Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Recommended Posts

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 10:23 PM, katherine the great said:

Good heavens. What is your biological background?  Are you saying that there are no beneficial mutations? There are harmful, neutral and beneficial mutations happening all the time in all species. Example: the ability to digest milk after the age of 3 or 4 was caused by a mutation on a regulatory gene on the long arm of chromosome 2. If you have this variant then you can continue to digest milk into adulthood. If you don't, then you are lactose intolerant. In groups of people who were pastoralists, this was a huge survival advantage and they passed this mutation down to their descendants. In groups of people who did not have access to milk products, it would be a neutral mutation and may or may not have been passed down. While point mutations on protein coding genes alone could never explain the variety of life we see today, mutations on regulatory genes combined with epigenetic changes can.

"the ability to digest milk after the age of 3 or 4 was caused by a mutation on a regulatory gene on the long arm of chromosome 2" - That's EXACTLY what I was about to say. Good job, Katherine. ;)

Link to comment
9 hours ago, PeterPear said:

Why? Because you believe in the theory of Evolution? 

Are you all you too stupid not to know that Charles Darwin's man-made theory has been used as an excuse to murder wholesale entire groups of people? Jews, Gypsies, the infirm and weak, because - after all - it's the survival of the fittest that will survive!

The strong rule! The Master race! - this what Evolution teaches:

No need for Charity! No need for Mercy from a benevolent Creator! You infirm creatures with your genetic defects need to be eliminated!

Are you all so lacking in your daily reading and pondering of the Book of Mormon you can't see this same evil was taught by Korihor?

17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.

18 And thus he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms—telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof.

 

I don't think that it's far fetched to say that Adolf Hitler perverted truth in many ways.

Link to comment
On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 11:23 PM, katherine the great said:

Good heavens. What is your biological background?  Are you saying that there are no beneficial mutations? There are harmful, neutral and beneficial mutations happening all the time in all species. Example: the ability to digest milk after the age of 3 or 4 was caused by a mutation on a regulatory gene on the long arm of chromosome 2. If you have this variant then you can continue to digest milk into adulthood. If you don't, then you are lactose intolerant. In groups of people who were pastoralists, this was a huge survival advantage and they passed this mutation down to their descendants. In groups of people who did not have access to milk products, it would be a neutral mutation and may or may not have been passed down. While point mutations on protein coding genes alone could never explain the variety of life we see today, mutations on regulatory genes combined with epigenetic changes can.

Glad that we agree that point mutations on protein coding genes alone could never explain the variety of life we see today, so why is this taught in the textbooks as evidence for evolution? Again I was taught point mutations, insertions and deletions were the mechanisms that led to differing species but have always thought this was total nonsense for several reasons.

I will admit that I am unfamiliar with the mutations on regulatory genes combined with epigenetic changes, are you saying that these mutations have the ability create new genes or new genetic code that can be passed on to the next generation? And if so how can an "error" do so?

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Glad that we agree that point mutations on protein coding genes alone could never explain the variety of life we see today, so why is this taught in the textbooks as evidence for evolution?

Because it is evidence for evolution. And yes, over time, these small changes can create new genes--insertion mutations can cause new proteins to be synthesized. They can be harmful, neutral or beneficial. And if they occur in a gamete (sex cell), they can be passed on to the next generation. Alone, however, they can't account for the type of macroevolutionary changes we see when we look back on the fossil record. The number of changes we see to actually produce another species couldn't happen nearly as fast as they do if this were the only way evolution happens. I'm going to link to a short, fun video that gives a quick overview of how regulatory genes can cause traits to appear or disappear very quickly (in geologic time). Regulatory genes   Epigenetics is a completely different thing that can help explain why closely related species can be so similar at the DNA level, but look and behave so differently at the phenotypic level.

Link to comment
On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 5:30 PM, bluebell said:

That's what i was trying to figure out.  I asked the question if there were any Evangelical biologists who denied evolution.  I don't know of any LDS biologists or other Christian biologists that do.  Doesn't that imply 'everyone'?

Because I understand that the bible is not a history book.  And I understand that the bible has been proven to be wrong about a few things.  And I understand that the bible is loaded with symbolism and metaphor.  And I understand that one of Christ's favorite ways to teach us was through parables (fiction).  And, i know that there are two creation accounts in genesis and they contradict each other (in Gen. 1, animals are created first, in Gen. 2, Adam is.  In Gen. 1, adam and eve are created at the same time, in Gen. 2, Adam sleeps, and loses a rib, when Eve is created.) 

All of those reasons are why it's difficult for me to believe that creation story is completely literal.

