Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: BrandtMichaels
Wow.....more YEC "science" "research" you have an original thought or is it all long-winded c/p? Rhetorical question...

Wow....a Roman history lesson.

Ooooooo....a BAD analogy concerning surgery and anaethesia.

So why not make similar applications in the forensic science of origins? Darwin published his Origin of Species just before the Civil War. Numerous advances in science since that time bring into question the validity of Darwin's theory, yet biology textbooks today maintain the Darwin mantra, "Darwin said it, I believe it, and that settles it."

Ignorance of genetic research is bliss. Appeal to the simple-minded....

In 1986 I read my first creationist article, written by a biologist. By the time I finished, I knew I could no longer justify my evolutionary thinking.

I LOVE it every time I read about some YEC nut that "read ONE article" and all of a sudden became a believer that Man walked the Earth with dinosaurs 4400 years ago.

She simply pointed out, armed with modern scientific facts, that practically everything I had learned in medical school--especially in genetics--directly conflicted with Darwin's theory.

Wow...."nearly everything learned in medical school" conflicted with the Theory of evolution? I surmise that you didn't talk much about anything having anything to do with evolution in medical school, but you, sir, will NEVER be my PHCP.

....especially genetics???? In exactly what century did you take genetics, Dr.?

Darwin believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics--that is, if an animal acquired a physical characteristic during its lifetime, it could pass that characteristic on to its progeny.

This is quite a STUPID thing to say and shows ignorance in the ToE. One does not acquire a charachteristic over one's acquires it at conception from one's parents. Man, this Dr. is stupid, but this is just a strawman to kick around in the next few sentences as THAT is not the ToE, Dr,.

Of course, it is an established fact that living things can only pass on the genetic information they inherit from their parents.

Of COURSE, it's that way.....but you had to claim the notion of Evolution being "acquiring a characteristic over your life" so you could kick it around.

Will a man who loses a leg in an accident have one-legged children?

No, but you have to follow your stupid line of strawman thinking. HOWEVER, a genetic mutation that leads directly to a one-legged offspring will get passed on to HIS offspring, though this could get taken care of in the synaptonemal complex.

No, his children will have two legs, because although the man's body (or phenotype) changed, his genotype (or DNA) remains the same.

ANOTHER stupid thing to say. His "phenotype" didn't change one freakin' bit. His physical appearance changed. Phenotype is the physical expression of the GENOTYPE, you stupid summabitch. Kind Dr. here didn't pay attention in genetics class.

But natural selection only explains survival of the fittest; it fails to explain arrival of the fittest

D'uh...stupid comment #853. "Natural selection" is not SUPPOSED to explain "arrival of the fittest" any more than the ToE is SUPPOSED to explain the origin of life.

Natural selection, i.e., the forces of nature, does not change the DNA of the individual animal at all, and can only change the total gene pool of a species by eliminating unfit individuals (leading to the loss, not gain, of genetic information).

Stupid comment #948. Natural selection does not ELIMINATE unfit individuals, it merely makes one individual more likely to pass on its genes to viable, reproducing offspring. Increasing likelihood of A does not eliminate B.

Typical usage of scriptural term "kind"....we in thescience world use the term "species", "kind" has a chameleon definition to suit the needs.

Biology textbooks in theory present positive and negative mutations to students as though these were commonplace and roughly equal in number.

How simple-minded of you, Dr.....what about mutations that do not change the amino acid sequences of proteins? MY biology books taught that NEUTRAL mutations that might or might not have a +- affect in the present, might in the future with further mutations or not. REALLY didn't pay much attention in genetics class.

However, these books fail to inform students that unequivocally positive mutations are unknown to genetics, since they have never been observed (or are so rare as to be irrelevant).

The specific mutations on chromosome 2 that lead to adult lactose tolerance is a positive mutation noted in real-time....but nice qualifier "unequivocally" is.

The biology textbooks in other chapters teach that most mutations are pathologic, or disease-causing, but they don't apply that information to evolution.

MY books taught me that MOST mutations are neutral and do not alter the amino acid sequence expressed.

However, the biology textbooks, when discussing mutation in evolution, only discuss the very rare "positive" mutation, like sickle cell anemia. The fact of some 4,000 devastating genetic diseases is suppressed from publication.

Uhhhh.....NO FREAKIN' SHI'ITE. When discussing EVOLUTION and mutation, it's useless to go talking about 4,000 deleterious mutations. When discussing GENETICS and mutation, THERE is where one would talk about deleterious mutations more. Maybe, Dr, you should've paid attention in genetics class or MAYBE you should have taken a population genetics/biology class. No, it's not "supporessed"'s NOT RELEVANT TO THE THEORY.

Ooooo....a lesson on polycystic kidney disease....pretty cool stuff. Kind Dr, you don't know squat about "fitness"....PKD si diagnosed at ages 30-40....most likely AFTER the individual already passes it on to such, it will persist in a population with a minimal affect on fitness....a maximal affect on the longevity of life.

OK...there's genetic diseases.....established.

Since a random change of three nucleotides in a three-billion-part genome is fatal (0.0000001%), how is it remotely possibly that a chimp could be the evolutionary cousin of a human?

Genetically ignorant thing to sy, Dr. Just because a mutation in 3 nucleotides is bad, doesn't mean all mutations are bad.

The lowest estimate of the genetic differences between our DNA and that of chimps is at least 50 million nucleotides

Wow....only 1.7% different? That's the best I've seen.

The ratio of "beneficial mutations" to harmful mutations is 0.00041!

Irrelevant statistic directed at ignorant people to make them think the ratio means something.....set up for the false conclusion.

Thus, even if a very rare mutation is "beneficial," the next 10,000 mutations in any evolutionary sequence would each be fatal or crippling, and each of the next 10,000 imaginary mutations would bring the evolution process to a halt.

Presupposes that one that receives a beneficial mutation will then receive a negative mutation.

This creates bacterial resistance to that antibiotic. Does this support evolutionary genetic theory? No, since the mutant bacteria do not survive as well in the wild as the native (non-mutant) bacteria. That is, the resistant (mutant) bacteria will only do well in an artificial situation, where it is placed in a culture medium with the antibiotic.

BOLD baseless statement, Dr., actually it's a false one. Guess you didn't pay attention in micro-class either. Take a fat look at MDRSA, which does quite well in humans. How about the mutation in SA that gave it protein A as a surface protein....which binds up human antibodies in a useless position? Such ignorance...

In the wild, the native bacteria are always more vigorous than the mutant bacteria.


However, the majority of mutations are "neutral mutations" that do not cause any detectable change in the phenotype or body of the animal.


Harmful mutations destroy the individual organism, preventing the gene from being passed on.

BS ALERT!!!! Harmful mutations only prevent the gene from being passed on IF they kill the individual BEFORE they generate offspring.....many harmful mutations do not kill until post-reproduction years.

The "neutral mutations" will ultimately destroy entire species, because the mutated genes will be passed on and accumulate.

BS ALERT.....what if, Dr....ther eis no further mutation at that site for 1,000,000 generations and then only in ONE individual in the population? Genetics ignorance is bliss.

Evolutionary science teaches that all the wonderful organs and enzymes in humans and animals--eyes, hemoglobin, lungs, hearts, and kidneys, all coded with DNA--arose totally by random chance through mutations in DNA.

Yes, to simple-minded folk. There is also a degree of direction from less beneficial to more beneficial accumulations. Once beneficial proteins are created, they are retained and increased in prevelance in the population such that beneficial mutations can accumulate to a higher degree in those that already HAVE beneficial mutations. Such that populations accumulate beneficial mutations.

Research is demonstrating that the "near-neutral" mutations are accumulating far too rapidly for organisms to have avoided extinction if they indeed have existed over the millions of years claimed by evolutionary biologists.

Is THAT so....just another ignorant statement, but the Dr has a tale to tell.

Harmful mutations destroy the individual organism, preventing the gene from being passed on. The "neutral mutations" will ultimately destroy entire species, because the mutated genes will be passed on and accumulate.

BS alert....simple-minded nonsense. Harmful mutations don't necessarily destroy the individual before reproducing. Neutral mutations do NOTHING. Passed on, they DO NOTHING. Accumulated, they do NOTHING. Further mutations at the same site that alter protein expression may do something.....may not....may cause a fatal genetic flaw and be removed from the pool.

On rare occasions, however, a mutant allele |gene| may actually fit its bearer to the environment better and enhance the reproductive success of the individual."


equivocally beneficial mutations (which still have a downside) are extremely rare (about one in 10,000),

Only 1/10,000?? What happened to the 1/1,000,000 that YOU touted? So, at a minimum, 1 in every 10 offspring has a beneficial mutation (mutation rate of 100-200 per offspring) SWEEEEEET.....

....and for the false conclusion, complete with baseless statements:

Carl Sagan, in his Cosmos program "One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue," stated that evolution was caused by "the slow accumulations of favorable mutations." While this may be the current popular theory, real science disagrees. The perpetuation of the Darwin myth clashes with reality--the God-created reality--where living things and their genomes were created "very good" and have degenerated from there. Genetic science demonstrates that the absolutely essential ingredient for the origin of life is an infinite Intelligence. Of all the origin stories, only one contains this essential ingredient--Genesis 1.

You, sir, will NEVER be my PHCP or my urologist, if I ever need one.

125 posted on 11/13/2009 6:53:05 AM PST by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with 100+ species of large meat eating dinos within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

To: ElectricStrawberry; metmom

Please don’t hold back, tell me how you really feel! :o)

From my quoted source “unequivocally positive mutations are unknown to genetics, since they have never been observed...”
Lactose intolerance is that all you got? I regret to say I read your entire post... err ranting... and came away with very little connstructive information from you.

Your pomposity did shine through once again though. :’)

127 posted on 11/13/2009 7:50:05 AM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson