PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Observe--

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yo.... I recommend that anyone who reads this post go ontothe Basic Mistake about Evolution thread (started by Demon) if you would like a basic but informative review of evolution. It does not explain evolution-- it only shows forms of natural selection and classification. However, it will answer some questions.

I would also like to add this: I am in my third (we work in trimesters) term of school, and this term's complete science course (for a select group of students) is completely focused on Evolution. If you have any questions on evolution, I would be happy to answer them. However-- Please do not ask me either provoking or angry questions (or even general questions, specific subjects would help), because encylopedias are difficult to anger :--).
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 10:23 PM on May 10, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Box of Fox at 10:23 PM on May 10, 2005 :
Yo.... I recommend that anyone who reads this post go ontothe Basic Mistake about Evolution thread (started by Demon) if you would like a basic but informative review of evolution. It does not explain evolution-- it only shows forms of natural selection and classification. However, it will answer some questions.

I would also like to add this: I am in my third (we work in trimesters) term of school, and this term's complete science course (for a select group of students) is completely focused on Evolution. If you have any questions on evolution, I would be happy to answer them. However-- Please do not ask me either provoking or angry questions (or even general questions, specific subjects would help), because encylopedias are difficult to anger :--).


On the subject of peppered moths.
It is said that the dark form of Biston Betularia is a mutant.
My question is how could this be known?
First of all there were no studies of the populations in regard to the numbers of the dark moths compared to speckled ones prior to the industrialization of England in the mid 19th century.
The reason this question cannot be answered is simple.
The only way to identify a mutation is to test for it by examining the DNA before it takes place and then afterwards. Since this is only possible by killing the organism it makes this scenario impossible. Mutation can only occur in living organisms.
There is a gene that causes this dark variant but there is no way to say it was caused by a mutation.
If evolution is  science then why would an assumption with no possible way to validate it be presented as the best evidence for the theory?
Your thoughts?



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:37 PM on June 4, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

On the subject of peppered moths.  It is said that the dark form of Biston Betularia is a mutant.  My question is how could this be known?

Genetic analysis would identify a mutant.

The only way to identify a mutation is to test for it by examining the DNA before it takes place and then afterwards. Since this is only possible by killing the organism it makes this scenario impossible. Mutation can only occur in living organisms.

No, it looks like you don't understand how mutations work!  From this statement it seems to me you think an organism somehow aquires a mutation somewhere during it's life, you say you must aquire DNA before the mutation takes place and then after.  Organisms are born with mutations, they don't aquire them as they grow.  And I don't know why you say you have to kill the organism to analyse the DNA, this isn't necessarily true.  Wo what you would have to do is compare the mutant's DNA to the population it was born from.

There is a gene that causes this dark variant but there is no way to say it was caused by a mutation.

That depends on what the original gene was for coloration, any change from the original color is caused by mutation.  What other mechanisms are there that could change the organisms color?

If evolution is  science then why would an assumption with no possible way to validate it be presented as the best evidence for the theory?

Because coloration is controlled by genetics, if the coloration of a population changes, this is due to a genetic mutation that has caused a different color to be expressed.  What other explainations are there for a change in color??


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:14 AM on June 5, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 12:14 AM on June 5, 2005 :
On the subject of peppered moths.  It is said that the dark form of Biston Betularia is a mutant.  My question is how could this be known?

Genetic analysis would identify a mutant.

How so? A mutant is damage to DNA. One would have to have prior knowledge of the DNA structure of that paticular organism beforehand to compare.
I submit there is no such 19th century record of the DNA structure of Biston Betularia . Or anything else for that matter.

No, it looks like you don't understand how mutations work!  From this statement it seems to me you think an organism somehow aquires a mutation somewhere during it's life, you say you must aquire DNA before the mutation takes place and then after.  Organisms are born with mutations, they don't aquire them as they grow.  And I don't know why you say you have to kill the organism to analyse the DNA, this isn't necessarily true.  Wo what you would have to do is compare the mutant's DNA to the population it was born from.

