A debate about debates
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 22:13
VIEWED: 12983
PAGE 15 of 17
Ruse, (Math on Mutations) Fortunately mutations are rare. They normally occur on an average of once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule.
Even assuming that all mutations were beneficial—in order for evolution to begin to occur in even a small way, it would be necessary to have, not just one, but a SERIES of closely related and interlocking mutations—all occurring at the same time in the same organism.
The odds of getting two mutations that are in some slight manner related to one another is the product of two separate mutations: ten million times ten million, or a hundred trillion. That is a 1 followed by 14 zeros (in scientific notation written as 1 x 1014). What can two mutations accomplish? Perhaps a honeybee with a wavy edge on a bent wing. But he is still a honeybee; he has not changed from one species to another.
More related mutations would be needed. Three mutations in a sequence would be a billion trillion (1 with 21 zeros). But that would not begin to do what would be needed. Four mutations, that were simultaneous or sequentially related, would be 1 with 28 zeros after it (1 x 1028). And four mutations together does not even begin to produce real evolution. Millions upon millions of harmonious, beneficial characteristics would be needed to transform one species into another.
But ALL those simultaneous mutations would have to be beneficial; whereas, in real life, mutations very rarely occur and they are almost always harmful.
(By the way, you would need to produce all those multi-mutations in a mated pair, so they could properly produce young. Otherwise it would be like mating a donkey and a horse—and getting a sterile offspring.)
"The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect . . All mutations seem to be of the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organism."—*C.P. Markin.
Evolution cannot succeed without mutations, and evolution cannot succeed with them. Evolution is an impossibility, and that's ..Well, true.
This does not even take into account that mutations are random. What say you? Do you have your own statistics you could share?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signmy- i get your point, i just want to be sure when you say
Quote:that your not telling me that i cant debate another christian about what the bible says.. the bible does fit those parameters doesnt it?
"A "debate" can only occur when both sides use the same set of assumptions "
i am not trying to debate ID verses evolution.. i just never was, i believe a little of both are envolved. obviously im speculating when i propose that some of these further removed cultures provide extra-biblical collaboration.. but i dont believe im out of line, given the commonality of the supra-human intervention "fairy tells" that happen to permeate many different cultures spanning continents
im not trying to use the bible itself as my 'proof' that confirms the existence of God, im simply trying to make use of a collective archetype shared by many cultures of that period and attempting to draw some connections; as if there is some factual bases which gave way to the prominance of these myths; and suprisingly the NWO conspiracy supports a similar premise, since secret societies like the freemasons and illuminati, who allegedly have in the past influenced the world behind the scenes, admittedly employ 'occult' concepts into their doctrines; and the all seeing eye on the dollar bill and Washington obelisk are two perfect examples.
IMO there is something to all of this, if only anecdotel and on the surface ; but either way evolutionary science does not have to dissuade my research, nor do i feel i am interfering in your scientific debates
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Fortunately mutations are rare. They normally occur on an average of once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule."
Not actually true.
Baseline mutation rates for viruses, bacteria and eukaryotes.
http://cba.mit.edu/events/03.11.ASE/docs/May.ppt
"Comparison of microbial genome base mutation rate to genome size: exhibits power law behavior; inverse relation between genome size and base mutation rate
RNA viruses: 1 - 0.1
DNA microbes: 1/300
Higher eukaryotes: 1/300 EfGn"
Just google: prokaryotic "mutation rate"
-------------------
"it would be necessary to have, not just one, but a SERIES of closely related and interlocking mutations—all occurring at the same time in the same organism."
Again not true. One small beneficial change can be the basis for another modification later. For example, human color vision was genetically recently extended in lambda range by adding an extra copy of opsin on the X xhroomosome, then changing it by 15 amino acids, to create both red and green color receptors.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:3OWzArxDXPsJ:www.molecularevolution
.org/resources/references/files/yokoyama_2000.pdf+%22red+opsin%22+%22blue+opsin%22+%22green+opsin%22+%22molecular+structure%22+%22color+vision%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2
Anyway, I hope you get the idea. You don't need all the mutations all at once to create an advanced functional structure. What you need is one small change - like the duplication of the opsin gene and more intense color sensitivity - to be followed by another small change in one of the opsin genes to create better color discrimination.
