Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Just the right spot...

I find the group of evos here some what interesting.....They seem to enjoy talking down to creationist.

But I have a question for these intelligent evos....

You guys claim that mutations happen....are naturally selected...then eventually added to the population.

Mutations are also RANDOM.

The evo claim is that these mutations add up over time in an animals future generations to produce new body parts, appendages and organs.....morphological change.

Then the evos tell us that most mutations are neutral, some are harmful and very few are beneficial.

Then we discover that the human DNA has about 3,200,000,000 base pairs. (...FUN FACT...If each DNA base pair were 1 mile long they would reach from here to Pluto)

So, about these "beneficial" RANDOM mutations adding up, Just how do they do it?

What are the odds of a RANDOM mutation occurring in just the right spot in the DNA many, many times, over and over again untill something like the dolphins echo-location system is formed?

Thank you trollobyte.

We don't claim that mutations happen. We know for a fact they happen. But the next time you get an infection ... don't take one of those new fangled antibiotics used to combat evolved forms of bacteria. I wouldn't want you to compromise your faith in the invisible purple rhinoceros.

For those that are still capable of sentience:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060811091251.htm
More proof of the obvious.

DA Morgan,
Thanks for the link, most interesting...but the question the article fails to mention is whether or not mutations caused the shell thickening or whether a variation of genes simply caused it.

But the bacteria. What of the bacteria? Is this the best you got? Seriously DA. Is this the best you got? Was a mutation involved? How many mutations? 1? 1000?

A thicker shell or a "mutated" bacteria is a long, long, long way from creating a new body part, appendage or organ....but then again you already knew that, didn't you DA Morgan?

It seems as if the question in post 1 is still up for discussion as it was not answered by DA Morgan...wanna try again DA?

Trollobyte wrote:
"Thanks for the link, most interesting...but the question the article fails to mention is whether or not mutations caused the shell thickening or whether a variation of genes simply caused it."

ROFL!

Are you wholly ignorant of biology and chemistry or is this just trolling?

Variation of genes ... hmmm ... that's a difficult one. Genes are chemicals composed of atoms. Are you saying that it is possible that the atoms have changed ... that the genes have changed ... but that this is NOT evolution?

ROFL!

Hear that everyone ... genes can change ... but it is not evolution ... it is something else ... perhaps demons tinkering with the mechanism.

ROFL!

You folks never cease to amaze those of us that are conscious.

But as you've given me something, albeit a laugh, ... I'll give you something in return.

Faith is an absolutely marvelous tool. With faith there is no question too big for even the smallest mind.
~ Rev. Donald Morgan (not related)

heres a few facts for you to consider.

the first man, that we can completely say was man's ancestor. was only a very short, very small person. (i cant really say how tall, but i beiieve it was 3 feet). now thousands of years later we have humans reaching 7 feet. this is because of mutations in the genes. we still have 3 foot tall humans, rare, but they do exist. why, because their genes have not proven harmfull to the humans that carried them. therefore, they have not been eliminated. some genes are harmfull (like lepersy) but they dont show up in ever individual that carries them, because there is another gene from the other parent that overrides it, or they dont show up until after the person has passed it on to their children.

many animals have changed over the last few thousand years, as a result of mans involvement. a perfect example is the fox terrior. it was bred for being the size it is to chase foxes. some one found a dog with a mutated gene that was the perfect size for being a fox hound and bred it with others. the result is a dog that has both genes for the right size, shape, and instincts for the job.

I assume you meant to say "leprosy" in your post, dehammer. Are you aware that leprosy is a communicable disease caused by a bacterium, Mycobacterium hansenii, and has nothing to do with genetics? And the only organism besides man known to contract it is the Nine Banded Armadillo, Dasypus novemcinctus?

Just thought I'd pass that along.

OK, bad example. i thought it was similar to other Lupus and narcolepsy and other auto immune diseases in that it had a genetic component.

DA.Morgan...you do understand that variations with in a species can produce differences in an offspring with out the need for mutations? Right? You can't be that ignorant of the subject...although you appear to be.

Although with the above method of "evolution" there is limits.

I suggest you go learn about what the evos call MICRO-evolution and MACRO-evolution.

Then get back to me.

trollobyte wrote:
"you do understand that variations with in a species can produce differences in an offspring with out the need for mutations? Right?"

