A Question for Creationists

[OllieFranz]

Two serious questions:

1. Are genes and DNA the same thing?
2. Do they still differentiate between recessive genes and dominant genes?

Simplified answer (some would say over-simplified):

DNA is the chemical name for the molecular chain. Chomosomes are the clumps of the DNA chain that we see in a microscope. They pair up during meiosis andv mitosis as part of the error checking system. Genes are specific positions on the chromosomes, marked by a starty and a stop codon.

One function of a gene is to build proteins (using an intermediate step involving RNA strands). Another, and by many people considered the more important function is the passing on of traits. One gene might generate eye color, another might generate blood type. An allele i a specific sequence of the base pairs comprising the gene. Theeye color gene has one allele for brown eyes, and another forblue eyes.

Of the two chromosomes of each type that we have, we inherited one and its specific mix of alleles from each parent, the odd X chromosome and its paired Y in males being a partial exception, in that these two will pair up just like the other 22 pairs and like the two X's in females, but several genes on the X, and their alleles, do not have mates.

Some allleles dominate over others. When the two alleles don't match, the dominant prevails. When there is no competing allele, as for example the unmatched X chromosome alleles in a male, then it expresses itself whth er it is dominant or ressesive. If both are dominant, but not the same, there are different strategies to determine what is expressed. In uman blood tpes, A and B alleles prouduce type AB blood. In tortoiseshell cqalico cats, each hair follicle determines whether the O allele will dominate, producing a ginger (orange) hair or the o allele will dominate, allowing the normal calico pattern coat (controlled by a different gene) to show through.

 

[Naraoia]

Are you really suggesting thay chimp DNA and Human DNA is the same and can't be disitisnguished from each other?

No. I asked you to tell me exactly how "DNA says" something is a different species or kind or whatever. Because you keep saying this, but you never offer any details.

If you ae, you are the one who doesn't know much about DNA

Tee-hee.

I have said it separates not only one species from another but kinds within the same species. It can tell if I am related to you. Now it is up to you to refute that.

It's not up to me to refute something you haven't even attempted to argue. You "said" it indeed. And that's all you did. I can say your hair is blue and the moon is made of cheese, but that doesn't mean I'm making a point.

(And kinds are within the same species now? Weren't they pretty much species a few posts ago? I can't keep your stuff straight...)

You mean like you are doing?

Nice try, but you might note that I'm the one here citing scientific studies to support my points.

The do not. They alter a trait that the kid would have gotten without the mutation.

And altering a trait is not changing the organism? That's a use of the English language I hadn't come across...

Irrelevant. Longer pregancys is not a mechanism for evolution.

If you paid any attention to what you were reading, you might have noted that longer pregnancies are the outcome, and what's happened to HoxA11 is part of the mechanism. Here I thought you wanted to know how new things happen in evolution.

Yes. The offspring cannot receive a trait for which one of both parents did not have a gene for. That is biology 101.

I've got to ask what you mean by a "trait". I don't think you're using the word the way I do.

The problem is the papers did not say HOW it happened biologically.

How what happened biologically?

Did sickle cell ever cause a homo sapian to evolve into something that was not homo sapian?

That's not what you were asking for. You were asking for new traits.

Is that not what evolution is all about; the diversity of animals AND PLANTS, and how they came about. You will have to admit to show that all life forms PLANTS AND ANIMALS originating from some blob in the primordial ooze, really canpt be done biologically.

And why will I have to admit such a thing?

Let's stick to biology right now.

What part of that was not biology?

Not for me. God did it takes all of he cimplications out of nature for me.

Ignoring complications doesn't make them go away.

To be accurate you do need a correct definiiotn of what a species is.

Trust me, I don't. And there is no "correct" definition of a species, which was my whole point. A species is an artificial concept we impose on nature, just like the colours of the rainbow. What's the correct definition of green?

Two serious questions:

1. Are genes and DNA the same thing?

No. Genes are, roughly speaking, DNA sequences that encode a functional product. All genes are transcribed into RNA; in the case of protein-coding genes, this RNA is then translated into a protein.

All genes are made of DNA (unless you are an RNA virus), but not all DNA is genes. In your genome, there are also things like promoters and enhancers, which regulate genes by attracting various proteins; there are remains of broken genes, there are remains of parasitic DNA that inserted itself between genes...

Do they still differentiate between recessive genes and dominant genes?

Yes, why?

