|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,768 Year: 4,025/9,624 Month: 896/974 Week: 223/286 Day: 30/109 Hour: 3/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5056 days) Posts: 1 From: Austin, TX, US Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with evolution? Submit your questions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
By the ultimate sliver teaspoon. hahahha. During RNA translation, an incorrectly placed stop codon that prematurely terminates the message, errors during transcription, teaspoon taps frameshifts, intron removal errors, etc. To the extent that this is written in English, you seem to be calling all mutations "genetic loss". Well, I suppose the sequence of mutations from monkey to man (for example) lost the genes for being a monkey as such. But it seems to me that something was gained also.
No, because I never once claimed cloven hooved. I said split. Split and cloven are synonyms. If creationists have their own version of the evolution of the horse, perhaps you could link me to someone moderately coherent explaining it.
Oh good, so disease, and harmful environments caused all of life. Thats nice. I don't suppose you have any evidence for this? Of course, I said nothing of the sort, and you are unlikely to deceive anyone by pretending that I did.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I said the sequences are in the nucleotides. Which they are. No they aren't.
Nucleotide arrangements code for amino acids. Which is a different thing entirely. Plus anyone with the first clue about modern genetics would know that looking only at protein coding sequences misses a vast amount of genomic information using any coherent and rational metric. I'm not sure that just whining and insulting everyone else when you write very bad descriptions of molecular biology is really a substitute for having an actual answer to the question of how to measure, as in actually measure not just say 'wow that looks pretty complex, I bet god did it', the informational content of a genome or sequence of DNA.
Were you adopted? No. Why? Are adopted people particularly stupid? Is this some new brand of bigoted christian fascism we should look forward to hearing more of in the future? First they come for the jews, then the gays, then the adopted? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4802 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: As well as this one:
quote: quote: quote: Since animals have functional appendixes today, such as apes, the purpose of this organ can be clearly defined.
quote: Even I think thats funny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
As well as this one: That's another website saying that the function of the appendix is to digest cellulose. It does not say: * That the appendix used to produce cellulose.* That cellulose digests things. * That there are different strengths of cellulose with respect to this imaginary digestive function. * That some cellulose is "strong" enough to digest raw meat. * That some cellulose is "strong" enough to digest small rocks. Since animals have functional appendixes today, such as apes, the purpose of this organ can be clearly defined. Quite so. It is to digest cellulose. It is not to "produce" cellulose that is "strong enough" to "easily digest small rocks". What was your definition of "handicapped" again?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4802 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: You asked:
quote: And these are all examples. There are more. Don't be such a poopypants.
quote: This is nothing more than an obvious statement. If evolution is true, then of course information would be lost and gained over milliions of years. It would be unlikely to find anything else. It offers no relevance to our current subject, being origin of genetic chemical arrangements.
quote: Yet somehow you managed to figure out what I said. If I'm incoherant, and you can read what I am writing...
quote: No. Since Split can refer to other animals, including Rhino's and Camels, that have three toes, where as cloven cannot, as it only refers to animals with two.
quote: Well, we are back to square one now aren't we...I thought you had a point to make on HGT....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And these are all examples. There are more. Don't be such a poopypants. Ah, creationist dialectic at its finest. Since you include "transcription errors" in your list of things that constitute "genetic loss", aren't you claiming that all mutations (except perhaps chromosome fission and fusion) constitute "genetic loss", whatever their result?
It offers no relevance to our current subject, being origin of genetic chemical arrangements. Or "mutation" as it is more concisely known.
Yet somehow you managed to figure out what I said. But not what you meant. You are still not communicating to me what you think creationists think the limbs of the ancestors of modern horse looked like, and how this differs from the opinion of people who have looked at the limbs of the ancestors of modern horses.
Well, we are back to square one now aren't we...I thought you had a point to make on HGT.... And you will find it in my posts. If there's something in there you don't understand, maybe you could ask me about it instead of making up gibberish in your head and pretending that it is my opinion. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4802 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: Oops. I meant codons. Your right. I'm typing too fast. Thats okay. You're an evolutionist, you are used to mistakes...
quote: Dummy this please, no idea what your point is....
quote: You never seem to finish sentences. It's hard to read what your points are, but I think I got this one. Nucleotide content, coding densities, total functional DNA sequences, and complexity of sequences. Lets put this another way, since you obviously do not accept the above answer (don't bother, every evolutionist is the same, even though I quoted a scientist talking about the information content in codons and DNA in a previous post, I'll have a little fun with this). Which is more complex: Human, or an amoeba? AND why? And you cannot use any of the answers I provided, since you called them all wrong.
quote: Statistically, they are more likely drop out of school, commit crimes, and not go to college.
quote: HEIL HITLER. hahahaha
quote: All from your previous posts. I'm just saying, if you can't take it, don't dish it.
