism (it's Sunday School for Catholics) teacher, who was a nun, taught my class how God made the world in seven days. After she finished, I was confused about something and raised my hand to ask a question. She called on me, and I asked her on which day did God create the dinosaurs? I was learning about them at school at the time, and I was fascinated with them. Anyway, my nun teacher got a strange look on her face, and very sternly asked me where I learned about such a ridiculous thing called dinosaurs?! I told her that I learned about them at school. She started yelling at me! My class was on the balcony of my church, and I remember that it grew quiet downstairs because of all the yelling my teacher was doing. I was almost in tears by the time she finished with, and I remember it verbatim, "What's more important to you - God or school?"

That is one of my most vivid memories as a child, and I will cherish it forever. Thank you, Sister Celine, for giving me my first independent thought. I am happy to say that their brainwashing failed.
 
2005-02-17 03:15:34 PM  
JC Superstar:

Yes, and religion and the Gods the religions are based on have been consistently proven wrong. NOTHING EXISTS that even suggests GOD COULD EXIST. It is a completely HUMAN creation. Science deals with the natural world, something only the insane would argue does not exist (Descarte, who sold out eventually).

What have we found the proves God could exist? A bone? A particle? Some other tangible thing? No. Only an idea and a sh*7 ton of questions. Science can quantify. Math reflects nature. Religion reflects the insecure minds of people with no purpose.
 
2005-02-17 03:16:16 PM  
[ Walkingtall ]-------------------------------------
You know I could almost go with this except for one fact. Let us say DNA did ride the back of RNA in the beginning. (which is insanity by the way if you learn a little biochemistry).
----------------------------------------------------

[ JC ]
Incorrect. In fact, it's the most widely accepted and well-supported argument yet. That doesn't make it right, but it's a lot more right than "God made magic and it appeared." I would be more than interested to hear your biochemical explaination though...


[ Walkingtall ]-------------------------------------
OK I give you that. That does not alter the fact that there is no mechanism for higher organisms to spontaneosly create traits. The first fish that crawled out of the water had to have evolved all the mechanisms necessary to breathe air. Not one at a time but fully functioning. I could even go with having both if you want to claim that but the trait had to come about before he could go on land. How was that code written? What combination of mutations could have made that come around. All evolutionists talk in terms of "fortuitous". That means that there was just plain luck involved. Luck is not scientific.
----------------------------------------------

I've already explained how that code was written. Slowly. Nucleotide by nucleotide. There are fish now that can breathe for short periods of time though their air bladders. Over the course of generations, this time could be increased, until the fish could survive indefinitely above ground.

Simple.
 
2005-02-17 03:18:19 PM  
JackBach,

Yes, but God can't be disproven either. No omnipotent being can be disproven. I could invent a magical, invisible, dancing cow that's omnipotent, and nobody could disprove it.

So no, we can't disprove god. There's no real evidence that it exists, but we can't disprove it.
 
2005-02-17 03:18:50 PM  
Chemical changes take place in living things all the time. Some of those changes affect our DNA. Birth, to use your terminology, involves DNA "gaining information" because the parents' genetic information is combined. Evolution occurs as new organisms are born generation after generation, over long periods of time.

Your arguments are dependent on likening DNA to man-made objects and concepts, in this case a "code" like troops use in wars. DNA and other biochemical components of living things work on a level that humans typically have no immediate control over. Sure DNA "writes itself;" if it didn't, we wouldn't be able to have offspring. It's not like writing a book.



Do you know anything about genetics? Sexual reproduction does not "rewrite and expand" DNA. Why would you even make this statement? Sexual reproduction combines half the traits of the father and half the traits of the mother. That is all. There is no net gain or loss in the DNA in the 3 individuals involved in this process. Our entire existence hinges on DNA being able to replicate EXACTLY trillions upon trillions of times. Any errors in replication and we cease to exist. This IS genetic fact. Cancer is nothing more then errors in replication. Please try to tell me that cancer is either an engine for evolution or a sign we are starting to evolve new traits as humans. If you can prove this I will buy your assertions. Chemical changes within an organism HAVE to happen in a certain order in a certain way or the whole organism dies. Every time without exception. These changes exist because of errors not because we are getting better and better.
 
