Evolution

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 23 2006, 01:27 PM) [snapback]323935[/snapback]</div>

One reference is Lee Spetner's book Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. He shows that EVERY known mutation found in the lab or observed in the world actually serves to lessen the information in the genetic code [and, in general, makes the organism less fit rather than more fit].

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 23 2006, 01:29 PM) [snapback]323937[/snapback]</div>

Well, sure, Jesus Christ was not his real name. I would suppose, actually, it was 'Jesus, Son Of Joesph', and then, what ever Joesph's last name was. He could also been referred to as 'Jesus, Son Of David', since that was the lineage.

And it's a good thing I'm not a Christian. I am a Follower Of Christ. I tend to do what Christ suggested, not what man, who wrote the Bible, suggested.


As I have often said, 'What's so funny 'bout Peace Love & Understanding?'

 

every known mutations lessens the info in the genetic code? how so?

maybe changes, but you can't prove that a difference lessens anything.

some mutations cause less fitness. those are selected against, as the organism dies before reproducing and passing those unfit genes on. the ones that provide a reproductive advantage are going to be passed on. if each mutation caused us to be less fit, we'd be extinct by now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Randy @ Sep 23 2006, 10:42 AM) [snapback]323943[/snapback]</div>

May I recommend that you read the following article: Talk.Origins Archive - Information Theory and Creationism?

Here is the author Ian Musgrave's conclusion:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Randy @ Sep 23 2006, 07:42 PM) [snapback]323943[/snapback]</div>

Just wrong. The statement "lessen the information" is meaningless, because you would first need to define how you measure the amount of information in DNA. The only measure I can think of would be entropy.

And there are quite a few recent mutations known that do make the organism more fit. Bacterial strains and viruses do this trick continuously. Let me give you just one example: the resistance of bacteria against antimicrobials. A new gene that emerged, and that is rapidly spreading to other organisms via insertion mutations. Quite useful, from the point of view of the bacteria.

Of course, the vast majority of random mutations are useless or even harming indeed. For example, one wrong mutation in a housekeeping gene and the result is not a viable organism anymore. BTW housekeeping genes are another wonderful illustration of evolution. The DNA resemblance of the actin coding gene between Homo Sapiens and Saccharomyces cerevisiae is 80%. Homo Sapiens is another name for you, and S. cerevisiae is another name for yeast.

A lot of human deseases are known to be related to point mutations. This actually puts some additional stress on the "Intelligent Design" idea. The design is actually not that intelligent.

But, every once in a while, there is a mutation that does improve the organism in a certain aspect. And nature has time, a lot of time. More than 2.000.000.000 years.

 

<----- receptor pharmacologist

in case anyone needs an expert.

i haven't read the book in question, but what i get from this summary it seems that the author either is not well versed in biochem or is hoping others aren't.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Sep 23 2006, 03:49 PM) [snapback]324045[/snapback]</div>

Galaxee,

You should at least read Ian Musgrave's complete article, not just his summary. He rips Lee Spetner's arguments to shreds.

In case the earlier link I posted was too obscure, here it is again:

Talk.Origins Archive - Information Theory and Creationism

 

I wonder what the fundies' reactions are to the fact that the tapeworm's genome contains 10k more genes than the human genome :lol:

 

Books like Spetner's are not intended to present valid arguments. They are intended to give creationists scholarly-sounding arguments that they can use on uneducated people and children, as well as on themselves: to reinforce their own faith-based convictions.

It is a sad commentary on the condition of the human race that such garbage is published and circulates at all. But then, fundamentalist religion (be it christian, muslim, or jewish) is a sad commentary on the human race.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Sep 22 2006, 03:05 AM) [snapback]323288[/snapback]</div>

And yet the bacteria remains a bacteria and does not evolve into anything other than it's own kind.

I don't understand how an organisms adaptation to it's enviroment or other outside forces including mutations, which most scientist agree is almost always if not always determintal, is a affirmation of macro-evolution.

Can a parasite which requires a host to survive, co-evolve with the host? One has to exist before the other or is that not a distinction that is trying to be made here? My point is that bacteria existed long before man showed up according to the theory so what did they do for millions of years until man supposedly evolved?

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 24 2006, 01:01 AM) [snapback]324141[/snapback]</div>

If smart people such as yourself always believe in Evolution I can see you point. But, I am currently interested in people such as yourself who once believed as you did but has changed their minds concerning the Evolution/Creation debate.
For example, Gary Parker who wrote the book Creation Facts of Life once embraced Evolution as a fact of life and as a Scientist and professor of Biology taught it to his students that way to. He states in his book "I considered it one of my major missions as a science teacher to help my students rid themselves completely of old, 'pre-scientific' superstitions, such as Christianity. In fact, I was almost fired once for teaching evolution so vigourously that I had Christian students crying in my class!" But yet he has re-examined the evidence and he now says that it supports Creation not Evolution.
Another individual who once believed the way you do is James Perloff who wrote the book Tornado in a Junkyard. He mentions in the book "Teacher was telling us, for a fact, that science had proven the Bible wrong." "One thing didn't change, though- my hatred of religion and the Bible. I was a full-fledged atheist, with only contempt for naive fools who believed." And yet, he has re-examed the evidence and now believes in Creation over Evolution.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Randy @ Sep 23 2006, 10:42 AM) [snapback]323943[/snapback]</div>

That's a sensationalist book meant to make money off of Creationists. He asked for a peer-reviewed journal. That very much isn't a peer-reviewed journal.