I have no clue what you are trying  to say I so will start over .
Mutation are rare events that damage an organisms genetic information. These can only occur   during it’s lifetime. There are almost universally of no benefit and most often harmful or fatal. In rare cases these mutations are passed down and become concentrated in the population.
You will have to clarify your statement. One could conclude mutations only occur to embryos from your description.

That depends on what the original gene was for coloration, any change from the original color is caused by mutation.  What other mechanisms are there that could change the organisms color?

Herein lies the assumption. Was there a change? There really was no proper study of these moths before the industrial revolution. The black variety very likely existed since the beginning of time.
If in fact the temporary increase in the percentage of the black coloration was caused by predation it would still be no evidence of mutation.

Because coloration is controlled by genetics, if the coloration of a population changes, this is due to a genetic mutation that has caused a different color to be expressed.  What other explainations are there for a change in color??

Yes coloration is determined by genetics.  If  a black dog and a white dog have pups that are black white and gray are the gray  ones mutants or all they all mutants? Would one ½ and ½ be a mutant? Or is it just the result of the inherited genetic traits ?

Again you are assuming that the dark coloration was caused by damage to the DNA not simply written into the code of the first moth.
This is circular logic. It is wishful thinking .








-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 09:46 AM on June 5, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 09:46 AM on June 5, 2005 :

How so? A mutant is damage to DNA.


This in an incorrect statement, a mutation is a change to DNA.


One would have to have prior knowledge of the DNA structure of that paticular organism beforehand to compare.
I submit there is no such 19th century record of the DNA structure of Biston Betularia .


There is likely a 19th century sample in a museum that could be sequenced if anyone cared to do it.  However, since both alleles exist today it is not necessary.

Or anything else for that matter.


Are you saying there is no 19th century record of anything?  I wonder where they came up with all the stuff in history class. :-)





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:56 AM on June 7, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 11:56 AM on June 7, 2005 :


This in an incorrect statement, a mutation is a change to DNA.

That is interesting . Do you feel mongolism is a beneficial mutation. There are very , very , very , very rare circumstances where mutations are beneficial such as the wingless beetle. It is however damage to the DNA

There is likely a 19th century sample in a museum that could be sequenced if anyone cared to do it.  However, since both alleles exist today it is not necessary.
So are you saying the presense of a gene that causes a different coloration is by definition a mutation? Are you saying Black people are mutants? Of course that begs the question:
Were black people the original and asians , islanders , american indians and causcausions the mutants?
I thing you confuse veriability within species as mutaions.


Are you saying there is no 19th century record of anything?  I wonder where they came up with all the stuff in history class. :-)

What stuff? They noticed the melonism becoming dominate but not that that the variety had never existed prior. They certainly had no way to say it was a mutant.

Please describe in scientific terms how this proves this would have eventually led to and intirely different animal.
Natural Selection has no known means of doing that.
Millions of years is a fairy tale, it can not be proven.
I can say I have a flying dog that only I can see.
Can you prove me wrong?








-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:59 PM on June 7, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How so? A mutant is damage to DNA.

A mutation is a change in the DNA, not necessarily damage.  Why do you say it must damage the DNA when there are observed mechanisms that merely add to what is already there?

One would have to have prior knowledge of the DNA structure of that paticular organism beforehand to compare.

No, because the DNA of a particular organism is NOT going to change.  When it is born it is born with it's genetic structure intact, what ever mutations the particular organism has are present at birth, it doesn't gain mutations as it grows.  One would have to compare it to the DNA of the population that spawned it.

I submit there is no such 19th century record of the DNA structure of Biston Betularia . Or anything else for that matter.


As Apoapsis said in a previous post, DNA could be obtained, but what is the point?  The peppered moths were not an example of mutation, it was an example of natural selection and differential reproductive success.

Mutation are rare events that damage an organisms genetic information. These can only occur   during it’s lifetime.

Mutations are not rare events, the average human has about 100 neutral mutations in their genetic makeup.  Beneficial mutations are rare.  And they do not occur in the organisms life time, they occur before it is born.  An organisms genetic structure, for the most part, doesn't change after it is born.

