Original Research--join In

[Split Rock]

Why would natural selection have to happen "within the cell"? That makes no sense.

Let's use hemophilia as our example here. Hemophilia is a deleterious and dominant genetic disease. It only takes a single copy of the disease allele in order to suffer from the disease. It turns out that children are born with the disease, even though neither of their parents has the disease. They have even confirmed through DNA tests that they are the real parents. This means that the mutation that caused hemophilia in these children is a brand new mutation. Nothing stops this mutation from occuring. Nothing would stop this mutation from being passed on to that child's offspring. These mutations have been happening since humans have been on this planet.

Hemophilia actually follows X-linked recessive inheritance. Because it is X-linked, it is more prominent in males which have the hemizygous condition, since they only have one X chromosome. Thus, a male only needs one copy, whereas a woman requires two copies. Women who receive the allele, thus become carries of the disease, but rarely get the disease (they would need to get one copy from each parent).

So why isn't hemophilia that common? What is stopping the hemophilia allele from being as widespread as the non-disease allele? Why aren't 3/4 of all humans suffering from hemophilia? How do you explain this?

This part is correct. Males with hemophilia have historically died young, and therefore do not pass on the gene. In fact, the gene made famous in Queen Victoria's family, and passed on to three different royal lines in Europe (including famously the Tsar's family) was from a new mutation either in Queen Victoria, or one of her parents. There is no evidence of its existence before her issue.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hemophilia actually follows X-linked recessive inheritance. Because it is X-linked, it is more prominent in males which have the hemizygous condition, since they only have one X chromosome. Thus, a male only needs one copy, whereas a woman requires two copies. Women who receive the allele, thus become carries of the disease, but rarely get the disease (they would need to get one copy from each parent).

Why do I always forget that hemophilia is a sex linked trait? Thanks for the reminder.

Needless to say, there are plenty of autosomal disease alleles that we could use as examples, such as the aforementioned achondroplasia or Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease 1. The following paper used de novo mutations in disease alleles to estimate the human mutation rate before more modern techniques were used to measure the mutation rate.

"I estimate per nucleotide rates of spontaneous mutations of different kinds in humans directly from the data on per locus mutation rates and on sequences of de novo nonsense nucleotide substitutions, deletions, insertions, and complex events at eight loci causing autosomal dominant diseases and 12 loci causing X-linked diseases."
Direct estimates of human per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 loci ... - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Loudmouth]

Loudmouth: "...ribozymes have been engineered to act as true enzymes..."

Think about that. It's the same kind of preposterous claims associated with the "self-replicating RNA" myth. Men can do amazing things with their intelligence. They can tinker with existing complex biological systems and come up with slightly different complex systems. How does this validate the supposed accomplishments of undirected mutation and natural selection? How does it say anything credible about abiogenesis?

Ribozymes have also been found after allowing nucleotides to form random RNA sequences. Did you miss that part?

Scientists have allowed organisms to produce their own mutations and compete between themselves for resources. What results is evolution. Why is that observation discounted because it happens in a lab?

 

[Loudmouth]

Loudmouth: "Creationist: Evolution isn't a science because scientists can't recreate evolution in the lab."

I hope you realize that "recreate evolution" is an oxymoron.

It isn't an oxymoron. Recreating natural processes happens in many scientific labs. I seriously don't understand why you are having such a difficult problem with this.

We constructed an extremely complex machine called the Large Hadron Collider to better understand what happens at certain energies out in the universe. Does the fact that the results are produced by a complicated machine mean that we have to throw out the results?

We have very complex machines that recreate the conditions found in the core of the Sun in order to study how fusion works in stars. Do we have to throw out these results as well because the conditions were created by a complex machine?

No one in their right mind denies that some type of evolution is certainly scientifically credible. The debate is over the Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian extrapolations of those things.

What we have are interpolations since we already have the end points of evolution. Those endpoints are the living species we see today. The points in between are their common ancestors. The record of evolution of those species from those common ancestors is directly recorded in the genomes of those living species. We are filling in the gaps between known observations which is not extrapolation. It is interpolation.