2005-02-17 03:19:08 PM  
I would love to spend the next 24 hrs arguing in circles with you guys, but it seems that this is just the typical creation bashing Know-it-all (mostly made up) crap thread.

I know you guys are wondering how DNA wrote itself and why it does NOT gain in complexity, so I accomplished my goal.

Later.
 
2005-02-17 03:19:23 PM  
Walkingtall:

I applaude you for discussing this topic with us, but you seem to just make up scientific "facts." Perpetuating incorrect or virtually untested/unproven information does not help the human race come any closer to understanding wtf we're doing here. And definitely doesn't help your credibility.
 
2005-02-17 03:22:46 PM  
walkingtall you are possibly the most ignorant person I have ever seen post in these evolution threads.

STFU. You don't know anything.
 
2005-02-17 03:24:58 PM  
Sharkroy:

Good job! Keep comparing things that aren't comparable. Keep missing the scope and complexity of a thing like DNA. Keep attributing human characteristics to a process that humans didn't create.

The greatest way of proving you're wrong is to consistently and loudly claim that you're correct.
 
2005-02-17 03:26:03 PM  
sharkroy:
I know you guys are wondering how DNA wrote itself and why it does NOT gain in complexity, so I accomplished my goal.

I was convinced as soon as you told me how airplanes were inspired by God via the Wright brothers. No need to bring this high-falutin' DNA stuff into it!
 
2005-02-17 03:27:08 PM  
MegaDethHead

With a username like yours I can be assured you are a well of well thought out arguments. I have not seen you write anything of substance and simply make a stupid statement like this. Please enlighten me on what scientific fact in which I am mistaken.
 
2005-02-17 03:29:33 PM  
Here is my argument for evolution:

Land based predators and land based prey developed differently to suit their different roles in nature. If you look at any land based predator i.e. the wolf, the tiger, the lion, etc. you will see that their eyes point forward. Their eyes are like this because the developed the need to see straight forward, to focus on their prey and attack it. The probably see the same view as humans, as we developed straight forward eyes for predatory hunting.

Land based prey developed "defensive" eyes, or eyes that can see to the sides. They have these eyes because a land based predator can trounce them very quickly. They see a broad scope so they can protect themselves better.

That's my argument for evolution.

Now for something totally different...

You have to remember one key thing about all religions that have a god. Man created the god(s). Why? Well I don't know that exactly but I think it has to do with man fearing for his own existence. You see, man is the only beast on this planet that fears for its own existance...and the only being that created a god for itself. You see one day man started to here voices in his head, we call this though now-a-days, but when primitive man heard his thoughts, they scared him and confused him.

So man created an omnipotent being(s) to help explain why he had these crazy voices in his head, telling him to do things. So this creation of an omnipotent being eventually lead to man using him as an excuse for morals, rules, and generally why things happened.

Something like:
How does lightning happen?
Zeus farted.

Also there is one more thing. Science and religion both change every once in a while. Like I saw above with the Earth being the center of the Universe, only now it is the Sun at the center of the solar system with the Earth going around it. Two thousand years ago people believed that there were multiple gods, now, in general, there is only one. In one thousand years, we may have made contact with extraterrestrials and who knows. May be all of our science and religion will be wrong.
 
2005-02-17 03:31:58 PM  
walkingtall


You know I could almost go with this except for one fact. Let us say DNA did ride the back of RNA in the beginning. (which is insanity by the way if you learn a little biochemistry).

Hmmm. I know a little bit about biochemistry, and the people I work with don't seem to think I am insane. Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain what you mean.

In any case, although I am nearly certain that RNA preceeded DNA, and that DNA is a descendant of earlier RNA predecessors "joining forces" (so to speak), I am almost equally as certain that earlier inorganic replicators existed before either of these.

