Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 11:49 PM
18 online now:
Dr Adequate, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,645 Year: 3,682/19,786 Month: 677/1,087 Week: 46/221 Day: 17/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910111213
14
Author Topic:   Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2175 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 196 of 205 (570541)
07-27-2010 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by crashfrog
07-27-2010 5:25 PM


Re: What about another definition?
I'm really not at all sure what Barbara is talking about. If I had to hazard a guess I'd suggest she has gotten a viral origin for transposable elements, which do account for ~50% of the genome, mixed up with a bacterial origin although I guess microbial could include viruses.

The information I can find from the human genome project says they identified 200 genes whose closest relatives were found in bacteria rather than another metazoan species, which is not even 1% of genes let alone of the genome.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 5:25 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1999
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 197 of 205 (571323)
07-31-2010 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by barbara
07-27-2010 4:31 PM


Re: What about another definition?
barbara writes:

quote mined from Tanypteryx message 141 writes:

"bacteria never turned into Humans"


Are you absolutely sure about that statement since most our DNA is bacteria in origin.

I see you are already skilled at quote-mining and ignoring context.

So according to you, we should expect to see human babies popping up in bacterial culture incubaters in labs around the world.

I had better keep an eye on my kitchen sink drain.

barbara in message 191 writes:

The genome project were not talking about cells, they were talking about our DNA and they said 10% was Human and 90% microbial DNA.

If this is true then we are really bacteria, but we know that you are just making this shit up. The evidence that this is just your imagination or outright lies is your failure to provide a single reference to anything you write.

Enjoy,


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by barbara, posted 07-27-2010 4:31 PM barbara has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Coragyps, posted 07-31-2010 12:21 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 198 of 205 (571338)
07-31-2010 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Tanypteryx
07-31-2010 11:26 AM


Re: What about another definition?
Speculation: is Barbara wildly misremembering or misrepresenting a factoid (a true one) that roughly 90% of the cells in human bodies are bacteria - mostly in our gut - and 10% are eukaryote cells?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-31-2010 11:26 AM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-31-2010 2:07 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1999
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 199 of 205 (571369)
07-31-2010 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Coragyps
07-31-2010 12:21 PM


Re: What about another definition?
Coragyps writes:

Speculation: is Barbara wildly misremembering or misrepresenting a factoid (a true one) that roughly 90% of the cells in human bodies are bacteria - mostly in our gut - and 10% are eukaryote cells?

Maybe you are right, butI guess I will remain skeptical, I think she is just making stuff up.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Coragyps, posted 07-31-2010 12:21 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 200 of 205 (571440)
07-31-2010 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by barbara
07-27-2010 3:11 PM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
Hi again barbara,

While I am not a moderator, I am interested in keeping my threads on topic, so if you want to discuss how bacteria can evolve into humans then we should start a new thread.

"The bottom line is that science does science so they get to determine the words they use"

If you use this simple little bit of dB coding:

[qs]The bottom line is that science does science so they get to determine the words they use[/qs]

it makes these cute little quote boxes

The bottom line is that science does science so they get to determine the words they use

You can also use [qs=coyote]The bottom line is that science does science so they get to determine the words they use[/qs]

and it does this:

coyote writes:

The bottom line is that science does science so they get to determine the words they use

This makes it much easier to distinguish your quotations of another post from any random phrase you may put in quote marks.

This is a very arrogant statement. Building a language barrier will not provide the financial support you need now and in the future.

No, the purpose of having specific definitions is so that it is very clear what scientists are actually talking about. This improves communication, not build a barrier to it.

For instance, when we say that in evolutionary biology, evolution is defined as "the change in character and proportion of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation," this makes it very clear that we are not talking about the evolution of stars.

Likewise, when we say in astronomy, evolution is "the process by which a star undergoes a sequence of radical changes during its lifetime,"(1) this makes it clear that we are not talking about the evolution of biological life forms.

This of course, can be made even clearer by using the terms "biological evolution" and "stellar evolution" so that they should not be confused by people unfamiliar with the specific terminology.

This is usually done when addressing lay people, but the adjectives "biological" and "stellar" are usually taken as stated when communicating within each science.

Sports terminology also does this, as does engineering and chemistry, etc. This is not special to science, and the reasons for are the same: to be more specific about what is being discussed so that it can be understood better.

