Darwinian Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

I don't copy & paste except links and videos. And I noticed I was the only one posting links.
Yet you've peaked my curiosity.
I want you to copy and post an excerpt from one of my post, in context, and tell me what you didn't understand.
I wonder what it would be.

Maybe later. I am on a tablet that is too unwieldy for that task at this time. But if you ask the proper questions I may be able to post a link for you. I am not an expert in this area, which is why I refer to others.

 

[jacks]

I chose Banana, it is the most evolved of all fruit. Before it was easy to hold and peel, it was unable to effectively spread its seeds.

 

[Job 33:6]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Agree to disagree about what in particular?

 

[Bro. Otto]

Maybe later. I am on a tablet that is too unwieldy for that task at this time. But if you ask the proper questions I may be able to post a link for you. I am not an expert in this area, which is why I refer to others.

Yet you seek an evolutionist to bolster your faith in evolution. I sought truth. It's odd but true: If Darwinian Evolution was proven true. I wouldn't debate it. That's the truth.
Take care.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet you seek an evolutionist to bolster your faith in evolution. I sought truth. It's odd but true: If Darwinian Evolution was proven true. I wouldn't debate it. That's the truth.
Take care.

No, I ask a scientist. Let's try to debate properly.

 

[sfs]

If he the expert he claimed to be he would understand and would have read between the lines and understood where I was coming from.

There are objective criteria by which to judge expertise. "Agrees with Bro. Otto" isn't one of them.

 

[pitabread]

Yet you seek an evolutionist to bolster your faith in evolution. I sought truth. It's odd but true: If Darwinian Evolution was proven true. I wouldn't debate it. That's the truth.

Why are you debating it?

 

[Bro. Otto]

Why are you debating it?

Well, D.E. was a reasonable hypothesis in the 1850s. However when genetic code was discovered in should have been shelved. And the reason I debate against it is well, its wrong. Honestly, it isn't needed for anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, D.E. was a reasonable hypothesis in the 1850s. However when genetic code was discovered in should have been shelved. And the reason I debate against it is well, its wrong. Honestly, it isn't needed for anything.

Darwin was only slightly wrong since genetics was unknown when he wrote his book. Mendel's work was rediscovered later. But genetics and especially DNA has made evolution a slam dunk. It takes some serious misinterpretation of the work to think otherwise.

 

[Bro. Otto]

Darwin was only slightly wrong since genetics was unknown when he wrote his book. Mendel's work was rediscovered later. But genetics and especially DNA has made evolution a slam dunk. It takes some serious misinterpretation of the work to think otherwise.

Darwin didn't have a clue about genetics. You're making stuff up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Darwin didn't have a clue about genetics. You're making stuff up.

Wow! That post went right over your head. I said that genetics was unknown in Darwin's time.

 

[Bro. Otto]

Darwin didn't have a clue about genetics. You're making stuff up.

Darwin was only slightly wrong since genetics was unknown when he wrote his book. Mendel's work was rediscovered later. But genetics and especially DNA has made evolution a slam dunk. It takes some serious misinterpretation of the work to think otherwise.

He wasn't only slightly wrong he was completely wrong.

 

[Bro. Otto]

Wow! That post went right over your head. I said that genetics was unknown in Darwin's time.

How could he NOT know about genetic but only be slightly wrong when the whole of the genetic code is based on rules and not an aggregate of protoplasm?
He was completely wrong.

 

[Bro. Otto]

Wow! That post went right over your head. I said that genetics was unknown in Darwin's time.

Anyway, while I've got your attention.....perhaps you could review my previous post and enlighten me as to what was so difficult to understand?

The replication safeguard mechanisms of the genome:

1. The 3' to 5' Proof-Reading Exonuclease

2. The excision repair system.

A) Base-pair Excision Repair

B) Short-patch Excision Repair

Chemistry Nobel DNA Research Lays Foundation For New Ways To Fight Cancer
An over view of what the correction mechanisms do and why.

DNA replication and repair – Knowledge for medical students and physicians
Excellent overall article reporting briefly on many aspects of DNA structure and the assorted repair mechanisms.

SparkNotes: DNA Replication and Repair: DNA Proof-Reading and Repair
Good description of how and what these repair mechanism do.

These are the replication safeguard mechanisms; the limiting mechanism by which the genome strives to maintain structural integrity. That's what these mechanisms do, they maintain a genome's structural integrity during replication.

Everything else which does not trigger adaptive speciation, regulatory or hereditary change is a replication error.

This has been scientifically observed and documented.
Now, let me walk you through this, this all means that if it ISN'T changes expressed in the form of speciation, If it ISN'T regulatory changes (gene triggering, epigenetics etc), or hereditary change it is a REPLICATION ERROR.
This means, if it isn't list above its a mistake.
Did you understand that? IF not you may ask SLS, he's a geneticist.

This leaves 100 to 300 (SLS will say 75, and he's a geneticist) nucleotide substitution errors per generation (in humans) placed along a 6 billion long nucleotide chain. This leaves at best a few non-harmful replication errors for Darwinian (Neo) evolution to work with.
Did you understand that?