Whenever you come across a supposed "contradiction", it is a good time to really dive into the text to see what the text itself states. Sure a very superficial glance you would appear to be correct......not really though.  Genesis chapter 1 is an overview. Chapter 2 is a review of chapter 1 with more detail, more explanation on the plants, lack of rain and then how Adam and Eve were created with more detail towards the end of chapter 2.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

Because it is evidence for evolution. And yes, over time, these small changes can create new genes--insertion mutations can cause new proteins to be synthesized. They can be harmful, neutral or beneficial. And if they occur in a gamete (sex cell), they can be passed on to the next generation. Alone, however, they can't account for the type of macroevolutionary changes we see when we look back on the fossil record. The number of changes we see to actually produce another species couldn't happen nearly as fast as they do if this were the only way evolution happens. I'm going to link to a short, fun video that gives a quick overview of how regulatory genes can cause traits to appear or disappear very quickly (in geologic time). Regulatory genes   Epigenetics is a completely different thing that can help explain why closely related species can be so similar at the DNA level, but look and behave so differently at the phenotypic level.

Watched the video thank you. A few questions,  it appears that evolutionary biology moving away from the traditional natural selection and genetic mutation mechanism that drives macroevolution, is this true? And are these mechanisms being disregarded as incapable of creating new phenotypes?

Also "junk DNA" appears to be incorrect, is all genetic information considered useful now?

 

Link to comment
On 10/7/2017 at 6:28 PM, katherine the great said:

Whether we are stupid or not is beside the point here (as well as an extremely rude thing to say). Galton's pseudoscience was not based on natural selection, although he may have claimed that it was. It was based on artificial selection aka: selective breeding, something Darwin also discussed in his publications. Selective breeding far predated the theory of natural selection, and was one of the inspirations for the theory. Galton believed that stupidity is always a measurable and heritable trait and that it always begets stupidity--lots of irony in your post. Galton's theory was scientifically unsupportable but that didn't stop the Nazi's from glomming onto it and using it as an excuse to try to create the master race. Like Calm pointed out, scripture has also been used as an unrighteous excuse to commit all kinds of atrocities: racial superiority, murder, abuse of women, slavery, etc.

One of the things I find hilarious about the master race garbage is that it is almost always held by ugly mentally subnormal humans. Look at pictures of the Third Reich leadership and except for Goring they are almost all ugly. You look at the Charlottesville marches and wonder how these fugly idiots can look in the mirror and see a genetically superior master race.

Disclaimer: There is nothing morally deficient or blameworthy in being stupid and/or ugly. I just find the hypocrisy of imagined genetic superiority against all evidence amusing.

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

One of the things I find hilarious about the master race garbage is that it is almost always held by ugly mentally subnormal humans. Look at pictures of the Third Reich leadership and except for Goring they are almost all ugly. You look at the Charlottesville marches and wonder how these fugly idiots can look in the mirror and see a genetically superior master race.

Disclaimer: There is nothing morally deficient or blameworthy in being stupid and/or ugly. I just find the hypocrisy of imagined genetic superiority against all evidence amusing.

It is the deliberate stupidity that is morally deficient. ;)

Link to comment
49 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Watched the video thank you. A few questions,  it appears that evolutionary biology moving away from the traditional natural selection and genetic mutation mechanism that drives macroevolution, is this true? And are these mechanisms being disregarded as incapable of creating new phenotypes?

Also "junk DNA" appears to be incorrect, is all genetic information considered useful now?

 

If you are expecting science to never change you have a very poor understanding of what science is, or how it works.

Junk DNA is just something that we don't know the value, right now. In evolutionary terms it is DNA that does not adversely affect the survival of the individual plant or animal, that we know of. 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Junk DNA is just something that we don't know the value, right now. In evolutionary terms it is DNA that does not adversely affect the survival of the individual plant or animal, that we know of. 

Technically "junk DNA" is simply parts that don't code proteins. At one time they thought it was therefore useless and not selected for. I don't think many think that anymore. Even when the term arose it was criticized for conflating biological activity with biochemical activity. However now we know that non-coding segments may switch on and may interact with epigenetic markers as well.  It's also worth noting that non-coding RNA does various things. So simply not making protein shouldn't be taken as having no important function. Often you have RNA in the cell that is undergoing various chemical interactions. Obviously ribosomes are an important place for the function of non-protein coding RNA.

Here just giving some context and not necessarily commenting on your comments.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, snowflake said:

 And are these mechanisms being disregarded as incapable of creating new phenotypes?

Also "junk DNA" appears to be incorrect, is all genetic information considered useful now?

 

I think you are looking too narrowly. The forces that drive evolution are being understood more fully now. There is no doubt that our understanding will be greater in ten years than it is at this moment. The first force to be understood was natural selection. Then we learned about genes and how inheritance works. Later we learned about DNA, etc. Junk DNA was called Junk DNA because nobody understood what it was and why it didn't seem to do anything useful. We are just in the very beginning phases of learning the potential functions and potentials of these stretches of genetic material. All of these things are adding to our understanding of  how evolution works. It is incredibly complex and we are always learning more. Science is a process, not a result.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

I think you are looking too narrowly. The forces that drive evolution are being understood more fully now. There is no doubt that our understanding will be greater in ten years than it is at this moment. The first force to be understood was natural selection. Then we learned about genes and how inheritance works. Later we learned about DNA, etc. Junk DNA was called Junk DNA because nobody understood what it was and why it didn't seem to do anything useful. We are just in the very beginning phases of learning the potential functions and potentials of these stretches of genetic material. All of these things are adding to our understanding of  how evolution works. It is incredibly complex and we are always learning more. Science is a process, not a result.

I have no problem of learning how cells work, how genes are expressed, how DNA is transcribed and translated, tRNA being copied and transferred to the ribososmes, all the micro machines required to drive the processes of the cell. I think it is absolutely amazing and that is science, learning how things work. How does a "genetic code" become a phenotype, absolutely amazing!

In high school I was taught that natural selection was the primary driver of evolution. Then in college I learned that  natural selection was incapable of creating any new genetic information and that the primary "mechanism" was genetic mutation....and you seem to agree with me that small errors in the genetic code "point mutations" is not the primary driver of evolution and are incapable of creating new genetic material. Does this "Epigenetics" have a way to create new sections of DNA code? I am not trying to look narrowly but you seem to be dodging my question about what are the mechanisms that drive evolution?

When I look at the cell I see design and an intelligent mind behind that design. When looking through the evolutionist's lens it seems to me that they look at the cell and say "wow look at all that random chance, amazing how evolution (magic) can blindly create such an unorganized mess......no mind behind these organisms...just a bunch of organized chemicals interacting....must have been random genetic mutation that created this".....

Link to comment
2 hours ago, snowflake said:

When I look at the cell I see design and an intelligent mind behind that design. 

So do I. I also see a creation that was set into motion in such a way that every living thing in the natural world is connected in a literal and physical way. Humans are part of the natural world and our bodies are subject to the same forces that formed every other living creature.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, snowflake said:

Whenever you come across a supposed "contradiction", it is a good time to really dive into the text to see what the text itself states. Sure a very superficial glance you would appear to be correct......not really though.  Genesis chapter 1 is an overview. Chapter 2 is a review of chapter 1 with more detail, more explanation on the plants, lack of rain and then how Adam and Eve were created with more detail towards the end of chapter 2.

That is one possible way to handle the contradiction. 

Link to comment
On 10/6/2017 at 1:06 PM, RevTestament said:

If God created man without relation to other animals, why would some men and women get more than two nipples down the "milk line" of their abdomens? Are you saying God creates some men and women to be more like a pig than others or are we related to other mammals for a reason? There are other examples such as vestigial tails. Some human babies are born with vestigial tails. Now why would God give them tails if man was created without respect to other mammals? Did God forget that He created man separately? I believe extra unused muscles, vestigial tails, and supernumerary nipples are some of the best evidence for evolution of man, because they are very hard to deny. We have ear muscles we no longer use, because for the most part our ears are fixed, but the presence of the muscles shows we used to turn our ears to focus in on sounds.

Sorry, but the story of the ark doesn't account for the massive diversity we see either. I'd like to see anyone cram even two of every land animal and bird onto some boat - much less completely failing to explain how the massive diversity of plant life survived some global flood of 40 days duration. 

How can you have a morning and an evening before the sun is created unless Genesis is not talking about present earth days? Oh yeah, it's not. It says these are the generations of the heavens and the earth when it was created.

Have you ever thought God is just creating a basis for the Sabbath day covenant? The Bible actually can be read to support genetics and evolution since it says God created the animals so that each produce after its own kind. We now know that is due to the laws of genetics. If the "beginning" is read as the beginning of the universe, your seven days turn into billions of years unless God created all the light we see from other galaxies midstream so that it would show up on the earth in only 6000 years instead of the billions of years it would otherwise take so you have God breaking natural law to make your model feasible. Otherwise those stars have been around for billions of years and we do see light here on earth that is billions of years old, and the earth is surely billions of our years old too. If you insist on days always being our present earth days, how do you interpret the coming of the Messiah in 490 days per Daniel 9? Days does not always mean present earth days.

The exact brain center that songbirds use to communicate over great distances in their songs has become our speech center.

Same brain section exactly.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The exact brain center that songbirds use to communicate over great distances in their songs has become our speech center.

Same brain section exactly.

Didn't you know that is why jailbirds who sing are said to have bird brains?

P.S. In all seriousness, do you mean like this:

or this:

????

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...