Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 10:26 AM
42 online now:
AZPaul3, Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD, xongsmith (4 members, 38 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,580 Year: 3,617/19,786 Month: 612/1,087 Week: 202/212 Day: 17/27 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Author Topic:   Evolutionary Adaptation
Crue Knight
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 115 (319716)
06-09-2006 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 9:39 PM


quote:
And I am sorry to hear that you are a Creationist who believes in evolution.


There are many people who tries to bring peace to both sides by believing "Theistic-Evolution". They believe God created the "materials" and let evolution take over.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:39 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 9:47 PM Crue Knight has responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3828 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 47 of 115 (319718)
06-09-2006 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by crashfrog
06-08-2006 10:01 PM


The code is altered during meiosis. That step where the information is taken from the parents? Sometimes new information is added, through mutation.

Yes, the code from the parents combines to form the code of the offspring during meiosis. And yes, some information is altered, but there are also mechanisms which control these mistakes. But the point is, no new information can be added that would be for cells, tissues, organs, systems, body parts, etc, that the organism doesn't already have. You could get a mistake and grow three legs instead of two. But you cannot grow wings if you never had them, or something else to the sort.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 10:01 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Lithodid-Man, posted 06-09-2006 9:44 PM Someone who cares has responded
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 06-09-2006 11:16 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded
 Message 87 by fallacycop, posted 06-12-2006 12:42 AM Someone who cares has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3828 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 48 of 115 (319720)
06-09-2006 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by RAZD
06-08-2006 10:02 PM


Why not?

What prevents it from happening? What is the stopping mechanism?

It's not a mechanism, it's the code. The genetic code of an organism, it contains information for cells, tissues, body parts that the organism already has, it doesn't have code for NEW cells or tissues or body parts, that it never had.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 10:02 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2006 9:19 PM Someone who cares has responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3828 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 49 of 115 (319722)
06-09-2006 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by jar
06-08-2006 10:02 PM


And since you do not know genetic code for body parts, just how do you know that is true?

Do you know of something different? Please share with me if you do. I am not a professional scientist, so if I make a mistake, please do correct me.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 06-08-2006 10:02 PM jar has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 50 of 115 (319723)
06-09-2006 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 9:39 PM


And I am sorry to hear that you are a Creationist who believes in evolution.

What an arrogant, condescending and insulting thing to say.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:39 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 9:48 PM RAZD has responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3828 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 51 of 115 (319724)
06-09-2006 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
06-08-2006 10:04 PM


Actually we find that's not true. Often the genetic code of a creature contains not just the information for the body parts that it has, but for body parts, tissues, cells, organs, and systems that it used to have, previously in its evolutionary history.

For instance, human beings can't manufacture Vitamin C. That's why we have to ingest it to survive. But we have the gene to do it, only it's in a deactivated state. Our evolutionary ancestors were able to synthesize that vitamin, and we inherited the gene, only it's got a stop codon somewhere in the middle, so it doesn't work.

Guess what? Primates also can't manufacture vitamin C, and guinea pigs too. So when do you think our "supposed ansectors" did manufacture vitamin C, if the primates didn't?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 10:04 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3828 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 52 of 115 (319733)
06-09-2006 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Isaac
06-08-2006 10:05 PM


The barrier is the genetic code ...? Sorry if I'm being rude, but none of what you wrote makes sense. Do you actually know what the genetic code is? And could you define "information" in a biological context please? Are you familiar with "gene duplication" by the way? Do you understand that evolution is a slow, gradual process (stuff like limbs would evolve over long periods of time)?

Creationists don't believe in evolution, they believe in creationism last time I checked . Scientists accept evolution as the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

Genetic code: "The sequence of nucleotides, coded in triplets (codons) along the mRNA, that determines the sequence of amino acids in protein synthesis. The DNA sequence of a gene can be used to predict the mRNA sequence, and the genetic code can in turn be used to predict the amino acid sequence." http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Agenetic+code

Genetic information: "A DNA sequence (sometimes genetic sequence) is a succession of letters representing the primary structure of a real or hypothetical DNA molecule or strand, The possible letters are A, C, G, and T, representing the four nucleotide subunits of a DNA strand (adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine), and typically these are printed abutting one another without gaps, as in the sequence AAAGTCTGAC. This coded sequence is sometimes referred to as genetic information. ..." http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=define%3Agenetic+information

Gene duplication: "An error in DNA replication that results in a two genes" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=define%3Agene+duplication&btnG=Search

Will those definitions work? ^^

Yes, I do know you believe evolution is a slow process that takes many generations and the never existing "millions of millions" of years.

Evolution is not the best explanation for the diversity. It crumbles when you speak of diversity and complexity. Evolution could not make all this in nature, by chance, by random processes.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Isaac, posted 06-08-2006 10:05 PM Isaac has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3828 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 53 of 115 (319734)
06-09-2006 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by AdminJar
06-08-2006 10:06 PM


Re: Just a suggestion
If you would like I can set up a new thread just for you and one other participant, a mentor, that can help step you through some of the basics of the Theory of Evolution. If you would like that, just let me know and I will try to get it set up for you. That way you would not be facing a whole herd of folk at one time.

No thanks. I don't need a mentor. But a one on one debate, I may apply for sometime later... Thanks for the offer though.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by AdminJar, posted 06-08-2006 10:06 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 54 of 115 (319736)
06-09-2006 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Someone who cares
06-09-2006 8:56 PM


It's not a mechanism, it's the code. The genetic code of an organism,

In other words you don't have a clue.

... it contains information for cells, tissues, body parts that the organism already has, ...

Not quite. The genes that are assembled contain the code for making the organism that will be -- including any mutations that have occurred, either in the genes of the parents that are included, or in the process of DNA replication and assembly.

Some of these will be neutral mistakes that won't affect the growth of the new organism, some will be deadly and cause a new organism to die before it matures, and some will have some minor benefit to the individual in the environment it will live in.

It will have evolved from it's parents. All species are in transition this way.

...it doesn't have code for NEW cells or tissues or body parts, that it never had.

Once more, your repeated assertion is NOT evidence of any such restriction on the evolution of organisms. This is still just more of the same argument from incredulity and ignorance.

Any time a section of genetic code is copied there can be mistakes, some of those mistakes include duplicating areas of code so that the recipient has two (or more) copies -- one that it then uses for normal growth and one that can evolve to different features. There is nothing to prevent this kind of change in species over time from happening.

Do you know what is special about the hoof of a horse that cannot be explained just by the fusing of foot bones into a single toe supporting shank?


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 8:56 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 9:55 PM RAZD has responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3828 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 55 of 115 (319742)
06-09-2006 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Wounded King
06-09-2006 5:14 AM


All this suggests is that you don't know the first thing about developmental biology. I could show you a number of genes specifically, though not necessarily exclusively, expressed in the legs which are also expressed in the fins, so at least part of the 'code' for legs is there.

This whole post is nothing but pure asserion, do you think you could actually support any of these claims with evidence? Even one?

TTFN,

WK

I'm not saying that some parts may not have common genes. But this does not mean anything. I mean, the plant cells have a nucleus and a human cell has a nucleus, this doesn't mean they are related. This just shows to me that a Creator used similar patterns and genes and substances to create all the animals and plants and organims, one Creator, one basic pattern.

Ok, I'll back up some things with genetics, basic genetics. Everyone knows that the offspring takes it's DNA for it's traits and appearance from it's parents, basic genetics. Now, if the parents didn't have limbs, the offspring won't ever get them, or parts of them, or, it won't even start evolving them, for it's code was "preset" when it was born, to not contain limbs. It doesn't matter how many mutations you will get during meiosis, that offspring will not start evolving limbs, for it takes the DNA from it's parents, who did not have anything about evolving limbs. During meiosis, or whenever, mutations ONLY alter the PREVIOUSLY existing code of the organism. The code that was ALREADY there. Mutations CANNOT introduce any new code, they can only alter previously existing code. So if a mutation alters some code, that would not make code to start evolving limbs, for the organism's code didn't contain anything about limbs. Besides, mutations usually destroy an organism, or make it defective. Mutations are changes which usually only make it worse, or neutral. They are rarely beneficial mutations. Because the DNA is such a complex language, everything has to work just perfectly to maintain an organism. So if a mutation came in and messed up some DNA code, this would most likely do something bad, sometimes deadly.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Wounded King, posted 06-09-2006 5:14 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3828 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 56 of 115 (319746)
06-09-2006 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by arachnophilia
06-09-2006 10:28 AM


if i were to take your post, and change it one letter at a time, could i ever make it say something different?

With random changes, you could make it more messed up and misspelled and confusing, perhaps even impossible to read. But you could not exchange some of my words and make synonyms for those words that would be more scholarly sounding or more scientific or better sounding. That's the whole point.

duplication errors are a fairly regular occurance. in fact, i think you will find that humans quite regularly have a whole extra chromosome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_X_syndrome

that's a whole extra copy of a chromosome, not just an extra gene.

That is called DUPLICATION, which means, making an extra copy of PREVIOUSLY existing code! MY POINT! That's the best you could do, you couldn't add new code for new cells or tissues or organs or something. You could ONLY duplicate that which had already existed! This is my point!

except, of course, for the fish that do have legs.

Like?


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2006 10:28 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2006 9:46 PM Someone who cares has responded

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1008 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 57 of 115 (319748)
06-09-2006 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Someone who cares
06-09-2006 8:54 PM


Can't leave this one alone
Sorry, but this one hurts:
Someone writes:

Yes, the code from the parents combines to form the code of the offspring during meiosis


That's what meiosis is? The combination of genetic code from parents to form the code of the offspring? Are you sure? Meiosis? Hmmm...


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 8:54 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 9:58 PM Lithodid-Man has responded

    
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3828 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 58 of 115 (319750)
06-09-2006 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by kuresu
06-09-2006 4:47 PM


Mutated post:
It's nat loke thire as a mechanism for it, to stop a monkey from evolving into a human, or a reptile from evolving into a bird. It is the genetic code of an organism. The code is "preset" when the organism is born. There is code for only the traits and organs and tissues of that organism. Ne new cove can be added to the genetic code of an organism to make it evolvedinto a different kind of organism. It cannot happen. It never hzs. It never will. That fish over there will never have code added to it, naturally, to make it start evolving legs or parts of them os something. It's not going to happin.

Oh, and I'm counting the spaces in this "genetic" code, so those are liable to change also.

ABE: after screwing up several times (because there is no undo button online), I'm just going to show you the final change.

The theory of evolution is one of the greatest scientific truths uncovered by man. It is a natural account of how the diversity of life came about. The theory’s basic mechanism is natural selection, and this determines how “fit” an organism is to its environment. “Fit”ness is a measure of reproductive success—the more offspring you have, the “fitter” you are. Keep in mind, this is a bare-bones definition, and does not reach the full complexity of what natural selection is. In other words, if you are better adapted to your environment, then you will most likely have more offspring. This pattern will continue.

This is a total of 621 characters including spaces, yours was 603. I was going to change it by a hundred per generation, so it would only cover six generations (arachs initial plan would take 603, my first 61). This message is also a completely different kind (sort of like your reptile to bird thing). It moves from against evolution to for evolution--the other side of the spectrum, and as such a complete change outside of kind. Also, there is a addition of information, something you claim can't happen. And guess what, it's using the same letters.

You didn't do that using RANDOM, UNGUIDED mutations though, did you? There was an intelligent being who wrote that, not random unguided processes. And you added some characters, which I did not use, thus this is not how a real mutation works. Thus the whole effort was futile. If you were blinded, unconscience, making random changes, without seeing what you were doing, without even knowing, and ended up with that result, I may have considered it. But that's not the case.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by kuresu, posted 06-09-2006 4:47 PM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by kuresu, posted 06-09-2006 10:57 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 55 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 59 of 115 (319751)
06-09-2006 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Someone who cares
06-09-2006 9:40 PM


With random changes, you could make it more messed up and misspelled and confusing, perhaps even impossible to read. But you could not exchange some of my words and make synonyms for those words that would be more scholarly sounding or more scientific or better sounding. That's the whole point.

there was a member a while back, a really nutter, who kept going on about moses's cd-rom collection. he was using strong's concordance to find alternate renderings of certain words in the bible, and derive some higher meaning (about cd-roms) from them.

so i began using his methods against him. at one point, i was "translating" his own posts against him. it was actually quite entertaining.

so, yes, you can do it. i have.

That is called DUPLICATION, which means, making an extra copy of PREVIOUSLY existing code! MY POINT! That's the best you could do, you couldn't add new code for new cells or tissues or organs or something. You could ONLY duplicate that which had already existed! This is my point!

whoa whoa. wait a second, engage the brain a little.

if i have the following string of numbers:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

and i duplicate one number:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8

and then i modify one number:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

tada, new data.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 9:40 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 10:01 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3828 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 60 of 115 (319752)
06-09-2006 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Crue Knight
06-09-2006 8:49 PM


There are many people who tries to bring peace to both sides by believing "Theistic-Evolution". They believe God created the "materials" and let evolution take over.

So, they please the world instead of standing tall for the truth?


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Crue Knight, posted 06-09-2006 8:49 PM Crue Knight has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2006 9:57 PM Someone who cares has responded
 Message 83 by Crue Knight, posted 06-11-2006 1:00 AM Someone who cares has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019