The theory of universal common ancestry (or even near-universal) not only fails to be supported with valid observed cellular biochemical mechanisms but is also contradicted by numerous "nested hierarchies", as well as being shown completely incongruous with the gene-length research I have referred to and which continues to get lost in discussions of astronomy, theology, etc. Will someone else please engage with the questions I've posed regarding expected gene lengths under any naturalistic generation mechanisms?

Then show me a species that does not use the standard codon table.

 

[justlookinla]

We're not responsible for our actions, our genes are. That'll be a great murder defense.

Oh...and I'm not writing this, it's only a function of my genes.

 

[JacksBratt]

"Second, I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the Scriptures in a way contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. Now if your Reverence will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will discover that all agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the Sun is in the heavens and revolves round the Earth with immense speed and that the Earth is very distant from the heavens, at the centre of the universe, and motionless. Consider, then in your prudence, whether the Church can support that the Scriptures should be interpreted in a manner contrary to that of the holy Fathers and of all modern commentators, both Latin and Greek…."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

So, we agree that the earth follows a path. Granted, it moves along this path, however, has anything moved it from this path? Ever?

So, if someone was knowledgeable of the path that the earth is on and realised that it moves along this path. IF they said it is not moved, or it has a path that it cannot be moved from, they wour be truthful.

You can try all you like but you will not convince me that the bible says the earth is the center of the earth and you will not convince me that the earth can be moved.


An orbit IS A MOVED PATH. The Earth is trying to move in a straight line. The Sun MOVES THE EARTH FROM A STRAIGHT LINE PATH. The Sun pulls on the Earth and moves it.

Also, the oribt of the Earth changes with every path around the Sun. It is one of the features of the Milankovitch cycles. The eccentricity of the Earth's orbit changes over time between nearly circular to more elliptical.

Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you have everything wrong.



The Sun is moving the Earth as we speak. The plates under our feet are moving as we speak. Jupiter also moves the Earth as it travels through the Solar System. The Moon moves the Earth about a barycenter. The Moon causes the Earth to bulge, and makes that bulge move across the Earth. The Earth is even moved by the supermassive blackhole at the center of the galaxy. The Earth is moved all about.

So, we agree that the earth follows a path. Granted, it moves along this path, however, has anything moved it from this path? Ever?

So, if someone was knowledgeable of the path that the earth is on and realised that it moves along this path. IF they said it is not moved, or it has a path that it cannot be moved from, they would be truthful.

You can try all you like but you will not convince me that the bible says the earth is the center of the earth and you will not convince me that the earth can be moved.

You take a piece of scripture and try to put in a context that it wasnt' inteded for and try to read from it things that were not stated or intended.

 

[Loudmouth]

So, we agree that the earth follows a path.

In order to follow a path, an object would need to be moving.

Granted, it moves along this path, however, has anything moved it from this path? Ever?

The Sun is moving the Earth from its path every second of the day, as is the Moon and other planets.

You take a piece of scripture and try to put in a context that it wasnt' inteded for and try to read from it things that were not stated or intended.

Heed your own advice, and go read Genesis.

 

[selfinflikted]

The Sun is moving the Earth from its path every second of the day

Indeed. Isn't the earth, ever so slightly, spiraling toward the sun?

 

[Loudmouth]

Indeed. Isn't the earth, ever so slightly, spiraling toward the sun?

That's the least of the problems for Jack et alia. Both the precession and changes in eccentricity of Earth's orbit are much larger in magnitude. In fact, the Earth also moves the Sun, just not as dramatically as the Sun moves the Earth. The tidal forces put on the Earth by the Sun, Moon, and more weakly by the gas giant planets, are all examples of the Earth being physically moved.

If someone tied a string to a tennis ball and started swinging that tennis ball around in circles above their head, would you consider that ball to be immovable? I don't think any sane person would consider that tennis ball to be immovable, and yet that is the story that Jack is trying to sell. Amazing.

