Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by davewhite04, Jan 5, 2015.
Catch the misrepresentations of your statements, origin?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Dave is not of the common herd.
Thank the random fluctuations in space and time for that.
Davewhite04 has admitted he is an Old Testament creationist who questioned if Noah's flood was responsible for killing off the dinosaurs (which means that dinosaurs and man coexisted prior to the flood) and Jason.Marshall believes that the oceans are populated by prehistoric creatures that are biting modern solid steel ships in two in the present day...
I don't think "not of the common herd" quite covers it.
Based on my logic, which employs the dictionary, we don't expect to see improbable acts popping up all the time.
According to Darwinian theory, evolutionary change should be slower in long-evolved organisms - the percentage of alterations better fit than what already is, untried as yet, has shrunk.
No, it doesn't. Nothing for which there is no evidence or argument needs to be considered, even. Life is short, and serious researchers have serious work to do.
The standard of creationist argument is not good here at the moment.
No not really. What do you mean?
Creation and Genetic based Evolution have different foundation premises that underly each theory. The former is based on an ordering principle; called God, while the later is based on a randomizing principle, chaos.
For example, the abiogenesis and the genetic changes that are assumed behind evolution are considered random events that evolve through natural selection. The genetic dice are thrown and natural selection picks what it needs. Creation is based on an ordering principle that lays out a sequence of events. In Creation, God does not throw dice or play slot machines hoping for a jackpot that he can select. Rather things are planned to evolve; brooding, in an ordered sequence of events. The underlying assumption is a logical order, even if you don't agree with the details of the bible sequence. Genesis is not about dice or casino math. In the bible, randomness does not appear within creation until after human will power and free choice appear. In the bible, man adds random to order; Chaos appears. Although Satan was the first to use this.
The irony are very few people if any science will try to randomly change the DNA within a mouse as way to make life evolve. The underlying foundation premise of change, does not work in practice. In the lab, most successful approaches use a more of a logical and sequential approach in line with an ordering principle. Why doesn't science practice what it preaches and just roll dice?
Although, the life science appear to be based on an approach similar to randomness. They will try anything and everything to see what works. They will apply statistics to the data and if it works better that average, then they seek a logical way to select it. This approach makes life science the most primitive of the all the sciences. The most advance forms of science will use logic to predict to future, before they even run an experiment. Relativity was deduced decades before any experiment was run. This may appear alien to the life sciences that the solution appears before the experiments. This approach is closer to the underlying foundation premise used by Creation; the next step is always known before it appears; experiments.
A random approach leading to evolution leads to devolution, since there are more losers than winners in lotteries. If the odds are 1 in 10,000,000 to win the lottery there are 10,000,000 losers for every one jackpot winner. This is not an intelligent design. Random is not new. It was the basis for many obsolete religions; whims of the god of mythology. The God of the bible set rules, rewards and punishments; cause and effect was born. He did not play dice with the universe, but though it out so it appears logical and sequential.
Wellwisher, your anti-science rants are so repetative and tiring. You should try learning science instead of just ranting against it and see how that works for you.
Oh for crap sake, devolution? That is so totally ignorant, just pitiful.
I know of a number of scientists who use random mutation generating chemicals to map new mutant lines. Do your research first, please.
Just to let you know, the only possible definition of devolution I can think of is survival of the least able to survive. If 5 million years from now homo sapiens have become smal brained animals incapable of speech and are only able to survive by foraging like a troop of baboons, that would not be devolution, that would be an example of evolution.
tanya roberts is massive sexy in the beastermaster
not as sexy as rihanna in army pants.
I do not deny this. But mutants are not considered a step upward, but downward.
lolPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I guess that depends upon how you choose to define the word mutant
Most definitions describe a mutant as something that has a mutation
Do you have a special definition?
Is it secret?
I see your toady is trained in the art of laughter.
Speaking as an actual professional in the field, mutants are integrally considered neither a step upward nor downward. Most mutations are taken to be deleterious, but that was not the nature of your assertion. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Here you infer that mutations cannot cause adaptation... "in practice", whatever you intend that to mean.
The first sentence is... well, bizarre. Do you think that geneticists are involved in some kind of effort to force animals to evolve in nature itself? Or are you referring to the process of agricultural selective refinement? Or do you mean selection experiments? Your wording might mean these things, but it's best to nail down intentions for later reference.
The second sentence is, of course, false. You acknowledge the existence of mutants - despite earlier refutation - and even if you haul up the old adage that only 1 in 1000 are beneficial, that still leaves those beneficial mutations and aeons of evolutionary time over which they could then act.
I'm interested to see you attempt to define the first sentence in more detail. What is this "logical and sequential approach in line with an ordering principle"? How does this approach differ from the process of, say, medical mutagenesis for the purposes of causing gene knockouts? What is this higher ordering principle that refutes mutagenesis? How is medical mutagenesis, or mutational mapping - long the tools of biological investigation - a conflict with this higher principle that you are attempting to instruct actual scientists in? Is this ordering principle the mnemonic characteristics of water? It surely cannot be simple evolutionary theory, as you have spent long posts complaining that such principles are too simple.
You, sir, are a capering fool.
I strongly disagree. Capering can be entertaining to watch. There is nothing entertaining in his posts. I have no quibbles over the rest of the sentence.
So I may presume then that "You, sir" meets with your requirements?
If we start with any life form, and if 1 in 1000 mutations are beneficial, then the 999 bad mutations will dominate and cause lack of selection. There are more things that can go wrong for a species with 999 bad mutations than can go right with 1 good mutation.
For example, how many mutated genes in humans have made the cost of medicine go down? The answer is they all seem to cost more to treat. Natural selection is about efficiency that does not need prosthesis. The healthy people, who need the least health care, are the one's that avoid mutations.
How many forms of cancer, due to mutations, have been helpful to our species?
The 1 in 1000 good mutation approach has some validity when it comes to single cell critters like bacteria. The mutations will be distributed over a very large population of independent units, so good mutations, even 1 in 1000, allows millions of units to benefit and then to be part of selection. The bad mutations thin the herd to make it easier to be selected. This is less about selection, as it is about defaulting. If the weakest child does not eat the poison mushroom he is the default selection. This is not a good design.
In the origin of species, connected to Darwin, he deals with multicellular life, not single cells. Here 1 positive change in one cell type (analogous to the beneficial bacteria) and 999 changes in other cell types (analogous to the attrition bacteria) does not work out the same, since these cells are all part of the same team. One may get a positive mutation that allows very keep eye sight, but the other 999 cause liver, kidney and skin damage. This does not allow the new advantage to add up as well. I am sure we would all give up keen vision to have healthy organs instead.
Once multicellular critters appear, nature needed a more logical approach. In humans some areas of the DNA don't change very often; very conservative. Other areas change more often. The DNA dice became loaded to fall in certain places. Water helps load the dice.
Separate names with a comma.