Jump to content

sammy7 on 'Evolution'


sammy7
 Share

Recommended Posts

Natural selection, genetic drift, speciation, change in allele frequency over time , these mechanisms/processes generate NO new genetic information, on the contrary selection and speciation thin genetic variation. They have NOTHING to do with the alleged origin of all life on earth being a single organism BILLIONS of years ago other than university teachers INTENTIONALLY omitting that they are NOT sufficient for alleged process. There is no source of bulk amounts of NEW genetic information. Neofunctionalization for the most part is delusional (look at someone with trisomy). CF, PKU, sickle cell anemia- ONE base substitutions. Teachers INTENTIONALLY omit that sickle cell trait- a 'beneficial' mutation- is a LOSS of function mutation. The beta globin protein gets WRECKED a little. IT IS THE GREATEST MYTH IN DOCUMENTED HISTORY (6,000 years). I wouldnt want to be a biology/genetics university teacher facing God when they die, my goodness, they will have HELL to pay.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Spetner

 

We see then that the mutation reduces the specificity of the ribosome protein and that means a loss of genetic information. ... Rather than saying the bacterium gained resistance to the antibiotic, it is more correct to say that is lost sensitivity to it. ... All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.

—Lee Spetner, Not by Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution

 

Highly recommend his book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an organism exists it learns and as it learns messenger RNA is produced in response to it's enviorment. It is the genetic transfer of MRNA that can improve a species from generation to generation, change a species to an eventual new species.

Botton line; we do not fully have all the facts but it does look like we all came from dust, just like God said Adam did. So any organism can enhance it's survival chances by transferring learned responses generationally, even to the point of becoming unrecognizable over time. You are critizing with inadequate knowledge.

Edited by Nobrainer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Natural selection, genetic drift, speciation, change in allele frequency over time , these mechanisms/processes generate NO new genetic information,"

nobody said they did.

"They have NOTHING to do with the alleged origin of all life on earth being a single organism BILLIONS of years ago "

nobody said they did.

"There is no source of bulk amounts of NEW genetic information. "

nobody said there was.

"The beta globin protein gets WRECKED a little."

"wrecked"in the very real sense that it helps the person survive.

" IT IS THE GREATEST MYTH IN DOCUMENTED HISTORY (6,000 years)."

Nope, that's the one about the moon shining before the sun was created. It's called Genesis.

 

"Highly recommend his book. "

No, I don't think I will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Natural selection, genetic drift, speciation, change in allele frequency over time , these mechanisms/processes generate NO new genetic information,"

nobody said they did.

"They have NOTHING to do with the alleged origin of all life on earth being a single organism BILLIONS of years ago "

nobody said they did.

"There is no source of bulk amounts of NEW genetic information. "

nobody said there was.

"The beta globin protein gets WRECKED a little."

"wrecked"in the very real sense that it helps the person survive.

" IT IS THE GREATEST MYTH IN DOCUMENTED HISTORY (6,000 years)."

Nope, that's the one about the moon shining before the sun was created. It's called Genesis.

 

"Highly recommend his book. "

No, I don't think I will.

 

Thanks for your reply on A.T.P.

 

Heterozygotes for sickle cell- there is a REDUCTION in functionality and then yes, depending on the environment is said to be 'beneficial' yields a selective advantage (Africa, Malaria). One cant gain something by losing/destroying something a little bit a little but at a time, so it has nothing to do with the putative origin of a genome from non living matter, through natural processes. Teachers omit this. Re that book, i will add an addendum, i recommend it for those interested in science and NOT clinging to religious dogma (atheism).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply on A.T.P.

 

Heterozygotes for sickle cell- there is a REDUCTION in functionality and then yes, depending on the environment is said to be 'beneficial' yields a selective advantage (Africa, Malaria). One cant gain something by losing/destroying something a little bit a little but at a time, so it has nothing to do with the putative origin of a genome from non living matter, through natural processes. Teachers omit this. Re that book, i will add an addendum, i recommend it for those interested in science and NOT clinging to religious dogma (atheism).

