Posted on 03/20/2009 8:09:11 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Nebraska Man? nah they wouldn’t base an entire culture on a few bones from a dead pig would they???
I have not said any such thing. But by the same token scientific research needs be honest and above board and not driven by an agenda.
Mutation can occur in any cell in an organism's body, but only germinal mutations (those that affect the cells that give rise to sperm or eggs) are passed to the next generation. When mutation occurs in somatic (other than sperm and egg) cells in the body such as muscle, liver, or brain cells, only cells that derive from mitotic division of the affected cell will contain the mutation. Although mutations in somatic cells can cause disease, most do not have a significant impact because if the mutated gene is not involved in the specialized function of the affected cell, these "silent mutations" will not be detected. Furthermore, mutations that appear only in somatic cells disappear when the organism dies; they are not passed on to subsequent generations and do not enter the gene pool that is the source of genetic variation for the species.
Mutation is a normal and fairly frequent occurrence, and the opportunity for a mutation to take place exists every time a cell replicates. In general the cells that divide many times throughout the course of an organism's life are at greater risk for mutation than those that divide less frequently.
While DNA nearly always reproduces itself accurately, even a minor alteration produces a mutation that may alter a protein, prevent its production, or have no effect at all. There are four broad classes, and within them many varieties, of mutations, and each is named for the error or action that causes it. "Point mutations" are substitutions, deletions, or insertions in the sequence of DNA bases in a gene.
The most common point mutation in mammals is called a base substitution and occurs when an A-T pair replaces a G-C pair. Base substitutions are further classified as either transitions or transversions. Transitions occur when one pyrimidine (C or T) is substituted for the other and one purine (A or G) is substituted on the other strand of DNA. Transversions occur when a purine replaces a pyrimidine. Sickle-cell anemia results from a transversion in which T replaces A in the gene for a component of hemoglobin.
Structural chromosomal aberrations occur when the DNA in chromosomes is broken. The broken ends may remain loose or join those occurring at another break to form new combinations of genes. When movement of a chromosome section from one chromosome to another takes place, it is called translocation. Translocation between human chromosomes 8 and 21 has been implicated in the development of a specific type of leukemia (cancer of the white blood cells). It also has been shown to cause infertility (inability to sexually reproduce) by hindering the distribution of chromosomes during meiosis.
Numerical chromosomal aberrations are changes in the number of chromosomes. In a duplication mutation genes are copied, so the new chromosome contains all of its original genes plus the duplicated one. Polyploidy is a numerical chromosomal aberration in which the entire genome has been duplicated and an individual that is normally diploid (having two of each chromosome) becomes tetraploid (containing four of each chromosome). Polyploidy is responsible for the creation of thousands of new species, acting to increase genetic diversity and produce species that are bigger, stronger, and more able to resist disease.
Aneuploidy refers to occasions when just one or a few chromosomes are involved and also describes the loss of a chromosome. Examples of aneuploidy are Down's syndrome (multiple, characteristic physical and cognitive disabilities), in which there is an extra chromosome 21—usually caused by an error in cell division called nondisjunction—and Turner's syndrome, in which there is only one X chromosome. Common characteristics of Turner's syndrome include short stature and lack of ovarian development. Women with Turner's syndrome are also prone to cardiovascular problems, kidney and thyroid problems, skeletal disorders such as scoliosis (curvature of the spine) or dislocated hips, and hearing and ear disturbances.
Transposon-induced mutations involve sections of DNA that copy and insert themselves into new locations on the genome. Transposons, also known as a kind of "jumping genes," usually disrupt and inactivate gene function. In humans selected types of hemophilia have been linked to transposon-induced mutations.
Sorry, but your prediction is not borne out by thousands of experiments on natural selections ability to shape experimental populations.
Heat treated populations develop heat resistance.
Cold treated populations develop cold resistance.
Antibiotic treated populations develop antibiotic resistance.
I am a scientist and understand the scientific method quite well. See how I am using the theory to help me to predict and explain facts?
Not at all. Mutation and adaptation are not what the folks who preach evolution as the sole source of all known existing life on earth postulate as evolution.
NO that is not what I predicted. Read the post. And no, you are no scientist. You did not respond to my question about leaving out actual data. You base your statement that bacteria develop resistance based on previous experiments. You can play word games all you wish, sit in your lab and synthesize all day long, I really don’t care one way or the other. I just note that you are intellectually dishonest ( even in the nature of the questions you pose). Hence , nice chatting at you I am finished
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." --Evolution
If I misrepresented your position I am sorry. I am a devout Christian (Catholic) and thoroughly believe in Theistic Evolution in which science only attempts to explain the processes used by God to introduce life into a dynamic universe. However, this position has been categorized as absolute heresy by the likes of GodGunsGuts in a number of prior posts and threads. The comment was directed at those who believe like he does.
I am a Scientist. My job title is “scientist” and the work I do every day is in experimental science.
Treating an experimental population with heat will cause that population to develop heat resistance.
Treating an experimental population with antibiotics will cause that population to develop antibiotic resistance.
Obviously you know a lot less about the “testability” of the theory of evolution than you pretend.
Nebraska Man would fit that description. Text books were filled with pictures showing a family setting around a fire, with tents in the background.
All this was manufactured from a single tooth, that later was determined to belong to a pig.
