Science - How DNA Killed Evolution

somehow I dont believe you watched the video? breedingmad. as I posted it only thirty minutes ago. An sick mind is one that can only talk and never listens? who said that?

An sick mind is one that can only talk and never listens?
somehow I dont believe you watched the video?
who said that? CORRECT!

More to the point, who said you should stick a question mark after almost every statement you post? Are you trying to translate your silly AQI into the written word?

attention span of gnats - one question to explore in life and can't spend 50 minutes to learn if it's bullsheet or sense. scientists argue the points not punters from betfair.

we know there is a problem with how consciousness can about, this has been know for thousands of years.
it is really not an answer to say well there must be an unlimited number of Gods or one all knowing God.
noooo my brain hurts.

i don`t like people playing tricks zorro and glossing over the simple fact that nobody knows anything.

as an aside evolution may be the only way that God was able to allow man to have free will.
if there is no evolution then free will may be impossible. it is evolution that may point to a god that has created the world, but with people who are individuals.
not a world were the people are puppets, but they can walk and talk.

If people can't find a tangible reason for something then they invent.

Here they talk of information held in DNA. They argue that someone must have written this information and put it into DNA.
Their argument that there is a supreme being is based on that.

They say the information is definitely in DNA, so how did it get there?

Their answer to that is a guess - that there is a God.

Humans have not always existed, Humans were not here at the time of the Dinosaurs, there were early mammals
that is all.

We have evolved.

It is true that during the 20th century, many scientists accepted Evolutionism, in part or in whole. As secular science writer Richard Milton recently observed: "An important factor in bringing about the universal dominance and acceptance of Darwinian evolution has been that virtually every eminent professional scientist appointed to posts in the life sciences in the last 40 or 50 years, in the English-speaking world, has been a convinced Darwinist. …These men, as well as occupying powerful and important academic teaching positions, were also prolific and important writers whose influence has been widespread in forming the consensus." 1 These names include such men as Gavin de Beer, Julian Huxley, J.B.S. Haldane, C.H. Waddington, Ernst Mayr, Theodosius Dobzhansky and George Simpson. Despite strong pressure to accept evolutionism, many intelligent and experienced scientists either openly or secretly dismiss Evolution as highly unlikely or impossible. In the 1980s, researcher and lecturer David Watson noted an increasing trend that continues today, disturbing those who want evolutionism to be perceived as the accepted scientific consensus: "…A tidal wave of new books… threaten to shatter that confidence - titles like Darwin Retried (1971), Macbeth; The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), Hitching; The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), Taylor; The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), Fix; Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities (1984), Cohen; Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Lovtrup; and Adam and Evolution (1984), Pitman. Not one of these books was written from a Christian-apologetic point of view: they are concerned only with scientific truth - as was Sir Ernst Chain when he called evolution 'a fairy tale'." 2 Photo copyrighted. As Science Digest reported: "Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." 3 One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. 4 A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design. "The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." 5 Secular researcher Richard Milton summarized the current world situation: "Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started."


wiki quote

One must remember the opposition to the Christian view of how life started, started when people started digging fossils
out of the ground which clearly disproved the Bible's version of events.

Evolution as we understand it now is a beautiful and simple theory.

No intelligent designer is need to direct life. It relies on slight errors or mutations in reproduction
that is all.
Life is a struggle for survival, everything living competes for finite resources. Anything that offers an advantage in this
struggle will prosper.
It is the slight errors in reproduction that give us all the different life forms we see today. It is life itself
taking advantage of every single resource it can find.

Evolution is the consensus view of things at the moment. It is right intelligent people question it if they see flaws.
That is how we progress. But any new theory has to account for everything and more. Then we go forwards, we cannot go back,

"Evolution is the political correctness of science." -- Fred Reed

"We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone's else's home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of pre-existing cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world, and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justify our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves. for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever.
Jeremy Rifkin

Isaiah
For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms.


we hope that Paleoanthropology will become an actual science within 50 years.
Richard Leaky - renowned Paleoanthropologist. 1985

what are mutations - are they always subtractive do they add information?

Best Answer:  Yahoo answers -

1. Sickle cell disease( sickle cell anemia)
-autosomal recessive
-gene mutation
-gene location chromosome 11
- Substitution of a single nucleotides in HBB gene
that code for b-chain of Hemoglobin
2. B-Thalassemia (Cooley anemia)
- autosomal recessive
- gene mutation
-chromosome 11
. - gene deletion or insertion
3. Cystic Fibrosis ( Mucoviscidosis, CF)
-autosomal recessive
-gene mutation
-chromosome 7
-deletion/ terminator codon, missense
4.Hungtington Diseases
- autosomal domonant
- gene mutation
-chromosome 4

e.g --> Aneuploidy in HUMAN SEX chromosomes
5. Turner syndrome
- XO ( monosomic) aparent sex -female
6. Jacob syndrome
- XXY ( trisomic)aparent sex male
7. Klinefelter syndrome
- XXY, XXXY ( infertile men) trisomic
8. Metafemale ( super female)
- XXX,XXXX
9.Down syndrome
- ( 2N + 1)
- Trisomy of 21 chromosome
- male and female
-translocation of chromosome

EXPLANATION:

Mutation (def) --> The abonormal or pathological changes that add, delete or rearrange genetic materials, sometimes spontaneously, OR as a result of mutic-gene induction OR, also as a result of error during DNA replication.
NOT all mutations are inherited; depend on whether occur in body cell OR gametes.
SO there are firstly TWO types in general :

1. Gametal mutation- inherited and occur in either TESTIS or OVARY (gametes)
2. Somatic mutation- occur in body and not inherited. but can affect during whole life time.