quote: I would have done adopted first, but its up to you I suppose...
quote: (speaking of nucleotide sequences) Okay, then where do Amino acids come from? Because now all of a sudden, they don't come from nucleotide sequences...you are re-inventing science, right before my eyes. I am not worthy. Anways, I haven't seen any real scientific responses in your post...I'll tell you the same thing I told Bluebird or whatever. If you want to critize my personal beliefs, write me a message. If something I wrote on here is scientifically incorrect, feel free to correct me, or offer a rebuttal. If you want to distort my evidences to make them incorrect, and offer no resources for any claim in regards to the current topic, then goodbye. You too will be able to sleep at night knowing that your next post will be untouched if you don't offer evidence to support your beliefs. If I am required to, so are you. Bye Timmy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4802 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: Yes, thats my point...is it not? Whats going on here.
quote: Since cellulose is found in raw foods, it shouldn't produce it, it should digest it. Thats my point.
quote: The appendix contains lymphoid tissue. Not cellulose. The cellulose comes from the raw foods.
quote: THATS WHAT I'M SAYING. I can't remember what point I wanted to make, because now you are agreeing with me. I'm lost.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I can't remember what point I wanted to make ... Then let me remind you. In post 234 you wrote:
dennis780 writes: Though in humans, the appendix is shrinking, in the past it would have produced cellulose strong enough to eat raw meat, and quite easily digest small rocks. And when I quoted this, and pointed out that this was not true, you called me "handicapped". It would therefore seem to be your "point", such as it is: * That the appendix used to produce cellulose.* That cellulose digests things. * That there are different strengths of cellulose with respect to this imaginary digestive function. * That some cellulose is "strong" enough to digest raw meat. * That some cellulose is "strong" enough to digest small rocks. * That anyone who disagrees with you about this is handicapped.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4802 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: *brushes shoulder*
quote: Where "incorrectness" and "damage" are assessed how? Thats how. I never claimed this was due to a loss. You asked me to give you examples of genetic damage and incorrect sequencing, and I did.
quote: Right, but if I use that terminology, you would have attacked my word choice, so I am required to use alternatives that prevent this.
quote: It is irrelevant, as I stated before, since both evolutionists and creationists agree that horse ancestors had split hooves. The means of this are trivial, since we are not debating this subject. You simply asked me about it, so I gave you the source for the information. I assumed it was because you didn't believe that this was true. A side note of our current discussion. Unless you want to change the topic?
quote: What? Which message was the point made in?? I can't find it. You left off after asking me if HGT constitutes new genetic information...and I said yes...expecting you to make some sort of association between HGT and genetic origins. Or was that the point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4802 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: Oh. Well I'm definitely wrong. And logically, proved myself handicapped. Ooops. HAHAHAHAHHA. It's wayyyy to early for this. I'm starting to have fun proving myself wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oh. Well I'm definitely wrong. Yeah. You see now why you should listen to the nice evolutionists?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4802 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: Dammit, I'm never going to live this down now. It was an accident, it's freakin 4am where I am. I'm tired, and I have to poop.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Where "incorrectness" and "damage" are assessed how? Thats how. I never claimed this was due to a loss. You asked me to give you examples of genetic damage and incorrect sequencing, and I did. But in post 233, you said that this genetic damage and incorrect sequencing was the very definition of "genetic loss".
dennis780, post 233 writes: quote: Incorrectly sequenced nucleotides, or damaged codons should suffice for this discussion. Unless, you prefer using teaspoons again. Got that? You say that "errors during transcription" constitute incorrectness and/or damage, and that this incorrectness and damage is the very definition of "genetic loss". Therefore, you are saying that errors during transcription constitute genetic loss.
Right, but if I use that terminology, you would have attacked my word choice... No.
What? Which message was the point made in?? I can't find it. You left off after asking me if HGT constitutes new genetic information...and I said yes...expecting you to make some sort of association between HGT and genetic origins. Or was that the point? To recap. You agreed that antibiotic resistance acquired through HGT of plasmids constitutes a "genetic gain" (post 219). You further, when pressed, agreed that if antibiotic resistance was also acquired through mutation, that would also have to be counted as a "genetic gain" (message 233). I then pointed out that by doing experiments with clonal lines, we can demonstrate that such resistance does arise by mutation without HGT being implicated or indeed possible. Unless you wish to go back on your own admissions, or dispute the experimental results, you must now admit that some mutations produce "genetic gain". --- I still don't know what you think about horses, but as you say it is hardly relevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2321 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dennis780 writes:
Might I suggest you go take that poop and rest afterwards? There is no time limit on responsees, you know. This might stop errors like that from creeping in.
I'm tired, and I have to poop
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024