So when you see creationists making silly statements like those in Message 1, you know that they are not helping people understand evolution.

Enjoy

REF:
(1) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):


... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.

Edited by RAZD, : added


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by barbara, posted 07-27-2010 3:11 PM barbara has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by barbara, posted 08-01-2010 4:04 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 2882 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 201 of 205 (571552)
08-01-2010 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by RAZD
07-31-2010 6:14 PM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
I am not a biologist just wanting to search for the truth. I am not religious so I am not trying to prove creation. Forgive me for not using your specific terminology. 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. I do not understand the point if it is all falsified. I think it is time unfortunately that the web needs to provide restrictions especially science on who is allowed to educate the masses and have some way to validate its truth.

Since approx. 40% in the western world believe in evolution (web info), I would think your website would like to see this number go up. Some of the members on this site are rude and seem to enjoy feeling superiority over the less informed individuals that visit this site.

The education in Biology that I learned was over 35 years ago and I am realizing now that what I was taught in school is now wrong. If you prefer that I seek my answers somewhere else then I will.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 6:14 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by crashfrog, posted 08-01-2010 5:00 AM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 203 by Percy, posted 08-01-2010 8:13 AM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 204 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2010 9:14 AM barbara has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


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 yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18312
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 203 of 205 (571564)
08-01-2010 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by barbara
08-01-2010 4:04 AM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
Hi Barbara,

Whether or not our billions of years ago single-celled ancestor was something like a modern bacteria, we can be reasonably certain that its DNA bore little in common with our own. The DNA of modern bacteria also has little in common with our own. A bacteria has only a single chromosome, while humans have 23 chromosome pairs for a total of 46 chromosomes. The common E. coli bacteria's DNA with its single chromosome has only about 4 million base pairs, while our own DNA totals around six billion base pairs. And as Wounded King already said, we share less than 0.1% of our genes with bacteria.

So if we evolved from bacteria or something somewhat like bacteria, where did all our additional DNA come from?

The answer is mutations, which is a chance occurrence that alters an organism's DNA, usually during reproduction. The most common type of mutation is a single nucleotide replacement where at one point along the DNA one of the four nucleotides (C, A, G and T) is accidentally replaced by another while being copied during reproduction. Nucleotides can also be inserted and deleted. Entire sequences of nucleotides can be skipped or copied twice. Entire genes and even chromosomes can be duplicated.

Viruses are another source of mutation, one that doesn't need to happen during reproduction. Viruses work by breaking into a cell and taking over its machinery by injecting its own DNA, causing the cell to make copies of the virus instead of whatever it was doing before. But viruses are no more perfect at doing their job than cells are at copying themselves, and it occasionally happens that instead of taking over a cell some of the virus's DNA becomes inserted into the cell's DNA. This new DNA becomes a permanent part of the organism's DNA if this happens in cells involved in reproduction, such as sperm or egg or the cells that produce them.

It's important not to confuse this picture at the DNA level with the symbiotic relationship between multi-cellular life and bacteria. The bacteria that inhabit the human body are independent of us. Their DNA does not mix with ours. They *are* a substantial portion of us. There are ten times more bacterial cells in our body than human, though they're much smaller on average and so maybe only represent 10% of us by weight.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Remove extraneous apostrophes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by barbara, posted 08-01-2010 4:04 AM barbara has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 204 of 205 (571571)
08-01-2010 9:14 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.

Where?

I think it is time unfortunately that the web needs to provide restrictions especially science on who is allowed to educate the masses and have some way to validate its truth.

With malefactors arrested by the Internet Police?

I think the task of enforcing accuracy on the internet, besides being an affront to the civil liberties of people exercising their right to be wrong, is too large for anyone to handle. Google has indexed over one trillion unique urls.

The education in Biology that I learned was over 35 years ago and I am realizing now that what I was taught in school is now wrong.

So far as I am aware, none of the stuff you're coming out with about bacteria was ever taught in schools. Is it possible that the passage of 35 years has clouded your memory somewhat?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by barbara, posted 08-01-2010 4:04 AM barbara has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2010 10:04 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 205 of 205 (571577)
08-01-2010 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Dr Adequate
08-01-2010 9:14 AM


TOPIC PLEASE?
Sorry but discussion of evolution is not the topic

the topic is Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.

Please start a new thread to continue discussions


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2010 9:14 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910111213
14
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019