Nobody mentioned ATP.

Keeping people alive is not, in my opinion, evidence of "wrecking" biology.

Where did you hear about the bit that you say teachers omit?

Was it, by any chance from a teacher or a text book or something?

Did you actually do the primary research yourself, of did you learn it from someone?

People from whom you learn things are teachers.

If teachers don't tell people about this stuff, how do you know about it?

 

Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair colour or dead is a lifestyle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody mentioned ATP.

Keeping people alive is not, in my opinion, evidence of "wrecking" biology.

Where did you hear about the bit that you say teachers omit?

Was it, by any chance from a teacher or a text book or something?

Did you actually do the primary research yourself, of did you learn it from someone?

People from whom you learn things are teachers.

 

Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair colour or dead is a lifestyle.

 

I mean biology teachers at universities. They (and all other evolutionary biology evangelists) use the word 'evolution' to describe gene flow, genetic drift, speciation, descent with modification (all of which generate no new genetic information) but they all so use it in the context of prokaryote-->every living thing on the planet. They bait and switch and dont tell the students. The students then may be indoctrinated that those above mechansims are sufficient for the alleged prokaryote-->every living thing on the planet process. Sickle cell trait and other similar mutations that are LOSS of functionality have nothing to do with the prokaryote-->every living thing on the planet process other than teachers INTENTIONALLY omitting that those mutations do NOT ADD genetic information.

 

If teachers don't tell people about this stuff, how do you know about it?

 

Along with a number of other books like Lee Spetners above John Sanford wrote a book 'Genetic Entropy and the mystery of the genome'. I found 2-3 literatures today by evolutionary population geneticists showing mankind is accumulating 100-300 NEW mutations a generation. Sanford modelled it. Mankind is DECAYING. Selection can do NOTHING.

 

PROOF of INTENTIONAL indoctrination.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology

 

Apparent teleology is a recurring issue in evolutionary biology,much to the consternation of some writers. Statements which imply that nature has goals, for example where a species is said to do something "in order to" achieve survival, appear teleological, and therefore invalid. Usually, it is possible to rewrite such sentences to avoid the apparent teleology. Some biology courses have incorporated exercises requiring students to rephrase such sentences so that they do not read teleologically. Nevertheless, biologists still frequently write in a way which can be read as implying teleology even if that is not the intention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever.

The fact is you started this thread with a post full of strawmen.

The best you can actually come up with is sloppy use of language.

From the wiki page you cited

"A teleology is any philosophical account that holds that final causes exist in nature,"

So, that includes most religions- the final cause is labelled "God"

 

 

The stuff you say isn't taught: how much of it can I find a wiki page about?

Seriously, it's not as if this is suppressed at all.

 

"Selection can do NOTHING."

And, once again, nobody said otherwise. You need change as well to get evolution.

Why do you keep saying things like that as if they are important?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever.

The fact is you started this thread with a post full of strawmen.

The best you can actually come up with is sloppy use of language.

From the wiki page you cited

"A teleology is any philosophical account that holds that final causes exist in nature,"

So, that includes most religions- the final cause is labelled "God"

 

 

The stuff you say isn't taught: how much of it can I find a wiki page about?

Seriously, it's not as if this is suppressed at all.

 

"Selection can do NOTHING."

And, once again, nobody said otherwise. You need change as well to get evolution.

Why do you keep saying things like that as if they are important?

 

I am constantly disappointed at the complete lack of scientific intelligence and ability to think critically/utter gullibility/retardedness of atheists. Strawman? Your an IDIOT. I mean selection can do nothing to curb decay, hence why it follows that sentence. Buy one of those books if you want to unbrainwash. Sanfords model is on YouTube if anyone cares. This forum is retarded. Am awaiting any INTELLIGENT responses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's entirely possible that I'm an idiot; I have no doubt others will come to their own conclusions about that.