Oh I do indeed but that is NOT what you wrote. Here's what you wrote:

"the article fails to mention is whether or not mutations caused the shell thickening or whether a variation of genes simply caused it"

Do you see anything in what you wrote about variations within a species? Good. Because it IS NOT there. A pathetic attempt to escape the fact that you were caught methinks.

Trollobyte continues:
"Although with the above method of "evolution" there is limits."

Oh really? Define it and provide a reference that substantiations your belief system.

Trollobyte continues:
"I suggest you go learn about what the evos call MICRO-evolution and MACRO-evolution."

Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level. It has nothing to do with the topic and nothing to do with what you wrote when you decided to be a troll in a science forum.

Want to keep this up I've got a suggestion for you. I post with my real name and I teach at a major US university. Why don't you stop hiding in anonymity and tell us who you are and your background. Are don't ethics and morality stand for anything in your faith?

"What are the odds of a RANDOM mutation occurring in just the right spot in the DNA many, many times, over and over again untill something like the dolphins echo-location system is formed?"

Why? Evolution may violate your intuition, but it doesn't violate any known statistical laws applied to biology.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/

"God did it" may be sufficient for some religious fanatics, but it's not sufficient for the scientist.

DA Morgan, please don't be so dense...Thank God I'm not one of your students.

Once again the question the article fails to mention is whether or not mutations caused the shell thickening or whether a variation of "already established" genes caused the shells toi thicken.

Why do you ASSUME it had to be a mutation?

Why? Evolution may violate your intuition, but it doesn't violate any known statistical laws applied to biology.

A computer program does not demonstrate evolution very accurately.

Trollobyte wrote:
"Thank God I'm not one of your students."

Don't worry. No one gets into my classes without my interviewing them in advance and approving them. Thats how gradulate level programs work.

You don't have a question. You have a point of view. One well flagged by your use of 'evos' in the same way another troll might use 'fascist' or 'commie' or 'racist'. Labels are for those that can't think harder than a sound bite.

Your meant...Thats how biased gradulate level programs work.

Of course I do wonder about you..you never really seem to answer any questions.

Is the name of your course AD-Homs 101?

That is exactly what I meant.

We have a strong bias against letting those who are hard of thinking into our lecture halls to breathe our oxygen and use our space.

This allows us to condemn them to saying cool stuff like "do you want fries with that" for the rest of their trivial meaningless lives.

Happy now?

ROTFLMHO

Can you both get back to the topic at hand and stop the attacks? Some courtesy and respect for others is in order. Otherwise I will edit and/or delete. You have been warned.

Amaranth
Moderator

and exactly how do you define "hard of thinking". many scientist and inventors would have been classified as "hard of thinking" in the time before their invention or discovery came about.

tff: Why? Evolution may violate your intuition, but it doesn't violate any known statistical laws applied to biology.

tri: A computer program does not demonstrate evolution very accurately.

That is utterly irrelevant to the point. Evolution does not violate any known statistical laws applied to biology. Neither does abiogenesis. They may violate your sense of what's right. They may make you feel bad. but they don't violate any known scientific or statistical laws.

Here's a dilemma. Creationists and ID advocates come into this forum as they do to so many others. They assert that afer their careful study and evaluation of the evidence that evolution is false, and then proffer some esoteric) factoids that support their rejection of evolution.

In the process of doing this, it becomes evident that either 1) their facts are spurious and/or 2) their logic is faulty, but moreover, they often make their point in such a way as to convey that they know almost nothing of consequence about what the theory of evolution actually IS, which indicates to the knowledgeable reader that either they are lying or exaggerating their careful research or they do not know what careful research is or both.

Furthermore, they typically come in here talking about "evos" or what have you and being exceedingly derogatory towards science and scientists and then immediately start whining when one points out that they've made numerous fundamental errors that even beginning students of evolution would recognize as such.

It's possible these trenchant fellows might be brilliant within their own purviews - music or gardening or carpentry or what have you. They also "know" lots about evolution that is completely nonsensical, but almost nothing about it that is actually a part of the theory itself.

I'm not sure how we should treat them. I think the right thing to do is to tell them to go do some homework - some real homework on the subject. Learn about what evolution ACTUALLY says and what it ACTUALLY predicts and THEN develop an opinion of it. But they have a very firm opinion based entirely on a misrepresentation of it.

dehammer wrote:
"and exactly how do you define "hard of thinking". many scientist and inventors would have been classified as "hard of thinking" in the time before their invention or discovery came about."

That is urban mythology ... not reality.

prove it. where are your links? or is that just your opinion?