 

[CabVet]

Two serious questions:

1. Are genes and DNA the same thing?

No. For the simplest explanation I will make an analogy. DNA is the alphabet, genes are the words.

• Do they still differentiate between recessive genes and dominant genes?

Yes and no. There are no "dominant genes". There are dominant alleles. Every gene has variations, those variations are called alleles. Some alleles are dominants, others are recessives. Everyone has at least 2 alleles of every gene, but the population might have many more than 2. If in one particular locus* you have one dominant and one recessive allele, your phenotype will be controlled by the dominant allele.

*place in the DNA where the gene is.

I hope that between mine and the other answers you have cleared your doubts, but if you didn't, ask away!

 

[frogman2x]

No. I asked you to tell me exactly how "DNA says" something is a different species or kind or whatever. Because you keep saying this, but you never offer any details.

You are the so-called expert. Maybe you forgot what yu wer taught in genetics 101. DN"A says a chimp and a human is different becaue they DNA is differeent and thoe who can intepret the DNA of each know it.

Tee-hee.

You can laugh all y ou want, but so far you have not provided the evidence for wwhat you have said. Youo try to stand on your education as if the rest of us don't understnd anything about mutaiton, but what they do and do not do is basic.

It's not up to me to refute something you haven't even attempted to argue. You "said" it indeed. And that's all you did. I can say your hair is blue and the moon is made of cheese, but that doesn't mean I'm making a point.

I said mutations do not add traits, they only alter the trait that trhe gene would have given the offspring. You do need to refut that if you can.

I have said you have never seen a mutation to cause one species to evolve into a different one. Can you refute that.

(And kinds are within the same species now? Weren't they pretty much species a few posts ago? I can't keep your stuff straight...)

Of course all kinds are the same species but DNA proves chimps and humans are not the same kind. You and I are the same species but our DNA will proe we are not biologically relatged. OTOH DNA will prove my son is my son.

Nice try, but you might note that I'm the one here citing scientific studies to support my points.

All of your so-called citings never explain HOW it causes evolution, because it can't. They just say something is true and allthe evo, pat them on tha back and sayd good work.

And altering a trait is not changing the organism?

Of course not. The organism stayed exactly the same species. The albino remained the exact same species with the mutation. Only his skin was altered from what he would have gotten without the mutation.


>>That's a use of the English language I hadn't come across...<<

Well them maybe you have learned soemhing today.

If you paid any attention to what you were reading, you might have noted that longer pregnancies are the outcome, and what's happened to HoxA11 is part of the mechanism. Here I thought you wanted to know how new things happen in evolution.

Let me try and make this simple for you---did the results cause the species to change into a different species? if it didn't , yuou are just blowing smoke,

I've got to ask what you mean by a "trait". I don't think you're using the word the way I do.

A trait woud be eye color, skin color, hair color, the presence of bones, arms and legs.

How what happened biologically?

How an offspring acquiried a trait, for which neither parent had the gene for.

That's not what you were asking for. You were asking for new traits.

Yes I was. The skin of an albino is not a new trait, it is an alteration of the skin color

And why will I have to admit such a thing?

Of course you do not have to admit it, but you will have to explain HOW is is possible. Do you really think you can eplain how animal life originated from plant life or how plant life originaterd from animal life.

Trust me, I don't. And there is no "correct" definition of a species, which was my whole point. A species is an artificial concept we impose on nature, just like the colours of the rainbow. What's the correct definition of green?

It is not. It is a problem for evolutionist,so they just say ther is not correct definition. If you google species or kind, you will get the correct answser.

No. Genes are, roughly speaking, DNA sequences that encode a functional product. All genes are transcribed into RNA; in the case of protein-coding genes, this RNA is then translated into a protein.

Wonderful. Now explain, biologically of course, how that is a mechanism for evolution. You can do the Teaberry shuffle around that as long as you like, but you have no evidence it ever changed an A into a B.

All genes are made of DNA (unless you are an RNA virus), but not all DNA is genes. In your genome, there are also things like promoters and enhancers, which regulate genes by attracting various proteins; there are remains of broken genes, there are remains of parasitic DNA that inserted itself between genes...

Wonderful. Has any of the ever cause an A to evolve into a B?

Yes, why?

Just curious. When I ws in school he had a definition for "species." The said teh first lie form was a simple celelld organism. I guess when they discoevered that all life forms have DNA, they figured they better not say "simple cell" any longer.

