Evoloution is Just Bad Science

[Wonderfulcross]

Why not? Evolution is not limited to working on one feature at a time.

If evolution could think, it would know that the giraffes with longer necks needed that mechanism. Since evolution goes against an adcanced thinker, there would be nothing but a mindless proces which couldn't know that they would need it. I guess evolution could work on more than one feature, if it knew it had to.



Irrelevant. Lifespan has nothing to do with ability to evolve. Even bacteria with lifespans of about 20 minutes evolve.


That's not evolution. It is already in their DNA to change protein coats and become immune to certain antibiotics. You can't say the same for multicellular organisms.




Ever hear of mutations? Do you know what they are? And why they make life span irrelevant?

Yes I know what mutation are. There are three main types of them. A deletion, an insertion, and a substitution. Anyway, do you know that 99.99 percent of all mutations that occur are harmful to the organism it occurs in. Of course you could list me a few that are helpful, but that is why it is not 100% Make a list of all of the mutations that benefit an organism. Then make a list of the opposite. Are they even close to being equal with each other.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Then make a list of the opposite. Are they even close to being equal with each other.

Why do they have to be equal?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

That's not evolution. It is already in their DNA to change protein coats and become immune to certain antibiotics. You can't say the same for multicellular organisms.

that is false.

start with a simple site
http://health.howstuffworks.com/question561.htm

How do antibiotics stave off bacterial growth? Antibiotics stop or interfere with a number of everyday cellular processes that bacteria rely on for growth and survival, such as:

* crippling production of the bacterial cell wall that protects the cell from the external environment
* interfering with protein synthesis by binding to the machinery that builds proteins, amino acid by amino acid
* wreaking havoc with metabolic processes, such as the synthesis of folic acid, a B vitamin that bacteria need to thrive
* blocking synthesis of DNA and RNA

Antibiotics stop working because bacteria come up with various ways of countering these actions, such as:

* Preventing the antibiotic from getting to its target
When you really don't want to see someone, you might find yourself doing things like hiding from them or avoiding their phone calls. Bacteria employ similar strategies to keep antibiotics at bay. One effective way to keep a drug from reaching its target is to prevent it from being taken up at all. Bacteria do this by changing the permeability of their membranes or by reducing the number of channels available for drugs to diffuse through. Another strategy is to create the molecular equivalent of a club bouncer to escort antibiotics out the door if it gets in. Some bacteria use energy from ATP to power pumps that shoot antibiotics out of the cell.

* Changing the target
Many antibiotics work by sticking to their target and preventing it from interacting with other molecules inside the cell. Some bacteria respond by changing the structure of the target (or even replacing it within another molecule altogether) so that the antibiotic can no longer recognize it or bind to it.

* Destroying the antibiotic
This tactic takes interfering with the antibiotic to an extreme. Rather than simply pushing the drug aside or setting up molecular blockades, some bacteria survive by neutralizing their enemy directly. For example, some kinds of bacteria produce enzymes called beta-lactamases that chew up penicillin.

look more carefully at one series of events:
the penicillinases as a response to penicillin in the environment

check out a scientific paper like:
http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/119/2_suppl/391S

to see that it is primarily an IMPORTED plasmid that is giving the enzymes necessary for penicillin resistance. it is not 'natural' to those bacteria.
#1 point, plasmids
#2 imported.

you've been refuted.
the data and the facts are important, just asserting big high level theories without substantial data to back them up is a YECist hallmark, versus real science which is always concerned to anchor itself into the real world.


...

 

[gluadys]

If evolution could think, it would know that the giraffes with longer necks needed that mechanism. Since evolution goes against an adcanced thinker, there would be nothing but a mindless proces which couldn't know that they would need it. I guess evolution could work on more than one feature, if it knew it had to.

Just because evolution doesn't know that a certain mutation is needed doesn't mean the mutation won't happen. If it happens (and that's not a sure thing) then it will be of benefit to the organism in which it originated. At to its children, and to its grandchildren. Eventually, all the population will have the new feature.

That's not evolution. It is already in their DNA to change protein coats and become immune to certain antibiotics. You can't say the same for multicellular organisms.

Yes it is evolution and yes it happens in multicellular organisms as well as unicellular organisms. It is not necessarily "already in their DNA" to make the changes needed to resist anti-biotics. Sometimes they get a lucky mutation at the right time too---even though evolution doesn't know its needed.

Yes I know what mutation are. There are three main types of them. A deletion, an insertion, and a substitution. Anyway, do you know that 99.99 percent of all mutations that occur are harmful to the organism it occurs in.

No, that is an outdated statistic from the early part of the 20th century before DNA could be examined directly. Now that we can examine DNA directly we know that the vast majority of mutations are neutral. Very few are actually harmful and a few are also beneficial.