OK I give you that. That does not alter the fact that there is no mechanism for higher organisms to spontaneosly create traits.

You're correct. In fact, if such a mechanism were discovered, we would know, almost for certain, that there was some fundamental problem with evolution. The way evolution is understood to work, the "spontaneous" appearance of a characteristic of gross phenotye is considered pretty much impossible. If such a thing were found, evolution as it is now understood would be conclusively disproven.

The first fish that crawled out of the water had to have evolved all the mechanisms necessary to breathe air. Not one at a time but fully functioning.

Done Actually done twice. The swim bladder in most fish helps to regulate bouyancy. One way for a fish to increase its bouyancy is to divert gasses inhaled via the gills into its swim bladder. To "dive," gasses are expelled or exhaled. In the lungfish, the swim bladder also serves as a "backup" set of lungs when the fish is on land. The mudskipper has a very different, but equally fascinating solution to life in a tidal environment.


I could even go with having both if you want to claim that but the trait had to come about before he could go on land.

I hope the above answered your question (assuming it was a sincere question and not a "stump the chump" question.)

How was that code written? What combination of mutations could have made that come around.

a mutation that makes the swim bladder just a little bit better at filtering gasses would mean the difference between life and death if the tide was out for maybe a few minutes. The offspring of the few proto-lungfish who could survive out of water for just a few minutes would be able to colonise bits of the shore that others of their species could not, as well as all the bits of the near shore sediments that the other proto-lungfish could.

Naturally, there would be variation among those individuals; some would be able to process gasses through their swim bladders for a lot longer, if necessary, and those few could live even further up the shore, where there is lots of food that no other lungfish can reach.

Seriously, the first land-dweller argument was answered something like 80 or 90 years ago. There is no mystery to this one at all.


All evolutionists talk in terms of "fortuitous". That means that there was just plain luck involved. Luck is not scientific.

Are you suggesting that accidents never happen?

But in any case, you're misunderstanding the use of the term "fortuitous". If I say it was "fortuitous" that some lungfish had swim bladders that could process gasses and allow flow of oxygen into the blood stream, what I mean is "if there had been no individuals with that ability, that lineage would have died out during some unusually low tide. That's no more unscientific than saying "if John hadn't been so tall, he wouldn't have bumped his head on the door frame." It's simply a recognition that variation exists in all characteristics in all populations, and some variants have particular advantages over others in specific environments.

If someone said "evolution is just plain luck", they would be mistaken. Although one can call a survivor of a group in which many dies "lucky", that doesn't mean that luck alone was involved. One might say that the guy who found the parachute and bailed out before a crash is more "lucky" than someone who didn't, but that doesn't mean that parachutes function solely on the basis of "luck".

I hope that cleared up some of your questions.
 
2005-02-17 03:31:58 PM  
Alrighty folks this is it:

let us examine sickle cell enemia. Sickle cell enemia is a genetic variation, which, if the carrier has both the genes from mom and dad, will result in the deblitating illness. However, should you only posess one of the sickle cell genes you will have a slight enemic condition as well as a resistance to malaria. What does this mean? It means that somewhere along the evolutionary path Africans developed the sickle cell gene as a advantage against malaria. As a result you can see the rates of sickle cell fall amongst blacks in the US, where as in Africa they remain constant.
 
2005-02-17 03:34:52 PM  
One more thing.

/high fives to Walking Tall.
 
2005-02-17 03:36:49 PM  
Beonarri:

Yes, but at least science has something to show for itself. The best the creationists can come up with is to give God the credit for evolution, just like everyting else. What a crock. The same argument, augmented to fit every confrontation.

"God did it" doesn't prove anyting, unless of course you have it on tape.
 
2005-02-17 03:37:29 PM  
walkingtall

You ask this:

Do you know anything about genetics?

Then you say this:

Our entire existence hinges on DNA being able to replicate EXACTLY trillions upon trillions of times. Any errors in replication and we cease to exist. This IS genetic fact.