There are almost universally of no benefit and most often harmful or fatal.

This is incorrect, most of the time mutations are neutral, not harmful or fatal.

You will have to clarify your statement. One could conclude mutations only occur to embryos from your description.

yes, one could and that would be correct.  When do you think mutations occur?

Herein lies the assumption. Was there a change? There really was no proper study of these moths before the industrial revolution. The black variety very likely existed since the beginning of time.
If in fact the temporary increase in the percentage of the black coloration was caused by predation it would still be no evidence of mutation.


And this example had nothing whatsoever to do with mutation, it shows natural selection and differential reproductive success.

Again you are assuming that the dark coloration was caused by damage to the DNA not simply written into the code of the first moth.

Not damage to the DNA, just a change, and how were the peppered moths supposed to be an example of mutations?


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:28 PM on June 7, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That is interesting . Do you feel mongolism is a beneficial mutation. There are very , very , very , very rare circumstances where mutations are beneficial such as the wingless beetle. It is however damage to the DNA.

Do you consider Down's Syndrome a gift from a benevolent God?  And there are many examples of beneficial mutations.  Yes, they are rare but they do occur.  The great majority of mutations are neutral, the average person has about 100 neutral mutations in their genetic makeup.  And how was the wing coverings of the flightless beetles damage to the DNA?  They still have wings, the wings are just stuck under fused wing covers.  I fail to see how this is due to damaged DNA.

So are you saying the presense of a gene that causes a different coloration is by definition a mutation? Are you saying Black people are mutants? Of course that begs the question:
Were black people the original and asians , islanders , american indians and causcausions the mutants?
I thing you confuse veriability within species as mutaions.


Yes, skin coloration is due to mutations.  
From here:
SkinColor
"Scientists have correlated the wide variations in human skin color with the mutations in one gene, the MC1R gene (Harding et al 2000:1351). The "MC1R" label for the gene stands for melanocortin 1 receptor, where
"melano" refers to black,
"melanocortin" refers to the hormone stimulant produced by the pituitary gland that orders cells to produce the melanin that makes skin cells black,
the "1" in the MC1R gene name specifies the first family of melanocortin genes, and
"receptor" indicates that the protein from the gene serves as a signal relay from outside the cell wall to inside the cell wall--to the place in the cell where the black melanin is synthesized."
Are Blacks, whites, asians, amerinds, eskimoes
mutants?  Well, that depends on how you define the term,  We all have multiple mutations in our genetic makeup, are we all mutants?  We're still the same species.  

What stuff? They noticed the melonism becoming dominate but not that that the variety had never existed prior. They certainly had no way to say it was a mutant.

And this was never meant to demonstate how mutations work, only natural selection and differential reporoductive success.

Natural Selection has no known means of doing that.

But add mutation and it does.

Millions of years is a fairy tale, it can not be proven.

And yet it is accepted beyond a doubt by the people who study it in depth.  The only people who reject it, reject it because of religious myth.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:50 PM on June 7, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 3:50 PM on June 7, 2005
Do you consider Down's Syndrome a gift from a benevolent God?  And there are many examples of beneficial mutations.  Yes, they are rare but they do occur.  The great majority of mutations are neutral, the average person has about 100 neutral mutations in their genetic makeup.  And how was the wing coverings of the flightless beetles damage to the DNA?  They still have wings, the wings are just stuck under fused wing covers.  I fail to see how this is due to damaged DNA.

It is a the result of man's fall.
The beetle can no longer fly or can it produce offspring that fly.
The fact it is damage is self evident.
the fact the mutation is some how not fatal is a small miracle. In most environments it would be.
In every other place on earth Natural Selection would wipe out flightless beetles.