However you are the one making the weird implications.

You keep saying "So and so isn't true!" when nobody ever suggested it was.

That particular logical fallacy is called a straw man.

Logical fallacies and personal insults like "your an IDIOT" are both a breach of the forum rules.

I don't much mind being called an idiot but I'd prefer that you didn't waste the forum's bandwidth with the illogical nonsense.

 

Incidentally, the sentence preceding ""Selection can do NOTHING." was "Mankind is DECAYING."

Do you have any actual evidence of that?

It would be expected from someone with "scientific intelligence and ability to think critically".

I rather doubt you will be able to supply it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of them is just an analysis of neodarwinian theory by a surgeon that i liked. Again John Sanford in his book has looked at all of these and more and put them into a model with very conservative estimates and the outcome is the same both times. He has a 6 min talk on youtube on it titled ' Numerical simulation predicts human extinction!'.

 

mutation rate Haldane.pdf

Kandarhov mUtations.pdf

Kandrashov mutations.pdf

25_1_Kuhn.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Natural selection, genetic drift, speciation, change in allele frequency over time , these mechanisms/processes generate NO new genetic information, on the contrary selection and speciation thin genetic variation. They have NOTHING to do with the alleged origin of all life on earth being a single organism BILLIONS of years ago other than university teachers INTENTIONALLY omitting that they are NOT sufficient for alleged process. There is no source of bulk amounts of NEW genetic information. Neofunctionalization for the most part is delusional (look at someone with trisomy). CF, PKU, sickle cell anemia- ONE base substitutions. Teachers INTENTIONALLY omit that sickle cell trait- a 'beneficial' mutation- is a LOSS of function mutation. The beta globin protein gets WRECKED a little. IT IS THE GREATEST MYTH IN DOCUMENTED HISTORY (6,000 years). I wouldnt want to be a biology/genetics university teacher facing God when they die, my goodness, they will have HELL to pay.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Spetner

 

We see then that the mutation reduces the specificity of the ribosome protein and that means a loss of genetic information. ... Rather than saying the bacterium gained resistance to the antibiotic, it is more correct to say that is lost sensitivity to it. ... All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.

—Lee Spetner, Not by Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution

 

Highly recommend his book.

 

 

DNA is not information, it is biochemical potential, we label it information to allow us to make sense of it. But the idea of DNA being information is human..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bit you're missing is that mutations that are a disadvantage tend to be eliminated by nature because they tend not to be passed on because those those that have them are at a disadvantage and are less likely to survive long enough to reproduce. Those lucky enough to have an advantageous mutation are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce and pass that mutation on to the next generation. This explains how life can improve itself over time when most mutations are a disadvantage. Humans are devolving because we help those that other animals would let die.

 

I don't have to worry about what I'm going to say to your god because it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that it's all make believe. It's just made up to control people. If I'm wrong then I'm sure your god will be much more impressed with someone who did the right things purely for their own sake than he would be with someone who did it because of the fear of hell (blackmail) and the reward of heaven (bribery). What makes you think your god is the correct one anyway when theres so bloody many?

 

Anyone who thinks that the Earth is six thousand years old should never be taken seriously. The bible says that a bat is a bird, to kill those who don't share your hilarious and very ridiculous beliefs and that it's okay to sell daughters as sex slaves. Do you believe in those bits as well?

Edited by A-wal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

name='A-wal' timestamp='1349543973' post='706156']

The bit you're missing is that mutations that are a disadvantage tend to be eliminated by nature because they tend not to be passed on because those those that have them are at a disadvantage and are less likely to survive long enough to reproduce. Those lucky enough to have an advantageous mutation are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce and pass that mutation on to the next generation. This explains how life can improve itself over time when most mutations are a disadvantage. Humans are devolving because we help those that other animals would let die.