I know this is pointless, but it has to be said. I'm sure you can not comprehend it. You are wrong. It is you that doesn't understand genetics. If you did you wouldn't make such an asinine claim.
 
2005-02-17 03:37:43 PM  

2005-02-17 11:55:18 AM walkingtall


So we're left with one theory that has alot of support, but has a few holes, and another theory that has absolutely no support and is premised on something that can never be supported.

You seem to forget that every single person that has ever lived will get the answer to this question. If we stand before God after we die then you evolutionists are in trouble. I know there are evolutionists/theists but I believe they are simply sitting on the fence trying to have it both ways because the evidence points to one or the other not both. So if I am wrong during that last second before death when darkness approaches and I realize my entire existence meant nothing more then being an expendable, useless individual in the process of evolution then I will know you were right. If not, then you are going to have a lot to answer for.


I see it this way. If we were created by god, than god gave us all traits we possess, including logic. If god is going to punish people for using their logic to come to the logical conclusion that he probably doesn't exist, instead of second guessing themselves, than god is evil. Thus, one way or another, the christian idea of god is wrong.

If god is truly benevolent and all knowing, he will understand that his creations are using their abilities that he gave them to come to the logical conclusion he probably does not exist. He would be supportive of this: On the other hand, he would not be supportive of his creations limiting themselves through fear and second guessing, as christians do.

So really, atheists and agnostics get to have our cake and eat it to. Either we're right, or christianity is wrong.
 
2005-02-17 03:39:54 PM  
Labrador mates with Jack Russell. Produces offspring with vastly different traits, and often behaviours, than the original parents. It's also still able to breed.

Anyway, point being it doesn't need to be DNA mutations that produce vast differences in a population. (I believe a mutation happens roughly once in every 10 to the 6th divisions, and an advantageous one about once in every 10 to the twelfth).

If you're looking for the branching of a new species, take a cross breed, then kill off all it's parent types, then isolate it for a while. This is assuming that both parent types bred enough of the cross breeds that a population would survive against the new environmental pressure.
 
2005-02-17 03:40:00 PM  
[ Walkingtall ]----------------------------------------------
Our entire existence hinges on DNA being able to replicate EXACTLY trillions upon trillions of times. Any errors in replication and we cease to exist. This IS genetic fact.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely incorrect. Every time a human cell replicates, on average, I think that there are four errors that don't get fixed. That leaves a lot of room for mutation.
 
2005-02-17 03:42:36 PM  
walkingtall,

would you care to explain sickle cell enemia, and it advantages and prevalence in malaria stricken africa vs. its decline in the US?
 
2005-02-17 03:44:01 PM  
if we teach Creationism, which myth do we teach. I know Creationsist like to believe that Jesus and the Bible are the only thing in the world, but they're not. I don't care about Jesus at all. Evolution has hundreds of sources, Creationsism has one. Anyone who has written a research paper in school knows you need more than one source. Also, Jesus wasn't white, so there!
 
2005-02-17 03:44:39 PM  
JackBach

I agree, science is at least trying, and they have results.
 
2005-02-17 03:44:41 PM  
sean007:

let us examine sickle cell enemia. Sickle cell enemia is a genetic variation, which, if the carrier has both the genes from mom and dad, will result in the deblitating illness. However, should you only posess one of the sickle cell genes you will have a slight enemic condition as well as a resistance to malaria. What does this mean? It means that somewhere along the evolutionary path Africans developed the sickle cell gene as a advantage against malaria. As a result you can see the rates of sickle cell fall amongst blacks in the US, where as in Africa they remain constant.

As an addendum, the condition is an environmental adaptation which is advantageous in one environment and a detriment in another. Having it is not "better" or "worse" than not having it; that varies depending on the environment you are in. And, this is a very simple mutation involving a small change in just one protein, which causes a change in the shape of blood cells. That is, tiny change in genetic code --> resistance to malaria.

This is actually an excellent example of a medical finding based on evolutionary thought that walkingtall was asking for earlier.
 
Displayed 50 of 953 comments

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report