OF COURSE IT IS! WE WOULDN'T EXPECT ANYTHING ELSE!
But only if we agree with you. Not a discussion, just an attempt to indoctrinate.
Not at all. You are free to provide a working set of definitions that we can use in the body of the discussion. I took the initiative in the interests of time and courtesy. I just don't want to redefine, ad naseum, instead of exploring the concepts.
This is flat out a lie, especially how they stuck the word "presumed" in his quote, as if they are just guessing (Though why this is a big deal is beyond me as some octopuses have fins today)
There have been octopusses found earlier and they are not like their modern conterparts and yes they do have fins.
See Fossil Octopuses
Examples
So sorry, Once again evolution is showing earlier more primitive forms evolving to more complex ones.
big article htis am in newspaper done by AP that shows a dino with ‘hair-like’ bristles- Guess what they’ve ‘determined’ from this find? Yup- these bristles must have been ‘protofeathers’-
Unreal! Big long article explaining how feathers ‘could have evolved’ from scales- then about 3/4 of the way htrough article the AP puts in an obligatory “SOME scientists however don’t beleive htis” or somehtign to that effect- I’m willing to bet that IF the AP had doen hteir job, instead of simpyl tryign to downplay hte dissent, they would have found that MOST scientists probably doubt the bristles are protofeathers!
Hey ‘scientists’- Extrapolate much?
[[If I misrepresented your position I am sorry. I am a devout Christian (Catholic) and thoroughly believe in Theistic Evolution in which science only attempts to explain the processes used by God to introduce life into a dynamic universe.]]
Actually- NO they don’t! They IGNORE the biological, mathematical, chemical and natural LAWS of nature and try to kick God out of hte process of Creation! That isn’t science- that is pure dogmatic propoganda- Macroeovlution is biologically, naturally, chemically and mathematically impossible- but by golly, that doesn’t stop the devout propogandists from trying to keep the dream of Darwin alive-
But whatever-
So are you a biologist, naturalist, chemist, or mathematician? Do you have the data to disprove the science or are you one of those who simply makes the assertion that is impossible and impossible to prove? Do you assert that Theistic Evolution, as supported by the Catholic Church, has no foundation in either science or theology?
[[Do you have the data to disprove the science or are you one of those who simply makes the assertion that is impossible and impossible to prove?]]
We’ve discussed hte data many many itmes here on FR- Knock yourself out- Of course I’m sure you’ll just simply hand wave it all away as htough it were not significant, just liek other devout congregationalists of Darwin, too ingrained with an a priori beleif system of naturalism to see hte TRUTH do- but Yes- We’ve discussed MANY impossibilities for macroevolution here on FR-
[[Do you assert that Theistic Evolution, as supported by the Catholic Church, has no foundation in either science or theology?]]
I assert that macroevolution is impossible- not just improbable- but truly impossible- biologically, mathematically, chemically, and it violates natural laws as well- Tewll me- at what point in time did species kinds stop evolving? Because we certainly have NO biological evidence of Macroevolution, and infact we know that species have VERY specific parameters as far as microevolutionary change goes- which prevent the species from evolving beyond it’s own kind- so again- when did all this great macroevolution- this great science law violating macroevolution styop? Why is it that we can NOT push species kidns beyond hteir own kind anym,ore? Why did it just all of a sudden stop IF it ever happened before? Soem mysterious process just occure across ALL species that now prevents them from macroeovling? Why does the fossil record show discontinuity? We should expect to see continuity- NOT giant gaps between species kinds- We also should NOT expect to see scientists continually trying to present
IF you have proof of actual macroevolution- feel free to present it- ALL I’ve seen are disingenious examples of MICROEvolution ever presented as though it extrapolated to macroevolution which it most certainly does NOT- ALL I’ve seen are MOOT examples of adaption that hte presenters tried to disingeniously present as examples of ‘small changes which could’ apparently ‘lead to macroevolution’ MICRO and MACRO evolution are two entirely different biological prcoesses, and quite frankly, I’m tired of pointing htis out tiem and itme again- In macroevolution you NEED to introduce NON SPECIES SPECIFIC info into a species for that species to have hte info absolutely necessary to even begind to ‘evolve’ systems or organs or features NOT specific to that species- You MUST introduce info foreign to that species- MICROEvolution can NOT produce this foeriegn info ALL it can do is alter species specific info that is already present (AND alter the metainformaiton that is already present at the same to to deal with the changed lower info so as not to make the species unfit for survival- simply mucking with lower info via mutaiton quite frankly can NOT create new features not specific to that species- and changing lower info that the higher metainfo isn’t capable of dealing with results in serious problems- NOT macroevolution
on and on it goes- Again- Tired of discussing htis- it’s been discussed amny many times here on FR- plenty of data for you to sft htrough, but I doubt you’ll take hte time-
For starters- start with ‘life’s irreducible complexities’ which shows VERY precisely why dirty chemicals can NOT produce IC in higher life, nor does chemical evolution have hte ability to evolve into biological IC with hte higher metainformaiton NECESSARY and inpalce BEFORE any lower info even has the possibility of coordinating itself for hte fitness of a species. Type that title into google and you’ll see hte link on FR where we discuss that in detail
Be careful what you wish for, NL. You might just be forced to concede that materialistic evolution is sham science.
So this means you have no formal scientific training and don’t have or can’t discuss data. By the way, there is a spell check available.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.