 

If every deleterious mutation was 'selected' out....mankind would be extinct! Selection can only act on the phenotype as a whole. Either or, 0 or 1. It stays or it goes. It CANT go round sleuthing out individual nucleotides.

 

John Cuthber yes exactly, all those guys are evolutionary population geneticists, even though they have shown mutations are building up, they still believe mankind shares a common ancestor with chimpanzees and that mutations (mistakes) built billions of functionally sequenced nucleotides. I(obv) do not subscribe to the same faith as them. Sanford has another lecture on youtube which is 1 hour 40 min long or so where he goes into more detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Natural selection, genetic drift, speciation, change in allele frequency over time , these mechanisms/processes generate NO new genetic information, on the contrary selection and speciation thin genetic variation. They have NOTHING to do with the alleged origin of all life on earth being a single organism BILLIONS of years ago other than university teachers INTENTIONALLY omitting that they are NOT sufficient for alleged process. There is no source of bulk amounts of NEW genetic information. Neofunctionalization for the most part is delusional (look at someone with trisomy). CF, PKU, sickle cell anemia- ONE base substitutions. Teachers INTENTIONALLY omit that sickle cell trait- a 'beneficial' mutation- is a LOSS of function mutation. The beta globin protein gets WRECKED a little. IT IS THE GREATEST MYTH IN DOCUMENTED HISTORY (6,000 years). I wouldnt want to be a biology/genetics university teacher facing God when they die, my goodness, they will have HELL to pay.

 

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Lee_Spetner

 

We see then that the mutation reduces the specificity of the ribosome protein and that means a loss of genetic information. ... Rather than saying the bacterium gained resistance to the antibiotic, it is more correct to say that is lost sensitivity to it. ... All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.

—Lee Spetner, Not by Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution

 

Highly recommend his book.

 

I don't think you quite understand evolution. Evolution itself does not generate genetic mutation, so you are correct in that respect, but it is driven by genetic mutation. Genetic mutation is completely random, there's some chemical than a fetus absorbs and slightly alters its DNA, or part of its DNA get's changed by a gamma ray. If that genetic mutation makes the animal happen to survive the environment, then that animal will have a great chance to pass on that mutated gene that allowed it to survive the environment until the environment is no longer favorable for that gene, which then only other mutations survive that are adapted for the new environment, and the process of genes surviving because they are adapted to the environment and thus changing a species is evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teachers INTENTIONALLY omit that sickle cell trait- a 'beneficial' mutation- is a LOSS of function mutation. The beta globin protein gets WRECKED a little. IT IS THE GREATEST MYTH IN DOCUMENTED HISTORY (6,000 years).

 

Are you sure about that? We were shown that the sickle cell dilemma was a showcase of evolution in action.

There is no 'loss' of function. There is change in function. The sickle cell will crystallize when oxygen levels are low. Function is something humans attribute to something.

 

I'm guessing all you're trying to say is evolution does not explain the origin of life?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_evolution

 

The molecules did have billions of years before they succeeded in making you, you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG READ WHAT I WROTE WORD FOR WORD AND USE SOME COMMON SENSE. Sickle cell trait- NO NEW GENETIC INFORMATION IS ADDED. A protein gets DESTROYED A LITTLE. There is a REDUCTION in genetic information. As witnessed by someone homozygous for it. Sickle cell trait IS a showcase of 'evolution' in action IF 'evolution' means mutation, change in allele frequency and the mechanism by which that may happen (natural selection).

 

Bait and switch. I put an advertisement in the newspaper showing a brand new Mercedes Benz 2012 model and say $1,000. Someone gets to my house to buy the car and i present them with a matchbox Mercedes Benz. I have 'baited' with one thing and then 'switched' to another. It is an ILLEGAL advertising scam.

