"I will never accept evolution"

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes mostly, i do not think a mutation has the means to create something new like a kidney.

 

It can't. Genes make proteins, not organs. To make organs and body parts, I think what is involved has more to do with development (ie, switching genes on and off at the appropriate time). Most mutations to coding DNA will result in a new protein, usually one very similar to the original.

 

How did the bacteria grow with a very important gene non-functional? Do you have a link also?

 

A specially enriched culture can be used to grow, say, bacteria with an inability to synthesize a specific amino acid, by adding that amino acid to the growth medium. The reversal of the mutation can be easily tested by seeing if any will grow without the amino acid.

 

The Reverse Mutation Test is a common way to test for carcinogens (chemicals that cause mutation, mostly important to us because they can cause cancer). The quicker the mutations are reversed, the more carcinogenic the chemical (and the mutations are reversed by additional mutation, not by repair mechanisms in case you were wondering). This is easier than testing for mutations directly because you can tell exactly where and what the mutation was just by looking, rather than with expensive equipment.

 

A specific Reverse Mutation Assay is the AMES assay.

http://www.bioreliance.com/AMES_assay.html

 

This is, incidentally, undeniable proof that some mutations are extremely good.

[MustKnow]

It can't.

 

But then, we never claimed that, did we? Evolution does not claim that either.

 

 

~moo

 

Doesn't evolution claim a fish grow a set of legs and up and walked out of the ocean?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication

 

That should answer a few questions.

 

Don't gene duplications lead to extra limbs ect?

[Daecon]

Ever heard of the Lungfish?

[mooeypoo]

Doesn't evolution claim a fish grow a set of legs and up and walked out of the ocean?

No.

[Mokele]

Yes mostly, i do not think a mutation has the means to create something new like a kidney.

 

1% of the population has a supernumerary kidney (third kidney). And technically all humans have 6 kidneys, 3 on each side, but two of the three wither away and never become functional.

 

The first of these kidneys, the pronephros, is the functional kidney of the fish. The second is the kidney of amphibians and reptiles. Both wither away, leaving only the opisthonephros as our functional kidney.

 

So, unless we evolved from earlier life forms, can you explain why we transiently have fish and frog kidneys?

 

Doesn't evolution claim a fish grow a set of legs and up and walked out of the ocean?

 

Fish already have "legs" - legs are just modified fins. We actually know the developmental basis for the switch, too.

 

Don't gene duplications lead to extra limbs ect?

 

Nope. Look at frogs of genus Xenopus. They're undergone multiple whole-genome duplications. You and I have 2 copies of each gene. Species of Xenopus can have 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, or even 12 copies of each gene.

 

Whole-genome duplication appears to be relatively common in ectothermic vertebrates.

[MustKnow]

Fins are not legs, fins dont even have toes, ankles, and knees.

 

for some reason your 6 kidney line doesn't seem believe able to me. You should had just stuck with the tail bone line.

 

 

regardless, I WILL NEVER ACCEPT EVOLUTION. As i stated before life is too complicated. Everything evolution claims to have done has been nothing more then a simple altercation to existing DNA it has not created anything new.

I believe DNA has been corrupted through out the life and it will continue to be corrupted until it is finally to the point of our demise. You can't deny the fact of DNA corruption you can call it something else if you would like, but at the end of the day its corrupted. I see it as the equivalent of taking a nail out of a house once a year eventually the house will come down.

If we all share the same ancestor then it should be fairly reasonable to turn a dog into a whale through genetic alteration, but you cant because its just not there. If we all had the same DNA then why do people still get sick? Your immunity is inherited down from your parents, so wouldn't you also inherit the immunity of a dog.

 

evolution sounds nice at first with its little system of balance set in place but at the end of the day its just a big game of luck. considering we all can agree most of the mutations lead to death or nothing.

 

Im done here, i dont really have the time anymore to swing by to bs with you guys. I appericate some of your guys comments, it has been a learnign experince for me. Some of you guys were great others not so great.

Edited May 7, 2009 by MustKnow

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, I won't ever accept that the Devil created life in 13 days and rested on the 14th. In fact, I don't think you can convince anyone of that.