Now, admittedly, it's a bit nerdy to know what one is, so here's the Wikipedia entry on it:
Academic journal - another name for it.

So, have a look at that. Basically, in a book you can make a lot of false statements, and your readers will see those false statements without any discussion of them. They may even accept them as truth, as you may have in the case of this book. Some books make the most of this by choosing falsehoods that will sell... as is the case here.

Peer-reviewed journals endure the scrutiny of the scientific community. There are thousands of journals and they each have audiences centered around their fields; for example, a scientific friend of mine has a degree in Biology, and has taken additional classes regarding the receptors and nature of cancer. She also works in cancer research. She makes a habit of reading Nature, the science journal nearly everyone with a Biology degree reads, and several other journals more narrowly focused on her field.

Point being... were this book's text published as a paper in one of these journals:

1) The author would not make the sensationalist money they were after; they get nothing but notoriety for publishing.
2) They would be widely discredited, because they're making false claims in a publication that is read almost strictly by those who have spent their lives studying the science being discussed.

Basically, it wouldn't fly.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 24 2006, 07:02 AM) [snapback]324144[/snapback]</div>

Bacteria are not one kind. They make up for more than 50% of the biodiversity on Earth. They aqcuired more diversity in metabolic chemistry than any other type of living creature.
But, then again, a bacteria can indeed evolve into something you can't call a bacteria anymore, given enough time. You won't see it happen, because it may take 500.000.000 years...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 24 2006, 07:02 AM) [snapback]324144[/snapback]</div>

One of the keys to this is that the environment itself is changing. A changing environment (think climate change, geological changes, ...) forces a living creature to evolve. This is a crucial, but often overlooked ingredient of evolutionary theory. And the vast majority of mutations are detrimental indeed (perhaps 99.999%). But every once in a while there is one that is beneficial.

Another, related point: have you ever thought about the fact why higher living organisms rely on sex to create descendants? Why make it so complicated? The reason is that this ensures that the descendants have a mix of genomes of two ancestors, which is one way to make sure that genetic materials get spread rapidly. It also offers a chance for several "interesting" genes from different sources to come together in one organism, resulting in an even better creature. For higher organisms, sex is a key component in the evolution process. Think about that next time you do it...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 24 2006, 07:02 AM) [snapback]324144[/snapback]</div>

Yes, a parasite can co-evolve with their hosts. There are plenty of examples of this. And most parasites are secundary, in the sense that they developed this parasitic behaviour when an opportunity was created. Before that, they ware just caring form themselves. Never forget that the vast majority of bacteria are completely harmless, they are just living in the environment. Parasitic behaviour is an odd behaviour, even for bacteria.

One notable exeption to this are virusses. Nobody understands how a virus can live by itself, since it needs a host organism to reproduce. That's why many scientists believe that virusses are a secundary life form: a type of life that emerged in a second wave, after the "mainstream" life was created. This is definetely one of the open questions in biology, and we may perhaps never know what really happened because it happened 2.000.000.000 years ago.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Sep 24 2006, 02:09 AM) [snapback]324183[/snapback]</div>

But his church has been promised him eternal life.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Sep 24 2006, 11:32 AM) [snapback]324256[/snapback]</div>

LOL!

One of the reasons religion exists is about how uncomfortable people are with their own mortality. We are biological organisms... once we're dead we're dead (unless you're talking about cryogenics or something). NASA has a computer that can convert the electrical process of a part of the brain into thoughts. There is NOTHING supernatural about this world.

What a travesty it is for humanity that something that started out with a nutcase taking ideas from previous religions and then adding his own has become so widespread. I grew up a Muslim... and it is ridiculously insane how 'not so different' the Bible and the Quran are. Take for example the Antichrist... Muslim fiction has the same concept... except it is called Da Jaal. Shiias have the Mehdi. Another example... I think that the symbol of the cross is actually derived from Egyptian mythology. The notion of a son being born to a virgin mother was NOT started with Christianity.

Religion tends to avoid the real problems we face. If a huge asteroid was barreling towards Earth, there is no higher power that is going to save us... or correct any of the problems we have.

There are a few things I can't wait for:
-the first cryogenically-frozen person is awakened
-man finally discovers life on other planets

I think these two things especially would shake faith... wasn't that person supposed to go to Heaven and Hell? Oh darn... we are so tiny in this world... humans really aren't all that.

Of course, if you really think about it, you don't need to have those events to happen to realize what kind of bull religion is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Sep 24 2006, 12:45 PM) [snapback]324321[/snapback]</div>

Won't make any difference. At first the "believers" will dismiss such events as fake, then when they becomed overwhelmed by the evidence, they'll claim that any Biblical writings that are inconsistent with them were just written "poetically". People have always and will always believe what they want to believe.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 24 2006, 12:19 AM) [snapback]324174[/snapback]</div>

Please name one mutation that was benefical to any organism?

Wildkow