The premise of Naturalistic Evolution, Darwin or otherwise, is obsolete in that the mechanisms of speciation are observed as an expression of resident mechanisms; Information for adaptive traits do not evolve, they are being expressed: if "C" environment is sustained over a duration of time, then "Y" “X” and “Z” gene expression will manifest.
Research into Darwinian Evolution’s mechanisms for delimiting the limiter, has been ignored.
Of course the error correction mechanism has been known since the seventies and genetic code since the fifties.
If natural scientists were as interested in knowledge and truth as they portray themselves to be Naturalistic Evolution would have ceased with Nirenberg's cracking of the coding of proteins in '65.
The genetic code is the pinnacle achievement of complexity. Nothing comes close to it.
Could you please tell me what aspect, principle or approach I used was so difficult to comprehend?



I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made:

 

[Subduction Zone]

He wasn't only slightly wrong he was completely wrong.

Really? How so? Most creationists that make this claim have no clue themselves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How could he NOT know about genetic but only be slightly wrong when the whole of the genetic code is based on rules and not an aggregate of protoplasm?
He was completely wrong.

Oh my! So you were only reacting emotionally and had no clue as to why you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anyway, while I've got your attention.....perhaps you could review my previous post and enlighten me as to what was so difficult to understand?

The replication safeguard mechanisms of the genome:

1. The 3' to 5' Proof-Reading Exonuclease

2. The excision repair system.

A) Base-pair Excision Repair

B) Short-patch Excision Repair

Chemistry Nobel DNA Research Lays Foundation For New Ways To Fight Cancer
An over view of what the correction mechanisms do and why.

DNA replication and repair – Knowledge for medical students and physicians
Excellent overall article reporting briefly on many aspects of DNA structure and the assorted repair mechanisms.

SparkNotes: DNA Replication and Repair: DNA Proof-Reading and Repair
Good description of how and what these repair mechanism do.

These are the replication safeguard mechanisms; the limiting mechanism by which the genome strives to maintain structural integrity. That's what these mechanisms do, they maintain a genome's structural integrity during replication.

Everything else which does not trigger adaptive speciation, regulatory or hereditary change is a replication error.

This has been scientifically observed and documented.
Now, let me walk you through this, this all means that if it ISN'T changes expressed in the form of speciation, If it ISN'T regulatory changes (gene triggering, epigenetics etc), or hereditary change it is a REPLICATION ERROR.
This means, if it isn't list above its a mistake.
Did you understand that? IF not you may ask SLS, he's a geneticist.

This leaves 100 to 300 (SLS will say 75, and he's a geneticist) nucleotide substitution errors per generation (in humans) placed along a 6 billion long nucleotide chain. This leaves at best a few non-harmful replication errors for Darwinian (Neo) evolution to work with.
Did you understand that?



The premise of Naturalistic Evolution, Darwin or otherwise, is obsolete in that the mechanisms of speciation are observed as an expression of resident mechanisms; Information for adaptive traits do not evolve, they are being expressed: if "C" environment is sustained over a duration of time, then "Y" “X” and “Z” gene expression will manifest.
Research into Darwinian Evolution’s mechanisms for delimiting the limiter, has been ignored.
Of course the error correction mechanism has been known since the seventies and genetic code since the fifties.
If natural scientists were as interested in knowledge and truth as they portray themselves to be Naturalistic Evolution would have ceased with Nirenberg's cracking of the coding of proteins in '65.
The genetic code is the pinnacle achievement of complexity. Nothing comes close to it.
Could you please tell me what aspect, principle or approach I used was so difficult to comprehend?



I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made:

That was already dealt with by sfs. If you don't know how to ask a proper question no one will bother to answer you. I dealt with that too. Most of your sources deal with somatic cells.

Edit: What the heck. A little pity information. You seem to think that for some strange reason that there can be no mutations in term cells. But we know that is not the case. It can be measured that even with various safeguards that there are on the order of 100 mutations per person per generation. I am in bed and on my tablet, so you need to Google search "mutations per generation" yourself.

 

[Bro. Otto]

That was already dealt with by sfs. If you don't know how to ask a proper question no one will bother to answer you. I dealt with that too. Most of your sources deal with somatic cells.

Edit: What the heck. A little pity information. You seem to think that for some strange reason that there can be no mutations in term cells. But we know that is not the case. It can be measured that even with various safeguards that there are on the order of 100 mutations per person per generation. I am in bed and on my tablet, so you need to Google search "mutations per generation" yourself.

Even with the Gametes the problem remains. Random mutations cannot bring about ordered gene organization.

Exhibit 1. A cell which lacks motility. Question: how would a flagellum evolve through germ cells? (Im just using flagellum, it could be any addition to the body plan)

I'm asking you. Give me the evolutionary plan of action. How did it happen?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even with the Gametes the problem remains. Random mutations cannot bring about ordered gene organization.

Exhibit 1. A cell which lacks motility. Question: how would a flagellum evolve through germ cells? (Im just using flagellum, it could be any addition to the body plan)

I'm asking you. Give me the evolutionary plan of action. How did it happen?

You have to be kidding me. You pretend to know what you are talking about and then post ignorant questions as if you were making a point. I have posted this before and it is late at night, I am only giving the simplified the year old video. But if you go to YouTube you can find the link to the much more detailed paper that the maker of the video linked, and that paper has links to over 200 peer reviewed articles that it was based upon:

or here is a more modern version by a biologist that specializes in evolution:

I am not putting an effort into a question this late at night.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh what the heck, one more video. This one is part of an excellent series. By the way, all of these videos provide links to sources on YouTube: