Creationist Misconceptions

A poodle has less genetic info then a wolf???? Where did you get that idea from. And what does the amount of "info" have to do with evolution?

I have noticed that a lot of people seem to think that the amount of genetic material (which they erroneously refer to as information) is linked to "how evolved" the organism is or how complex the organism is.

This in not true. Salamanders generally have one hundred times the amount of genetic material as humans. Many plants have even more DNA, sometimes compartmentalized into hundreds (in some cases even over athousand) chromosomes.

Many people assume that the reason that bacteria have so little DNA in comparison to humans is that they are "primitive" Again, not really true. Bacteria are highly specialized to do a few things at a microscopic level - and do them very efficiently. THe E.coli living in your bowel is just as "evolved" as you are, they are just the product of a different evolutionary strategy - one akin to simplicity and miniaturization.

I don't know if bacteria should really be considered "living things", after all, they have no eyes, ears, organs, or brain, and they're not plants. Bacteria really seems to be an advanced form of non-life.

I don't know if bacteria should really be considered "living things", after all, they have no eyes, ears, organs, or brain, and they're not plants. Bacteria really seems to be an advanced form of non-life.

Click to expand...

   Um, that's not the definition of 'life'. It's not even close. If I define 'couches' as four-legged things, covered in leather, to sit one, I can then argue the thing in my living room isn't a couch. It's not covered in leather, after all.

 

Then what is 'life'? Define 'life'.

  Did it ever occur to you to look yourself? You're a nice person, Sky, but a lot of the things you say (that you get wrong) could be fixed with two seconds of searching. Try here

 

Please do not personally attack me anymore. I wasn't looking for the scientific definition of "life". I was saying that bacteria and viruses are neither animals nor plants, so I was stating that they don't fit in with any other forms of 'life', so can they really be considered 'living things'?

Please do not personally attack me anymore.

Click to expand...

  Sky, you apparantly don't know what a personal attack is. Telling you you're wrong, and suggesting you look things up before you post isn't a personal attack. If I called you a flaming moron, that would be a personal attack. Note how I haven't.

I wasn't looking for the scientific definition of "life".I was saying that bacteria and viruses are neither animals nor plants, so I was stating that they don't fit in with any other forms of 'life', so can they really be considered 'living things'?

Click to expand...

   Um, what definition of life would you use other than the scientific one? Your personal one? Frankly, what good is that? As I pointed out, I can make my one personal definition of "couch" too, but it's not going to do me any good in conversation.

   Life is not defined by biologists (or even most people) as "plants or animals". The fact that your definition doesn't cover bacteria is evidence your definition isn't a good one.

  And, while we're on the topic, you were looking for the definition of life. I gave you the definition used by those who are experts in dealing with 'life'.

OK

Bacteria certainly are alive. THey have cell membranes, DNA, cytoplasm. The reproduce both asexually (division) and sexually (conjugation).

Virus are very different from bacteria. Virus have sometimes been described as sitting on the border between life and nonlife.

Life is usually defined as having a metabolism, being reactive to the envrionment, reproduction and growth, and self regulating.

Here is a more detailed definition of life :

The four main types of biological entities described above share some unique characteristics that can allow us to distinguish them from non-living things. These characteristics are:

(1). Organisms tend to be complex and highly organized. Chemicals found within their bodies are synthesized through metabolic processes into structures that have defined purposes. Cells and their various organelles are examples of such structures. Cells are also the basic functioning unit of life. Cells are often organized into organs to create higher levels of complexity and function.
(2). Living things have the ability to take energy from their environment and change it from one form to another. This energy is usually used to facilitate their growth and reproduction. We call the process that allows for this facilitation metabolism.

(3). Organisms tend to be homeostatic. In other words, they regulate their bodies and other internal structures to certain normal parameters.

(4). Living creatures respond to stimuli. Cues in their environment cause them to react through behavior, metabolism, and physiological change.

(5). Living things reproduce themselves by making copies of themselves. Reproduction can either be sexual or asexual. Sexual reproduction involves the fusing of haploid genetic material from two individuals. This process creates populations with much greater genetic diversity.

(6). Organisms tend to grow and develop. Growth involves the conversion of consumed materials into biomass, new individuals, and waste.

(7). Life adapts and evolves in step with external changes in the environment through mutation and natural selection. This process acts over relatively long periods of time.


From: http://www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/physgeog/contents/9a.html

Originally posted by lohankuo
That is micro evolution deriving from natural selection. Natural selection only gets rid of information (genes). You can't breed two poodle back to a wolf since its gene pool has decreased. Natural selection is not capable of making new creatures. It only diversifies a creature into many species of its kind. And if a benefical mutation occurs to a organism what is the chance of it finding a mate with those same traits? If not what is the chance of the trait being passed down to the eventual creation of a stable population of a whole new creature? Are you telling me this occur for all creatures? It seems that all those small chances are adding up to one big chance thing.

Click to expand...

Before micro or evoultion were coined as acceptable terms living organism had the ability to adapt. Now why someone would chose to call this evolution is still beyond me but there you have it. The adaptability of living creatures is called micro evoultion and that is the begining and the end of the science in the evolution theory.

All else is the direct result of an over active imagination of and over educated man who saught to free himself from the feelings of inadequaties he felt as a boy. this is a quote from his book "I believe that I was considered by all my masters and my Father as a very ordinary boy, rather below the common standard of intellect" Now why any one would want to exalt him about what his own father thought is just too much for me. the man had a good education, but a good education does not help you when you simply can not understand. He just did not understand, so he made up something that he could understand. Unfortunatly it just does not make good sense. It is a good thing to have a good imagination but to attempt to pass it off as science is just not right and all the evolutionist know it that is why you are always saying just imagine what it will be like cause you can not see it anywhere ever.

Be blessed but even better be wise.

DNAunion: Just to confirm what others have said, yes, bacteria are living. The two main types of cells are prokaryotic and eukaryotic. Prokaryotic cells do not have a true nucleus and have no other membrane-bound organelles. On the other hand, eukaryotes have a true nucleus and several types of membrane-bound organelles (such as peroxisomes, mitochondria, lysosomes, chloroplasts, rough and smooth endoplasmic reticula, Golgi stacks, etc.).

Plants and animals are eukaryotes, so if one limits life to to just those two things, one is saying prokaryotes are not living. But they are. As mentioned above they are cellular. That carries with it other of the qualities is means to be alive, such as reproduction, irritability (response to stimuli), metabolism, chemical uniqueness, motility/mobility, etc.

The prokaryotes are divided into two groups: bacteria (or eubacteria) and archaeabacteria.

Actually, the more modern division of life consider three superkingdoms called domains: eukarya, bacteria, and archaea (formerly called archaeabacteria).

Originally posted by Dorothyne
All else is the direct result of an over active imagination of and over educated man who saught to free himself from the feelings of inadequaties he felt as a boy. this is a quote from his book "I believe that I was considered by all my masters and my Father as a very ordinary boy, rather below the common standard of intellect" Now why any one would want to exalt him about what his own father thought is just too much for me. the man had a good education, but a good education does not help you when you simply can not understand. He just did not understand, so he made up something that he could understand. Unfortunatly it just does not make good sense. It is a good thing to have a good imagination but to attempt to pass it off as science is just not right and all the evolutionist know it that is why you are always saying just imagine what it will be like cause you can not see it anywhere ever.

Click to expand...

Wow, you creationists just love to pick on the dead guy! Now if we are going to criticize individuals here, why don't we move on to Kent Hovind for a while?



 

One of the worst arguments used by uninformed Creationists is "if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?". The truth is, evolution states that we have a common ancestor, not that we evolved from them. I'm glad we can have civilized conversations about these topics.

prokaryotes are divided? what's the dividing line between bacteria/archaebateria?

Quick and dirty--

Eubacteria have cell walls made up of peptidoglycans.

Archaeabacteria have cell walls made up of either psuedopeptidoglycans or proteins only.

There are some differences in the make up of cell membranes also, different types of lipids and whatnot. Major differences in cellular processes as well.

The differences are so great that from a phylogenic standpoint, eubacteria, archaeabacteria, and eukarya seem to make up three major groups over and above the kingdom groupings.



Diagram showing either a family tree or relatedness in design, depending on your beliefs