Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,397 Year: 3,654/9,624 Month: 525/974 Week: 138/276 Day: 12/23 Hour: 1/1


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Biological Evolution ⇒

Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1487 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 189 of 205 (570512)
07-27-2010 4:46 PM 		Reply to: Message 186 by barbara
07-27-2010 4:31 PM

Re: What about another definition?
Are you absolutely sure about that statement since most our DNA is bacteria in origin.
​
No, it's not. (Unless you mean by cell count, and then that's true only because most of the cells in your body aren't your body at all, they're the bacterial passengers we all carry.) Prokaryotic gene sequences are very, very different, in structure and regulation, than the sequences of eukaryotes. For instance, in bacteria related proteins are likely to be directly downstream of each other, and subject to combined regulation (the lac and trp operons are the classic examples of this.) That's rarely the case in eukaryotic genetics.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by barbara, posted 07-27-2010 4:31 PM barbara has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by barbara, posted 07-27-2010 5:22 PM crashfrog has replied
  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1487 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 192 of 205 (570527)
07-27-2010 5:25 PM 		Reply to: Message 191 by barbara
07-27-2010 5:22 PM

Re: What about another definition?
The genome project were not talking about cells, they were talking about our DNA and they said 10% was Human and 90% microbial DNA.
​
That still doesn't sound true. Maybe you could provide a cite?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by barbara, posted 07-27-2010 5:22 PM barbara has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Wounded King, posted 07-27-2010 6:18 PM crashfrog has not replied
  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1487 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 195 of 205 (570534)
07-27-2010 5:47 PM 		Reply to: Message 193 by barbara
07-27-2010 5:34 PM

Re: What about another definition?
The fact that it is so high gives you the impression that they have been actively involved in our DNA since its origin to present.
​
I continue to believe that you are mistaken about how high it is. Do you have a source for this claim?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by barbara, posted 07-27-2010 5:34 PM barbara has not replied
  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1487 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 202 of 205 (571554)
08-01-2010 5:00 AM 		Reply to: Message 201 by barbara
08-01-2010 4:04 AM

Re: why use a wrong definition?
All of the information that I have used in a thread comes from articles on the web and it is noted from several different websites on the percentages of microbial DNA verses Human DNA.
​
What websites? Could you be specific?
​
If you prefer that I seek my answers somewhere else then I will.
​
Are you here to seek answers? You seem more like you're here to offer unsourced assertions. People who seek answers ask questions. You know, those things with the squiggly marks at the end.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by barbara, posted 08-01-2010 4:04 AM barbara has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024