IMO evoluton has dug its hole so deep they have had to change defintions and ideas hoping that will be a ladder to get out of the hole.

 

[CabVet]

You are the so-called expert. Maybe you forgot what yu wer taught in genetics 101. DN"A says a chimp and a human is different becaue they DNA is differeent and thoe who can intepret the DNA of each know it.

Is that supposed to mean something?

P.S.: Your typing errors are writing style are strangely familiar.

 

[frogman2x]

No, they don't. A mutation is what he said it is - a change in organism's DNA. And even if they were what you said, how is 'altering a trait' not a change

A mutation is not a change in the organism. The organims remains the same species. The trait is the skin. The kid will get some kind of skin. The mutation make him an albino. The trait was not changed, it was altered.

If that were true, we wouldn't need to update the flu vaccine every year, because the flu virus would never grow immunity - the first vaccine we ever made would work every time.

Not at all. It has been PROVEN that bacteria can become immune to some anti-botics, but they are not only still bacteria, they are the same species of bacteria.

No one ever said anything about plants and animals just springing forth from a blob.

Not plants but it use be taught that animal life originated in the primordial ooze. A Russina scientist started tha tidea but I cant remember his name.

Yeah, I suppose it does. In the same way, assuming a stork brings parents their children is a lot less complicated than learning how the reproductive system works.

No one but maybe young children believe the stork brings babies. It is a lot less complicated than teachng young children somegthing they won't understand.

 

[CabVet]

A mutation is not a change in the organism. The organims remains the same species. The trait is the skin. The kid will get some kind of skin. The mutation make him an albino. The trait was not changed, it was altered.

Yeah right, a mutation that causes the organism to change is not a change in the organism. Good one.

Not at all. It has been PROVEN that bacteria can become immune to some anti-botics, but they are not only still bacteria, they are the same species of bacteria.

You are right there. If a bacteria transformed into a cat that would disprove evolution and probably prove creationism since that would require an act of God.

Not plants but it use be taught that animal life originated in the primordial ooze. A Russina scientist started tha tidea but I cant remember his name.

Of course you can't remember his name, you probably heard about this in a sermon.

No one but maybe young children believe the stork brings babies. It is a lot less complicated than teachng young children somegthing they won't understand.

Does your keyboard have a problem?

 

[AV1611VET]

No. Genes are, roughly speaking, DNA sequences that encode a functional product. All genes are transcribed into RNA; in the case of protein-coding genes, this RNA is then translated into a protein.

All genes are made of DNA (unless you are an RNA virus), but not all DNA is genes. In your genome, there are also things like promoters and enhancers, which regulate genes by attracting various proteins; there are remains of broken genes, there are remains of parasitic DNA that inserted itself between genes...

Wow!

Biology is a deep subject.

Thanks for the info!

This might sound like a dumb question, but do plants have DNA and/or genes?

 

[CabVet]

Wow!

Biology is a deep subject.

Thanks for the info!

This might sound like a dumb question, but do plants have DNA and/or genes?

Yes, all living organisms do, even bacteria and viruses.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. For the simplest explanation I will make an analogy. DNA is the alphabet, genes are the words.

Thank you.

The mark of a good teacher is the ability to use examples that are accurate and easy to understand.

WiccanChild is very good at it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, all living organisms do, even bacteria and viruses.

Thank you, sir!

 

[Smidlee]

Wow!

Biology is a deep subject.

Thanks for the info!

This might sound like a dumb question, but do plants have DNA and/or genes?

Some cells don't have DNA like red blood cells and some tiny insect's brain cells (for a more compact brain).

 

[CabVet]

Thank you, sir!

You are welcome! To be really precise, some viruses have RNA instead of DNA, but their function is the same.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are welcome! To be really precise, some viruses have RNA instead of DNA, but their function is the same.

Awrighty ... thank you!

As they say, that's a little too much information!

 

[Naraoia]

Is that supposed to mean something?

So it's not just me.

P.S.: Your typing errors are writing style are strangely familiar.

Where from?

You are the so-called expert. Maybe you forgot what yu wer taught in genetics 101. DN"A says a chimp and a human is different becaue they DNA is differeent and thoe who can intepret the DNA of each know it.

Two humans also have different DNA. My DNA differs from my dad's, my mum's and my brother's, even though they are my closest relatives. So how does DNA tell you whether two creatures are the same species, or different species, or different kinds...?

You can laugh all y ou want, but so far you have not provided the evidence for wwhat you have said. Youo try to stand on your education as if the rest of us don't understnd anything about mutaiton, but what they do and do not do is basic.

Wait a second. The reason I brought up my education in the first place is that you kept making vague claims about "DNA saying" things. I thought I'd tell you that I know a bit about DNA, and vague claims ain't gonna cut it. Feel free to demonstrate that you also understand DNA, or mutations, or wherever the goalposts have shifted recently. What features of DNA, specifically, would you use to tell whether two creatures belong to the same kind?

I said mutations do not add traits, they only alter the trait that trhe gene would have given the offspring. You do need to refut that if you can.

Here you go. Here is the trait, and here is an analysis of the mutations.

I have said you have never seen a mutation to cause one species to evolve into a different one. Can you refute that.

"A" mutation? No, I can't refute that. Lucky thing no one who actually understands evolution expects single mutations to produce new species.

Of course all kinds are the same species but DNA proves chimps and humans are not the same kind.

HOW?

You and I are the same species but our DNA will proe we are not biologically relatged.

Despite the fact that we're both Noah's descendants?

All of your so-called citings never explain HOW it causes evolution, because it can't. They just say something is true and allthe evo, pat them on tha back and sayd good work.

That is exactly what the HoxA11 example was about. The HOW. No one is "just saying" anything. They are doing experiments. They are comparing sequences. They are testing hypotheses.

Is the meaning of "how" another thing I need to learn about the English language?

Of course not. The organism stayed exactly the same species. The albino remained the exact same species with the mutation. Only his skin was altered from what he would have gotten without the mutation.

An alteration is not a change? What?

A trait woud be eye color, skin color, hair color, the presence of bones, arms and legs.

So new traits =/= new species. Good.

Is malaria resistance a trait? The ability to eat citrate or nylon? Multicellularity?

How an offspring acquiried a trait, for which neither parent had the gene for.

I feel like we need to make something clear: few genes are "genes for" a trait. That's not how genes work. Genes have a product, maybe a protein, that does various stuff in a cell, and those things it does influence a trait or many traits, and many genes may influence the same trait. There is, for example, no "gene for bone". Just to make properly hardened bones, you need at least two different genes, and those two are only part of the mechanism for putting the mineral in bone. The rest of it - the protein component of bones, the different cell types present in them, their shape and size and locations - require a whole bunch of other genes. Conversely, some of those genes are involved in a lot more than bone formation. Something like BMP4 gives instructions for bone making, but also tells an early embryo where the back and belly sides should go, and many other things.

Of course you do not have to admit it, but you will have to explain HOW is is possible. Do you really think you can eplain how animal life originated from plant life or how plant life originaterd from animal life.

No, because neither of those things happened. If you're looking for the origin of animals, these guys are a better place to start...

It is not. It is a problem for evolutionist,so they just say ther is not correct definition. If you google species or kind, you will get the correct answser.

Such as... "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem. Differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology, or ecological niche."

That is right in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry on species, which is - funnily enough - the first google hit for species. So what is the correct answer again?

(Googling "kind" just gives you ordinary dictionary definitions, none of which have much to do with biological classification. Testing a google search before advising others to do it is a good idea...)

Wonderful. Now explain, biologically of course, how that is a mechanism for evolution.

What? Having genes? I wasn't even talking to you, nor was I talking about evolution. I thought I had a short attention span, but this is something special...

Just curious. When I ws in school he had a definition for "species." The said teh first lie form was a simple celelld organism. I guess when they discoevered that all life forms have DNA, they figured they better not say "simple cell" any longer.

They still say the first life form was simple, or at least they did a few years ago when I had classes about the origin of life (whether or not it was a cell depends on your definition of "life form" and "cell"). They do say the first life form didn't have DNA.

Wow!

Biology is a deep subject.

Haha, yes, in truth it's scarily deep at times. Do shout at me if I get too deep with it. I don't want to talk way over people's heads...

Thanks for the info!

This might sound like a dumb question, but do plants have DNA and/or genes?

Yes. Every living thing except some viruses has DNA, and every living thing has genes.

Some cells don't have DNA like red blood cells and some tiny insect's brain cells (for a more compact brain).

However, those cells do start out with DNA. Well, I don't know about the insect brain cells, but mammalian RBCs certainly do.

 

[lasthero]

Is the meaning of "how" another thing I need to learn about the English language?

Frogman's grasp of the English language is somewhat...tenuous.

 

[CabVet]

Where from?

JohnR7, Jazer, Jamin and all of his sock puppets.

 

[lasthero]

A mutation is not a change in the organism.

Shirley, you must be joking.

The trait was not changed, it was altered.

...you know, sometimes I start to feel bad for making fun of your lack of intelligence, like maybe I'm sinking to a low level, like maybe it's undeserved, like maybe you're just a little clumsy with your typing or English isn't your first language.

Then you say something like that, and I'm back to square one.

'Changed' and 'altered' mean the same thing. They are synonyms. I really don't want to make fun of you, but you've got to at least meet me halfway way and stop saying such amazingly stupid things. I mean, forget creationism for a second - the above sentence is just stupid. There's no better word for it. It's stupid. If you want me to stop treating you like you're stupid, then please, stop acting like you're stupid.

It has been PROVEN that bacteria can become immune to some anti-botics

It hasn't been PROVEN, because, as I keep telling you, science doesn't deal in proof.

but they are not only still bacteria, they are the same species of bacteria.

No, they changed into strawberry flavored kumquats.

Of course they're still bacteria. No one ever said anything different. Why do you people keep going with this 'it's still a fish, it's still a bacteria, it's still a dog' tripe? Is it so hard to read a book and figure out what the theory actually proposes? Do the big words and paragraph scare you or something? You don't have to agree with it, but at least learn what's actually being brought out, the actual argument, so you don't wind up looking like a pompous moron and don't waste people's time.

A Russina scientist started tha tidea but I cant remember his name

That's okay. It's easy to forget people who never existed in the first place.

It is a lot less complicated than teachng young children somegthing they won't understand.

Yeah, it's much better to believe in a simple lie than learn a complicated truth.

You're really a great creationist.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are the so-called expert. Maybe you forgot what yu wer taught in genetics 101. DN"A says a chimp and a human is different becaue they DNA is differeent and thoe who can intepret the DNA of each know it.

The thick-headedness of these types of statements still makes me chuckle.

What does the theory of evolution state? It states that if two populations of the same species become reproductively isolated that different mutations will accumulate in each population. Over time, this results in divergence of the gene pools of the two different populations, ultimately resulting in two species. IOW, the theory of evolution predicts that the DNA of two species that share a common ancestor should be different.

So what do we have here? We have a creationist who points to divergence over time as evidence AGAINST evolution, even though that is precisely what the theory says we should see if the theory is true. Creationists have twisted themselves into such irrational knots that they point to change over time as evidence against evolution.

You can laugh all y ou want, but so far you have not provided the evidence for wwhat you have said. Youo try to stand on your education as if the rest of us don't understnd anything about mutaiton, but what they do and do not do is basic.

Then why do you get the basics wrong?

I said mutations do not add traits, they only alter the trait that trhe gene would have given the offspring.

You are wrong. We can run simple experiments in bacteria to show that you are wrong. We can start an entire population of bacteria with a single bacterium. Just one. When we challenge these bacteria with an antibiotic we find that 1 out of hundreds of millions of these bacteria, all descendants of a single bacterium, are antibiotic resistant. When we compare the genome of these descendants to the genome of their ancestors we find that mutations gave these descendants the anbitiotic resistant trait. This has been a fact of biology for a long time now.

You do need to refut that if you can.

You need to present evidence that you are right.

I have said you have never seen a mutation to cause one species to evolve into a different one. Can you refute that.

The mutations that separate humans and chimps have resulted in us being different species. Can you refute that?

Of course all kinds are the same species but DNA proves chimps and humans are not the same kind.

Evidence?

 

[frogman2x]

Yeah right, a mutation that causes the organism to change is not a change in the organism. Good one.

I thought you understood that a change in a trait does not change the organism. It remains he exact same species as it parents. You know it that old "after its kind" thing that gives the evos such a problem.

You are right there. If a bacteria transformed into a cat that would disprove evolution and probably prove creationism since that would require an act of God.

We don't need that kind of an example. "After its kind" disproves evolution. That is what we can see and repeat. which more than you can do.

course you can't remember his name, you probably heard about this in a sermon,

How silly. I probably heard of him while you still had training wheels on your bike.

Does your keyboard have a problem?

Are you here to discuss our differencnes or are you trying to get a job with the typo police.