 

Again teachers KNOWINGLY (and you fell for it) use the bait and switch. Bait with change in allele frequency, genetic drift, descent with modification, gene flow definitions of the word 'evolution' (sickle cell trait, Darwins finches, speciation, antibiotic resistance caused by mutation-all of which generate no new genetic information)and then later switch the context of the word 'evolution' to meaning all life on earth shares a common ancestor with a prokaryote 3.5 bya.

 

Harold Ureys and Stanley Millers racemic, not a single dipeptide monumental failure of amino acids experiment. Another good example of intentional indoctrination. And you fell for it. Again.

Edited by sammy7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG READ WHAT I WROTE WORD FOR WORD AND USE SOME COMMON SENSE. Sickle cell trait- NO NEW GENETIC INFORMATION IS ADDED. A protein gets DESTROYED A LITTLE. There is a REDUCTION in genetic information. As witnessed by someone homozygous for it. Sickle cell trait IS a showcase of 'evolution' in action IF 'evolution' means mutation, change in allele frequency and the mechanism by which that may happen (natural selection).

 

Bait and switch. I put an advertisement in the newspaper showing a brand new Mercedes Benz 2012 model and say $1,000. Someone gets to my house to buy the car and i present them with a matchbox Mercedes Benz. I have 'baited' with one thing and then 'switched' to another. It is an ILLEGAL advertising scam.

 

Again teachers KNOWINGLY (and you fell for it) use the bait and switch. Bait with change in allele frequency, genetic drift, descent with modification, gene flow definitions of the word 'evolution' (sickle cell trait, Darwins finches, speciation, antibiotic resistance caused by mutation-all of which generate no new genetic information as examples )and then later switch the context of the word 'evolution' to meaning all life on earth shares a common ancestor with a prokaryote 3.5 bya.

 

Harold Ureys and Stanley Millers racemic, not a single dipeptide monumental failure of amino acids experiment. Another good example of intentional indoctrination. And you fell for it. Again.

 

No new genetic info is added. Naturally, yeah, why is there any? The genetic info is changed.

The protein isn't 'destroyed' a little. An amino acid is changed, causing different bonds to form.

Um, then their experiment was wrong? How wrong? Why wrong?

Edited by Mellinia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Racemic. What configuration are proteins in living things? Not a single dipeptide. What is the average polypeptide length in mankind?

 

 

Of course there isn't a single dipeptide. You're not that simple.

Proteins evolve. See the molecular biology. The racemic is a start.

Slowly, the proteins get more complicated and do more stuff so that they can maintain themselves and do their stuff more stably.

They get so large so that you can do something like running.

When you run, your body needs to adjust your water levels, your oxygen levels and etc. They do this by altering the proteins. Hemoglobin absorbs oxygen released from myoglobin, which is an altered hemoglobin that has a much stronger affinity for oxygen. Again, myoglobin is created by altering the amino acid queue. The genetic code is changed.

The llama has a hemoglobin more akin to myoglobin because they live in mountain areas that have low oxygen. Their genetic code for hemoglobin is different by a few nucleotides.

Edited by Mellinia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The traditional question is still the best:

 

Sammy7, define "genetic information". Your entire argument relies on it, and on there being no way to increase it; you must therefore have a way to define whether it has increased or not, and therefore should have a way to quantify it. How do you quantify "genetic information"?

=Uncool-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its standard terminology in genetics.

 

The foundation of information science is source--->channel--->receiver. Source (DNA)--->channel (mRNA/codons)--->receiver (polypeptide/ribosome). So genetic drift, speciation, gene flow, change in allele frequency all generate NO new genetic information (no NEW nucleotides coming into being coding for NEW proteins-no new genetic information). Teachers omit this. The official myth says prokaryote--->every living thing on the planet. There is no source of BULK amounts of NEW genetic information. Such a claim is purely religious in nature and has NO foundation in science. Mutations=MISTAKES. Again John Sanford has a number of good talks on youtube about it. Natural selection REDUCES genetic information/variation in that the selected out phenotype is gone forever from the earth and the genetic information and variation of its genotype is gone, FOREVER.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • 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.