[Sisyphus]

It's a shame that you're done here, since all of those objections in your last post actually have pretty easy and straightforward answers. It's a bigger shame you began the conversation by declaring that you would never change your mind - the very definition of closemindedness. Why even have a discussion? It's like saying, "Teach me about arithmetic. Keep in mind, though, that I'll never accept that 3+4=7." What is anyone supposed to say to that?

[GutZ]

Let it go he doesnt want to put the intellectual effort into it. He want's to believe evolution is wrong....nothing you guys say will change it...no matter how convincing you could present it to him...even if you could simulate evolution before his eyes he would deny it.

 

he continually mis-represent the facts on purpose.

[iNow]

Fins are not legs, fins dont even have toes, ankles, and knees.

I wouldn't be so sure about that...

 

 

 

 

 

 

regardless, I WILL NEVER ACCEPT EVOLUTION. As i stated before life is too complicated.

You know, your whole argument basically boils down to, "I'm too ignorant to understand how reality actually behaves, so I'm going to instead pretend that reality behaves some other way."

 

Have fun with that.

[Mokele]

Fins are not legs, fins dont even have toes, ankles, and knees.

 

In lobe-fin fish they still do. Ray-fins (most fish) have secondarily lost much of the fin structure.

 

Seriously, go look at the anatomy of the fin of a coelocanth or an Australian lungfish. You'll see a humerus, a radius & ulna, carpals, etc, with nerves and blood vessels in the appropriate places.

 

or some reason your 6 kidney line doesn't seem believe able to me. You should had just stuck with the tail bone line.

 

Sorry, you don't get to disbelieve it. Open any text on human embryology, go to the chapter on urogenital development, and you'll see it, clear as day.

 

Or, get some embryos yourself, human or mouse, dissect them, and see for yourself. You have a microscope, go do it.

 

regardless, I WILL NEVER ACCEPT EVOLUTION.

 

Then there is no point in continuing this thread. Either you are here to learn, or you aren't. Your unwillingness to face evidence is counter to the very basis of science.

 

If you want to ask questions, you can PM me, but you should not pollute any more evolution threads with your willful refusal to listen to evidence.

[swansont]

Then there is no point in continuing this thread. Either you are here to learn, or you aren't. Your unwillingness to face evidence is counter to the very basis of science.

 

If you want to ask questions, you can PM me, but you should not pollute any more evolution threads with your willful refusal to listen to evidence.

 

To clarify, you can PM any mod if you request to reopen the thread for the purpose of discussing evidence. However, it must be for that purpose

[lucaspa]

Alright lets start over. So evolution is caused by mutations, which is then governed by Natural selection correct?

 

No. Instead natural selection is a two-step process:

1. Variation between individuals.

2. Selection.

 

Mutations are one type of variation.

 

Evolution is "descent with modification" and applies to populations. According to Mendelian genetics, the proportion of individuals in a population with a trait or a particular allele will remain constant from generation to generation. It's called the Hardy-Weinberg Principle and most genes of most organisms are at what is called the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (unchanging) most of the time. Populations can change over generations due to the following reasons:

1. Genetic drift (chance).

2. Gene flow from one population of a species to another.

3. Sexual selection.

4. Natural selection.

 

Any and all of these will result in "descent with modification". That is, any and all of these will change a population over the course of generations. However, only natural selection is responsible for the designs in organisms: wings for flying, eyes for seeing, blood clotting cascades, immune systems, etc.

 

No software that exist on the face of the planet has ever evolved and wrote new code or added to itself new code.

 

Sorry, but that is incorrect. I urge you to read the references I gave you that document otherwise. If you are going to be a programmer, you need to be aware of this and the potential in order to be competent in the field.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Tell me if this is right. I pulled this from an evolution link think it was pbs.com/evolution. A set of frogs live on some islands, they are all the same, but different colors from one island to another. The reasoning of the different colors in the frogs had to do with certain genes becoming actived then that particular color giving the competitive edge on the various Islands, which was causing the Frogs one island one to all be red island 2 blue and 3 yellow. This is evolution, being the gene change and natural selection, correct?

 

That example was never used in the PBS series on evolution, because it never happened.

 

Instead of "genes being actived [sic]" implying that the gene had been there but dormant, instead say that genes have different alleles -- forms of the genes. The gene for color was changed (by mutation) and the new form -- allele -- of the gene had a competitive advantage over the old allele. Over the course of generations, the new allele replaced the old allele. So now the frogs were different from their ancestors..