Yes, skin coloration is due to mutations.  
From here:
SkinColor
"Scientists have correlated the wide variations in human skin color with the mutations in one gene, the MC1R gene (Harding et al 2000:1351). The "MC1R" label for the gene stands for melanocortin 1 receptor, where
"melano" refers to black,
"melanocortin" refers to the hormone stimulant produced by the pituitary gland that orders cells to produce the melanin that makes skin cells black,
the "1" in the MC1R gene name specifies the first family of melanocortin genes, and
"receptor" indicates that the protein from the gene serves as a signal relay from outside the cell wall to inside the cell wall--to the place in the cell where the black melanin is synthesized."
Are Blacks, whites, asians, amerinds, eskimoes
mutants?  Well, that depends on how you define the term,  We all have multiple mutations in our genetic makeup, are we all mutants?  We're still the same species.  

That deep.
Why if these traits are mutations can you take a pair of brown horses and in one man's lifetime breed 24" horses that weigh 50 lbs and 6' horses that weigh 2000 lbs and everything in between?
Are you saying mutations can be purposeful? Or that you can know when an where they will occur?
Mutations are random Demon, think about it!
The information to breed all those horses was encoded in the DNA of the original horse.
Ditto with the first human.

And this was never meant to demonstate how mutations work, only natural selection and differential reporoductive success.

We already knew about Natural Selection , long before this.
You are just telling a fairy story that time will make insignicant small changes a replacement for a creator God.

[b]Natural Selection has no known means of doing that.

But add mutation and it does.
Only in fairy stories! How does one add mutations? Mutations are dumb random events or result from radiation etc. Go to Chernobyl! You should find plenty of improved creatures, just like Hiroshima.
Long ago and far far away!


Millions of years is a fairy tale, it can not be proven.

And yet it is accepted beyond a doubt by the people who study it in depth.  The only people who reject it, reject it because of religious myth.



So is spontaneous generation. What's your point?

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasture and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God." He then went on to say that "I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Dr. George Wall professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University.
Nobel Prize winner in biology.[/b] From an article in Scientific America)




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:39 PM on June 10, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 10:39 PM on June 10, 2005 :
Quote from Demon38 at 3:50 PM on June 7, 2005
Do you consider Down's Syndrome a gift from a benevolent God?  And there are many examples of beneficial mutations.  Yes, they are rare but they do occur.  The great majority of mutations are neutral, the average person has about 100 neutral mutations in their genetic makeup.  And how was the wing coverings of the flightless beetles damage to the DNA?  They still have wings, the wings are just stuck under fused wing covers.  I fail to see how this is due to damaged DNA.

It is a the result of man's fall.
The beetle can no longer fly nor can it produce offspring that fly.
The fact it is damage is self evident.
the fact the mutation is some how not fatal is a small miracle. In most environments it would be.
In every other place on earth Natural Selection would wipe out flightless beetles.


Yes, skin coloration is due to mutations.  
From here:
SkinColor
"Scientists have correlated the wide variations in human skin color with the mutations in one gene, the MC1R gene (Harding et al 2000:1351). The "MC1R" label for the gene stands for melanocortin 1 receptor, where
"melano" refers to black,
"melanocortin" refers to the hormone stimulant produced by the pituitary gland that orders cells to produce the melanin that makes skin cells black,
the "1" in the MC1R gene name specifies the first family of melanocortin genes, and
"receptor" indicates that the protein from the gene serves as a signal relay from outside the cell wall to inside the cell wall--to the place in the cell where the black melanin is synthesized."
Are Blacks, whites, asians, amerinds, eskimoes
mutants?  Well, that depends on how you define the term,  We all have multiple mutations in our genetic makeup, are we all mutants?  We're still the same species.  

That deep.
Why if these traits are mutations can you take a pair of brown horses and in one man's lifetime breed 24" horses that weigh 50 lbs and 6' horses that weigh 2000 lbs and everything in between?
Are you saying mutations can be purposeful? Or that you can know when and where they will occur?
Mutations are random Demon, think about it!
The information to breed all those horses was encoded in the DNA of the original horse.
Ditto with the first human.

And this was never meant to demonstate how mutations work, only natural selection and differential reporoductive success.

We already knew about Natural Selection , long before this.
You are just telling a fairy story that time will make insignicant small changes a replacement for a creator God.

[b]Natural Selection has no known means of doing that.