 

[justlookinla]

That's the least of the problems for Jack et alia. Both the precession and changes in eccentricity of Earth's orbit are much larger in magnitude. In fact, the Earth also moves the Sun, just not as dramatically as the Sun moves the Earth. The tidal forces put on the Earth by the Sun, Moon, and more weakly by the gas giant planets, are all examples of the Earth being physically moved.

My genes are causing me to admit that's a pretty amazing thing. I don't take responsibility for my words or actions or views though, my genes are at fault.

 

[JacksBratt]

That's the least of the problems for Jack et alia. Both the precession and changes in eccentricity of Earth's orbit are much larger in magnitude. In fact, the Earth also moves the Sun, just not as dramatically as the Sun moves the Earth. The tidal forces put on the Earth by the Sun, Moon, and more weakly by the gas giant planets, are all examples of the Earth being physically moved.

If someone tied a string to a tennis ball and started swinging that tennis ball around in circles above their head, would you consider that ball to be immovable? I don't think any sane person would consider that tennis ball to be immovable, and yet that is the story that Jack is trying to sell. Amazing.

Mount Everest is spinning with the earth. Is Mount Everest "movable"?

If a scientist came up with an idea to move the moon closer or farther or onto a different orbit for some strange reason, the other scientist would, or could simply say "you can't move the moon".

Same story hear.

I could say "you can't eat cooked rhubarb leaves" and you would argue, "yes you can but you would die". So, yes, you can eat them in one context yet in another it is perfectly acceptable to say "you can't eat them".



Now. If you told an alien from far far away that the earth is "here" orbiting our sun and they went home and came back in a hundred years the earth will not have moved. They would still find it in the same place, on the same path, orbiting our sun.


There is no force in this universe can move the earth. It is where it is, doing what it does and it will not be moved.

 

[crjmurray]

"There is no force in this universe can move the earth. It is where it is, doing what it does and it will not be moved."

But the earth is moving....

 

[EternalDragon]

"There is no force in this universe can move the earth. It is where it is, doing what it does and it will not be moved."

But the earth is moving....

In a fixed orbit, yes. No is saying it isn't moving.

 

[lasthero]

In a fixed orbit, yes. No is saying it isn't moving.

The Earth's orbit varies from day to day. Sometimes it's closer, sometimes it's farther out.

Also, we could move the planet. It would be extremely difficult, but not physically impossible.

 

[JacksBratt]

"There is no force in this universe can move the earth. It is where it is, doing what it does and it will not be moved."

But the earth is moving....

 

[JacksBratt]

The Earth's orbit varies from day to day. Sometimes it's closer, sometimes it's farther out.

Also, we could move the planet. It would be extremely difficult, but not physically impossible.

Just how would you, in your opinion, in the extremely difficult way you speak of , move the earth??


Lets move the earth closer to the sun, so it's warmer all year.

Lets move it away from the sun so that this "global warming/climate change" cough cough can be controled, as the earth warms up we will move it further out.

Better still. Lets take it for a ride through space. Just make it into a giant space craft and fly around...

Oh wait.. there is no way we can move it.

God has the earth right where He wants it. It is following it's orders. It will not be moved from that path. The path it has always followed, which, according to many here, it has done for billions of years.

 

[crjmurray]

So you're facepalming me because you think the earth doesn't move? Great

 

[JacksBratt]

So you're facepalming me because you think the earth doesn't move? Great

No. Please read my other posts.

 

[lasthero]

Just how would you, in your opinion, in the extremely difficult way you speak of , move the earth??


Lets move the earth closer to the sun, so it's warmer all year.

Lets move it away from the sun so that this "global warming/climate change" cough cough can be controled, as the earth warms up we will move it further out.

Better still. Lets take it for a ride through space. Just make it into a giant space craft and fly around...

Oh wait.. there is no way we can move it.

God has the earth right where He wants it. It is following it's orders. It will not be moved from that path. The path it has always followed, which, according to many here, it has done for billions of years.

The Earth is an object. Like any object, if it's hit with sufficient force, it WILL move. That's basic Newtonian physics.

How Can We Move the Earth?

 

[crjmurray]

No. Please read my other posts.

Oh I have. The earth moves but it's immovable.