And now I'm going to get on with my real life. I suggest you do the same. Surely you have better things to do than waste your time trolling.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am talking about complex organisms and evolution. You keep bringing up bacteria, viruses, or one small segment of DNA on one gene. I don't believe we came from bacteria. So your posts are irrelevant. You have not addressed any of my posts directly. I am beginning to feel the reason is simple..You can't. If it is easier to chalk up your frustration to my being a troll, you have my blessing. To change a species into another takes thousands of positive mutations(all at once) in a pair of mate-able organisms. For the last time, that is impossible. And you... well, know it's true.........
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anti- Whether or not you can successfully debate another Xtian depends on how closely your beliefs match each other. Because if you run into a fundamental disagreement in belief systems you STILL have no way of resolving it.
As far as shared archetypes- I think I discussed that already. What I find is that religions most commonly reflect the power structure of the society. Matriarchies have goddesses, patriarchies have gods and OF COURSE leaders claim lineage to "the gods".. all the way to before the Pharaohs.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Kaneman- If you're willing to shit-can evidence and this is all a matter of "belief" then you're just faith-based troll. If you can't understand that even plants and humans share DNA and that the processes are similar, you might want to go to school and get that bio degree instead of trying to jerk Bio 101 out of the folks on the board.
I don't believe we came from bacteria
Rue, folks- I suggest we stop replying the Kaneman for the forseeable future.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I'm waiting for something so here I still am. Tell me, what haven't I addressed? You've made claims that
1) "you can't add new data into a genome", which was exhaustiverly addressed that, yes inded, you can
2) "Natural selection does not support the theory of evolution at all" which was also exhaustively addressed by many
3) "It has been easily proven by statistics", which was addressed at length by Signy, DT and others
4) asking if molecules reproduce "sexually or asexually" answered by SignyM
5) confusing self-assembly with reproduction, answered by Citizen,
6) claiming that reproduction only occurs sexually, answered by me
7) to saying 'no one' talks about asexual reproduction and evolution, when in fact it's a major topic (as attested by a paper you yourself cited)
To I don't know WHAT you think you're saying.
Molecules self-assemble. They can then act as templates for more molecules - molecular reproduction. They are started by random chance - in all the combinations of all the atoms, there are those rare molecules that will have those properties. But though it starts by random chance, molecules that CAN use environmental energy to make more of themselves have a survival advantage over molecules that are made without.
You may not want to talk about molecules like prions, viruses, or opsins; or simple forms of life like bacteria. But they show how change occurs - in bacterial DNA, or in human opsins - how that small event is maintained and selected for, and how that small change is the basis for secondary changes that add up to radical differences, over time.
You must have skipped over the 'whale' discussion. How intermediate fossils have been found where the legs diminished as the species went from land to shallow water to benthic. And how scientists have located the actual SINGLE genetic change that finally suppressed any leg development at all.
Now dude, I have a word of advice. Get a life. I mean, really. You should treat yourself better.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The irony here is that I've probably learned more about biology from this thread than I ever did in school...
Thanx for the bio lesson guys, while wasted on the trolls, at least the rest of us learned something.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thought I'd post this quote just for the fun of it, as it seems germane to the issue at hand:
"Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality."
--Bertrand Russell
I think this goes for science, religion, and any other kind of thinking.
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What? I can't use the word "believe" without being a religious nut. Wow, some ass you are. I will use the word "know" from now on instead. Won't it be great when the whole board sounds like your pompous ass? Understanding Bio 101 has nothing to do with accepting the "theory" of evolution as scientific law. Nothing. I'm peachy about genetics, natural selection, and accept species adaption. However, I "know" they are not mechanisms that support evolution(Hey, that does feel good...thanks) and have posted my opinions on the subject. If you can't debate the statistical improbabilities inherent in a BELIEF of evolution, sorry. I do not confuse natural selection and adaption with evolution, it is an error many a man makes. But you, genius, are smarter than that. Thank god
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME