| Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too. |
 | | 
9th March 2008, 09:52 PM
|  | The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar
  
| | Join Date: 11th August 2007
Posts: 5,781
Blessings: 4,078,254 My Mood 
Reps: 56,734,881,133,185,528 (power: 56,734,881,133,195) | | | You want evolution to show you Big huge steps like miracles in the bible or something... Evolution deals with tiny tiny steps so small and elegant. Its like watching grass grow. |
9th March 2008, 10:06 PM
|  | Junior Mint
  
| | Join Date: 12th August 2003
Posts: 4,461
Blessings: 4,087,200 My Mood 
Reps: 60,097,608,420,285,400 (power: 60,097,608,420,298) | | Originally Posted by guzman  well everyone's waiting -- prove me wrong.
You're wrong. Every structure has been added through random mutation and natural selection. I'm using creationist methods of showing information here.
__________________
"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others, unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. ..." - Barry Goldwater |
9th March 2008, 10:08 PM
|  | A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude
34 
| | Join Date: 18th July 2005 Location: Deep underground
Posts: 6,568
Blessings: 92,676 My Mood 
Reps: 36,217,039 (power: 36,230) | | Originally Posted by guzman And to all you scientists out there: I am indeed your Daddy!!!!! 
I'm going to ignore you now, Daddy.
__________________ "Ray, if someone asks you if you're a god you say yes!" ~ Winston Zeddemore
I am Jack's total lack of god-belief.
|
9th March 2008, 10:24 PM
| | Legend
| | Join Date: 2nd January 2002
Posts: 17,138
Blessings: 1,100,698
Reps: 55,386,685,686,280,104 (power: 55,386,685,686,308) | | | Some people are locked in, set in their ways, unwilling to budge. They will defend their position at all cost. There are lines they will not cross. And as such, they have given up honest inquiry.
Await that. |
9th March 2008, 11:03 PM
|  | Senior Member
42  
| | Join Date: 5th November 2007 Location: Oregon
Posts: 571
Blessings: 108,792
Reps: 22,377 (power: 27) | | Originally Posted by Grizzly Originally Posted by guzman  no it's not.
yes it is.
He's beHIIIIND YOU!
(apologies to Americans who probably won't understand this) |
9th March 2008, 11:05 PM
| | The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar
| | Join Date: 11th August 2007
Posts: 5,781
Blessings: 4,078,254 My Mood
Reps: 56,734,881,133,185,528 (power: 56,734,881,133,195) | | Originally Posted by BrainHertz He's beHIIIIND YOU!
(apologies to Americans who probably won't understand this)
I'm sure if you would explain it, it would help this thread to be more exciting then it could ever become otherwise.
Last edited by MoonLancer; 10th March 2008 at 12:08 AM.
|
9th March 2008, 11:15 PM
| | Junior Member
58   
| | Join Date: 5th March 2008 Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Posts: 181
Blessings: 58,086,613 My Mood 
Reps: 117,439,253,214 (power: 117,439,257) | | Originally Posted by guzman well why don't you show me the mutations.....(for example, the green algae thing does not involve a mutation at all, from what I remember.)....and also, most of those do not involve structures....for example, "the ability to digest" is not a structure....neither is the "ability of e. coli to hydolizye galactosylarabinose....neither is the "adaptation of yeast"...but show me the papers on the others.
Here, knock yourself out... References:- Aharoni, A., L. Gaidukov, O. Khersonsky, S. McQ. Gould, C. Roodveldt and D. S. Tawfik. 2004. The 'evolvability' of promiscuous protein functions. Nature Genetics [Epub Nov. 28 ahead of print]
- Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS 64: 1102.
- Boraas, M. E., D. B. Seale, and J. E. Boxhorn. 1998. Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity. Evolutionary Ecology 12: 153-164.
- Francis, J. E. and P. E. Hansche. 1972. Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. I. Modification of the acid phosphatase pH optimum in S. cerevisiae. Genetics 70: 59-73.
- Francis, J. E. and P. E. Hansche. 1973. Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. II. A repeatable adaptation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 74: 259-265.
- Hall, B. G. 1981. Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions. Biochemistry 20: 4042-4049.
- Hall, B. G. and T. Zuzel. 1980. Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 77(6): 3529-33.
- Hansche, P. E. 1975. Gene duplication as a mechanism of genetic adaptation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 79: 661-674.
- Hartley, B. S. 1984. Experimental evolution of ribitol dehydrogenase. In: Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution, R. P. Mortlock, ed., New York: Plenum, pp. 23-54.
- Lang, D. et al. 2000. Structural evidence for evolution of the beta/alpha barrel scaffold by gene duplication and fusion. Science 289: 1546-1550. See also: Miles, E. W. and D. R. Davies, 2000. On the ancestry of barrels. Science 289: 1490.
- Lin, E. C. C. and T. T. Wu. 1984. Functional divergence of the L-Fucose system in mutants of Escherichia coli. In: Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution, R. P. Mortlock, ed., New York: Plenum, pp. 135-164.
- Negoro, S., K. Kato, K. Fujiyama and H. Okada. 1994. The nylon oligomer biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas. Biodegradation 5: 185-194.
- Thomas. n.d. (see above).
- Thwaites, W. M. 1985. New proteins without God's help. Creation/Evolution 5(2): 1-3.
 |
9th March 2008, 11:30 PM
| | Legend
26  
| | Join Date: 23rd July 2007 Location: London
Posts: 11,386
Blessings: 5,167,277 My Mood 
Reps: 205,146,621,849,477,600 (power: 0) | | | <<Staff edit of quote>>
Trust me, this is not because we are scared of Guz's awesome space-brain.
Last edited by Molal; 18th March 2008 at 11:01 AM.
|
9th March 2008, 11:31 PM
| | Legend
26
| | Join Date: 23rd July 2007 Location: London
Posts: 11,386
Blessings: 5,167,277 My Mood
Reps: 205,146,621,849,477,600 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by BrainHertz He's beHIIIIND YOU!
(apologies to Americans who probably won't understand this)
OH NO HE ISN'T! |
9th March 2008, 11:33 PM
| | Regular Member
36 
| | Join Date: 2nd February 2008
Posts: 259
Blessings: 91,772
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Grizzly It's right there in the link.
But from what others are saying, you won't believe it anyway.
What I wonder is this. If someone doesn't believe in evolution, how can they explain that we carry the genetic code for a tail?
the so called tail in human babys has a purpose in that stage of its life ,it is an attchment for holding muscles together, to say its a remnant tail is nothing but forced interpretation, weak argument | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