But add mutation and it does.
Only in fairy stories! How does one add mutations? Mutations are dumb random events or result from radiation etc. Go to Chernobyl! You should find plenty of improved creatures, just like Hiroshima.
Long ago and far far away!


Millions of years is a fairy tale, it can not be proven.

And yet it is accepted beyond a doubt by the people who study it in depth.  The only people who reject it, reject it because of religious myth.



So is spontaneous generation. What's your point?

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasture and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God." He then went on to say that "I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Dr. George Wall professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University. Nobel Prize winner in biology. From an article in Scientific America)








-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:43 PM on June 10, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Quote from Demon38 at 3:50 PM on June 7, 2005
Do you consider Down's Syndrome a gift from a benevolent God?  And there are many examples of beneficial mutations.  Yes, they are rare but they do occur.  The great majority of mutations are neutral, the average person has about 100 neutral mutations in their genetic makeup.  And how was the wing coverings of the flightless beetles damage to the DNA?  They still have wings, the wings are just stuck under fused wing covers.  I fail to see how this is due to damaged DNA.

It is a the result of man's fall.
The beetle can no longer fly or can it produce offspring that fly.
The fact it is damage is self evident.
the fact the mutation is some how not fatal is a small miracle. In most environments it would be.
In every other place on earth Natural Selection would wipe out flightless beetles.


Yes, skin coloration is due to mutations.  
From here:
SkinColor
"Scientists have correlated the wide variations in human skin color with the mutations in one gene, the MC1R gene (Harding et al 2000:1351). The "MC1R" label for the gene stands for melanocortin 1 receptor, where
"melano" refers to black,
"melanocortin" refers to the hormone stimulant produced by the pituitary gland that orders cells to produce the melanin that makes skin cells black,
the "1" in the MC1R gene name specifies the first family of melanocortin genes, and
"receptor" indicates that the protein from the gene serves as a signal relay from outside the cell wall to inside the cell wall--to the place in the cell where the black melanin is synthesized."
Are Blacks, whites, asians, amerinds, eskimoes
mutants?  Well, that depends on how you define the term,  We all have multiple mutations in our genetic makeup, are we all mutants?  We're still the same species.  

That deep.
Why if these traits are mutations can you take a pair of brown horses and in one man's lifetime breed 24" horses that weigh 50 lbs and 6' horses that weigh 2000 lbs and everything in between?
Are you saying mutations can be purposeful? Or that you can know when an where they will occur?
Mutations are random Demon, think about it!
The information to breed all those horses was encoded in the DNA of the original horse.
Ditto with the first human.

And this was never meant to demonstate how mutations work, only natural selection and differential reporoductive success.

We already knew about Natural Selection , long before this.
You are just telling a fairy story that time will make insignicant small changes a replacement for a creator God.

Natural Selection has no known means of doing that.

But add mutation and it does.
Only in fairy stories! How does one add mutations? Mutations are dumb random events or result from radiation etc. Go to Chernobyl! You should find plenty of improved creatures, just like Hiroshima.
Long ago and far far away!


Millions of years is a fairy tale, it can not be proven.

And yet it is accepted beyond a doubt by the people who study it in depth.  The only people who reject it, reject it because of religious myth.



So is spontaneous generation. What's your point?

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God." He then went on to say that "I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Dr. George Wall professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University. Nobel Prize winner in biology. From an article in Scientific America)







(Edited by peddler8111 6/10/2005 at 10:48 PM).


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:45 PM on June 10, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is a the result of man's fall.
The beetle can no longer fly or can it produce offspring that fly.
The fact it is damage is self evident.
the fact the mutation is some how not fatal is a small miracle.


Rubbish!  Where is the evidence that the flightless beetle is a result of man's fall?!?!  Sheer primitive myth!  And the fact that it's damage is NOT self evident!  The beetles that did not lose the capacity to fly died off.  And the fact that the mutation wasn't fatal is no miracle, it's evolution in action.

In most environments it would be.
In every other place on earth Natural Selection would wipe out flightless beetles.


Yes, you are correct, but that's evolution.  Most mutations are neutral, it depends on the environment they express themselves in whether they are harmful, neutral or beneficial.  And once again, that's evolution.

Why if these traits are mutations can you take a pair of brown horses and in one man's lifetime breed 24" horses that weigh 50 lbs and 6' horses that weigh 2000 lbs and everything in between?
Are you saying mutations can be purposeful?


No, mutations are not purposeful, explain how you got that from the statement above???
As to the rest of your foolish statement, why can mutations explain the variations we see in living organisms?  Because as proven in the Modern Synthesis, mutations are inheritable, once again a fact and a cornerstone of the theory of evolution.

Or that you can know when an where they will occur?

Genetic analysis can tell us when a mutation occurred.

Mutations are random Demon, think about it!
The information to breed all those horses was encoded in the DNA of the original horse.
Ditto with the first human.


Untrue!  Yes mutations are random, so what?  Once a beneficial mutation manifests itself, all the offspring of the ogranism will inherit that mutation.  Random mutation selected by non random, unintelligent design.  Where is your evidence that information was encoded in the orginal DNA of horses and humans?  Admit it, your just making that up because the science of genetics shows us the exact opposite.  Why is all life made of DNA?  Why do all life share some of the same genes?  Why do we see genomes increasing in size and complexity naturally?  You claim this can't happen and yet it is an observed fact.  

We already knew about Natural Selection , long before this.

But we didn't know that natural selection and mutation could explain how all life evolved from a common ancestor, as we now know.

You are just telling a fairy story that time will make insignicant small changes a replacement for a creator God.

Nope, just objectively observing the evidence.  Life in the fossil record HAS changed, that is a fact.  Why has it changed?  There are transitional fossils in the fossil record that are only explained by evolution.  You try to confuse the issue, but you haven't.  Archaeopteryx is transitional, reptile and avian traits, all biologists agree, even the ones you tried to use to disprove this, like Feduccia.
Twin nested hierarchies are only explainable by evolution.  ERV's are only explainable by evolution, the list goes on and on.

Only in fairy stories! How does one add mutations? Mutations are dumb random events or result from radiation etc. Go to Chernobyl! You should find plenty of improved creatures, just like Hiroshima.
Long ago and far far away!


Ah, so you don't know what mutations are!  We're not talking about radiation induced mutations, we're talking about the normal copying errors all cells produce!  Like I said, the average human has over 100 mutations in their genetic makeup!  YOu convienently ignored this fact because it doesn't fit with your dellusions.  Mutations are random but they are selected by a non random process, an unintelligent non random process, called evolution.  You claim mutations are damage in the genes, no they are merely change.  You claim most mutations are harmful, no most are neutral.  You claim that beneficial mutations are rare, fine, that's all evolution needs, rare beneficial mutations accumulate.

So is spontaneous generation. What's your point?

Who rejects spontaneous generation?  You don't, you believe "Goddidit", real scientists accept the mounting evidence that life can self organize.  The point is the experts all overwhelmingly agree that evolution is valid.
99.9% of the biologists and 95% of scientists in general in the U.S.A. accept the theory of evolution.  Why are you right and they're not?

Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others.

Untrue, please show the experiments Pastuer did to recreate a primitive earth.  Pasteur showed no such thing, what he did show was that complex living organisms don't sprout from dead organic matter.  Completely different, so your assertion is incorrect.

That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God."

But there is no evidence that God created anything, there is no evidence God even exists.
And most biochemists, again the experts, agree that life could self organize, even though the exact path hasn't been determined yet.  Life spontaneously arising is based on leading scientific evidence, God creating is a 3000 year old goat herder myth with absolutely nothing to back it up.

He then went on to say that "I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Dr. George Wall professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University. Nobel Prize winner in biology. From an article in Scientific America)

Well, abiogenesis has not been scientifically disproven, on the contrary, the evidence for it is getting stronger everyday.  But what does this ridiculous pasasge have to do with mutations?  Once again, you bring nothing to the table, no evidence, no support, no research, just meaningless distractions and sheer ignorance of evolution.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:55 AM on June 11, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by:
ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.