Jump to content

creato

Members
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Retained

  • Quark

creato's Achievements

Quark

Quark (2/13)

10

Reputation

  1. I'm vegetarian beccause of the health benifets gained from being one.
  2. Yes the chances "of the cell ocurring spontaniously" would have to be unreasonably high.
  3. what about this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-mutations.asp
  4. Man, it takes a lot of faith to belive evolution Mutations nearly always cause mistakes(99.9999%) They can't be used support an evolving of one thing to another
  5. Basically, i think evolution is a fairy tale thought up someone to appease people who don't believe in God. here is one of the reasons why mutations don't support evolution (1) Mathematical challenges. Problem number one is the mathematical. I won’t dwell on this one, because it’s written up in many books and widely acknowledged by evolutionists themselves as a serious problem for their theory. Fortunately, mutations are very rare. They occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule (107, a one followed by seven zeroes). That’s fairly rare. On the other hand, it’s not that rare. Our bodies contain nearly 100 trillion cells (1014). So the odds are quite good that we have a couple of cells with a mutated form of almost any gene. A test tube can hold millions of bacteria, so, again, the odds are quite good that there will be mutant forms among them. The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: one in 107 x 107, or 1014. That’s a one followed by 14 zeroes, a hundred trillion! Any two mutations might produce no more than a fly with a wavy edge on a bent wing. That’s a long way from producing a truly new structure, and certainly a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organism. You need more mutations for that. So, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? That’s one in a billion trillion (1021). Suddenly, the ocean isn’t big enough to hold enough bacteria to make it likely for you to find a bacterium with three simultaneous or sequential related mutations. What about trying for four related mutations? One in 1028. Suddenly, the earth isn’t big enough to hold enough organisms to make that very likely. And we’re talking about only four mutations. It would take many more than that to change a fish into a philosopher, or even a fish into a frog. Four mutations don’t even make a start toward any real evolution. But already at this point some evolutionists have given up the classic idea of evolution, because it just plainly doesn’t work.
  6. hey look at this URL http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=global+warming+charts&spell=1
  7. Basically i reckon that global warming is just a political tool used by goverments to achieve what they want. ( they'll probaly charge you for the gas cows emmit to help stop global warming) good chart!!!
  8. getting back to the original topic...... In many advanced textbooks about evolution it is often claimed that evolution is a change in the frequency of the genes. But this simply is fallacious. If evolution were true it certainly would produce a change in the ratio of the types of genes which were present, because it would be adding new genetic information which previously did not exist. But the converse of this is not necessarily true. You can change the gene frequency or the ratio of the genes that are already present as much as you like, but unless you add new genes you won’t get evolution. In evolutionary textbooks it is common to see the two forms of the English peppered moth (Biston betularia) being used as a ‘proof’ of evolution at work. There are two forms of this moth. One is jet black, the other (more common) has a sooty or peppered colour scheme. Soot-covered trees during Britain’s industrial past were an excellent camouflage for the black variety, whereas the peppered form stuck out like the proverbial wart on a prune and was easily picked off by the birds. Hence, for a time the black form of the moth was favoured. Its population increased, while the number of peppered individuals waned. The effects of the gene for blackness were favourable to the moth and thus moths whose genes expressed the black colour were seen much more commonly—the effect of the black genes was seen more frequently. This means that the number of genes for blackness began to increase and the number of genes for peppered colour began to reduce. Obviously, the ratio of genes was changing. But there were no new genes. There were black and peppered genes at the start, and black and peppered genes at the end. Another simple experiment will help clarify the point that changing the gene frequency is not the same as producing evolution. Obtain multiple copies of the back page of both an early and a late edition of an evening newspaper. These pages of information represent the genetic information in the two forms of peppered moth. The information printed on both versions of the back page will be very similar. Probably only the stop press and one or two minor items will be altered, but this is enough to make them two different and unique sets of information. If we now make multiple copies of the late edition’s back page but keep only the original single copy of the early edition’s back page, we have increased the frequency of the later edition’s information. Note carefully that we have done nothing whatsoever to alter the total amount of unique information. It would not matter if we made a million copies of both editions of the back page; we would still have only two pages of unique information. The multiple copies are merely that-mere copies, mimics. They do not add any new information. To obtain increased information (rather than just an increase in the frequency of existing information) is far more complicated. It would entail journalists researching a new story, layout people formating it up, so as to yield a unique back page full of new information. You could not get new information without intelligent design. Evolution, if it were to occur, would require the creation of completely new genetic information. Changes in living things, such as the colour distribution of the peppered moths, show an interesting alteration in colour-gene frequency, but they offer nothing at all to support the notion of evolution (that is formation of new genetic information). Conclusion Natural selection certainly can produce changes in gene frequency, but neither natural selection nor any changes in gene frequency will automatically produce evolution. They most certainly have not been observed doing so.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.