Mutation and types--> TWO main types

1. GENE MUTATION are small and located in DNA strands.

2. Chromosome mutation--> related to chromosomes and occur during meiosis.

TYPES with example of above mentioned mutations-->
1. Gene mutation ( 4 types further)
A. TRANSITION--> One purine base changes into another OR one pyrimidines into another
A -- >G or G --> A
C --> T or T--> C

B. TRANSVERTION --> Purine base to pyrimidine or in opposite direction.
A , G  C, T
C. INSERTION --> An extra base is inserted in the DNA strand and in the gene.

D. DELETION--> Falling of a gene or two from DNA gene code.
And also some times mentioned SUBSTITUTION ( type A,B)

2. CHROMOSOME MUTATION TYPES
A. Translocation--> some part of the chromosome changes it's place
B. Duplication--> Some part is doubled in chromosome
C. Inversion --> central part of chromosome inverts by 180 degree
D. Deletion --> central part fall off
E. deficiation ---> loosing the terminal part in chromosome

Beside We have some more types --> related with the changes in number of the chromosomes ( CALLED numeral aberration in genetics)

TYPES --> 1. Aneploidal 2. polyploidal, 3. trisomic, 4. monosomic 0r 5. tetrasomic, aneploidal and so on.

One example of "SUCH changes in number of chromosomes is for instance
DOWN SYNDROME
EXPLANATION--> It is trisomic, means the case is 2N+1
Down sick patients have trisomy of 21 ch, so chromosome
SO, such a person would have the Kariotype as follows-->
47 XY ( trisomy of 21st chomosome)

There are many example diseases but let they be another time for different story, as you wish to know ONLY types.
Source(s): A biology teacher, M.sc biologist,

All this knowledge and intelligence yet they can't find the winner of the St Leger.

Puts all the bullshine into perspective.

Gallivanter:

that's correct. evolution has nothing to do with how life began. i.e. how, from inorganic materials, the first self replicating protocell came about. that is the subject of abiogenesis. abiogenesis and evolution are completely different ideas. Abiogenesis is a branch of chemistry/biochemistry.

now, once you get to the stage of a self replicating protocell, which would be as simple as a lipid-bilayer vesicle permeable to monomers feeding a self replicating polymer, but impermeable to the polymer, we're move into the territory of evolution.

Now in order for our protocell to come about, we need the right simple organic compounds but moreover we need the main different types to come into contact with each other. Sutherland's paper is remarkable because it proposes feasible synthetic routes for these organic compounds from early world conditions from the same inorganic starting materials.

Now of course you are right about the fact that just because it's plausible it doesn't mean that it's true. That is an argument that we can apply to every theory in science. You cannot actually prove anything to be true. All you can do is show that it is consistent with all current observations and consistent with our understanding.

Abiogenesis is therefore particularly problematical because we can't observe early world conditions; we'd need an incredibly accurate simulation or access to different planets with similar early world chemistry to our own (we can know reasonably reliably what this was like).

But here's the rub: just because we can't be sure it's completely true, or it's hard to understand, or because we don't have a good explanation, does not suddenly increase the probability of divine intervention.

This is quite a common logical mistake. Just because the scientific explanation is incomplete or uncertain does not add a greater chance of the divine explanation being right. There is this great big slice of the explanation pie-chart marked "unknown" and you only get to have some it when you can show that you've got some evidence for it.

DStyle, I like your style.

Regarding the "God of the gaps" we used to have a lot of gaps where he was said to be. Gradually the painstaking work of numerous dedicated scientists has filled many of them with logical explanation consistent with observed data. So far no god has been found in any of them.

(and naturally as a non intervening presence, rather than a meddling monotheistic god overly concerned about what men do with their pen1ses)

So abiogenesis is just another word for guesswork?

strange thing to say. all scientific theories start out as an idea which requires empirical evidence. it's an informed set of ideas consistent with experimental synthetic data carried out in conditions which mimic prebiotic world conditions.

it doesn't mean made up data at all.

it means carrying out synthetic reactions in a lab.

mixing chemicals together, the sort of simple chemicals present in an early world. Ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, water, methane, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen cyanide, ethene, ethyne. Throw in some UV, some high voltage, some high temperature, some low temperature, some minerals, seeing what comes out.

there's a link to a paper below. or if you want you can go back to the Miller–Urey experiment.

No-one can tell you exactly what those prebiotic conditions were. But you can make some very informed, very reasonable scenarios based on what we know.

it's sort of how it all works......

So we now know the the vague nature of the primeval soup? And all we have to do is see what comes out?

Has anything even vaguely resembling life come out of these soups?