Of course you could list me a few that are helpful, but that is why it is not 100% Make a list of all of the mutations that benefit an organism. Then make a list of the opposite. Are they even close to being equal with each other.

Of course even if you were right and the number of harmful mutations was much greater than the beneficial mutations, it would not matter. Ever hear of natural selection?

You also missed my last question. Why do mutations make life-span irrelevant when it comes to evolution?

 

[Wonderfulcross]

Just because evolution doesn't know that a certain mutation is needed doesn't mean the mutation won't happen. If it happens (and that's not a sure thing) then it will be of benefit to the organism in which it originated. At to its children, and to its grandchildren.

It can't just be any mutation. It would have to produce an amino acid chain that produces a protein for that change the organism needs. An amino acid chain can be endless. The mutation would have to happen at the right location to produce a different and necessary amino acid(there are 20 others.)



Sometimes they get a lucky mutation at the right time too

You are trusting in a theory that depends on a lucky mutation that only happens sometimes?????? Either you worded that wrong or that is just the saddest most comical thing I ever heard of. Also, if this mutation happened only sometimes, explain how there are still more than trillions of trillions of trillions of bacteria on earth.






Of course even if you were right and the number of harmful mutations was much greater than the beneficial mutations, it would not matter. Ever hear of natural selection?

Yes I have. Now explain how that is relavent.

You also missed my last question. Why do mutations make life-span irrelevant when it comes to evolution?

If you truly read the rest of that, you would understand.

 

[Phred]

Yes I know what mutation are. There are three main types of them. A deletion, an insertion, and a substitution. Anyway, do you know that 99.99 percent of all mutations that occur are harmful to the organism it occurs in. Of course you could list me a few that are helpful, but that is why it is not 100% Make a list of all of the mutations that benefit an organism. Then make a list of the opposite. Are they even close to being equal with each other.

Ummm... you may think you know what a mutation is, but your post belies ignorance you must not be aware of. 99.99% of mutations are NOT harmful. Most are benign and have no effect.

From here:

1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
   
   
   
   
2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
   • Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
   • Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
   • Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
   • A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
   • Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
   • In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).
   
   
4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).
   
   
5. Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).

Lastly, here, take a look at this.

EERO MÄNTYRANTA won two Olympic gold medals in 1964. Years later scientists found the source of the Finnish cross-country skier's endurance. A genetic mutation gave his family higher than normal levels of oxygen-carrying red blood cells--higher even than could be achieved with Epo.

.
​

 

[Arikay]

It's pretty simple. If you don't understand how natural selection can turn a population with a majority of harmful mutations into a population with a majority of beneficial mutations, then you probably shouldn't go around claiming evolution is false.
(Since it is generally a good idea to actually understand something before you pass judgements on it).

 

[gluadys]

Just because evolution doesn't know that a certain mutation is needed doesn't mean the mutation won't happen. If it happens (and that's not a sure thing) then it will be of benefit to the organism in which it originated. At to its children, and to its grandchildren.

It can't just be any mutation.

Did I say it could be just any mutation? Of course not. It would have to be the mutation that was needed.

Sometimes they get a lucky mutation at the right time too

You are trusting in a theory that depends on a lucky mutation that only happens sometimes??????

The point is that mutations are occurring all the time. But nothing tells DNA which mutations are needed when. So a mutation may occur a million years before its needed, or 5 months before its needed or 30 days after the need arises or 5 years after the need arises or it may never occur at all. That is one of the things that is meant when we say mutations are random. They occur randomly in reference to need.

So our evolving giraffe population may already have the necessary genetic recipe for adapting to a longer neck length. But it wasn't developed earlier because it wasn't needed. Or a new mutation (or mutations) may occur after a slight lengthening of the neck so that the adaptation to longer neck length occurs in tandem with the growth of neck size.

Had the mutation not occurred either before or during the time-frame of neck-lengthening, then giraffes would still have short necks, because if they could not adapt to longer necks, longer necks would have been harmful and only short-necked giraffes would have survived.

Same reasoning applies to bacteria. If they are exposed to a new anti-bacterial agent, they must either depend on resistance they acquired earlier before it was needed, or they must depend on a new mutation occurring before they are wiped out. It has been shown that mutation rates tend to increase in situations of stress. This would improve the likelihood of the necessary resistance mutation appearing (just like buying extra tickets in a lottery improves your chances of holding the winning ticket.)

Either you worded that wrong or that is just the saddest most comical thing I ever heard of. Also, if this mutation happened only sometimes, explain how there are still more than trillions of trillions of trillions of bacteria on earth.

They breed fast. Ever see those commercials for mouthwash that show you how many bacteria are in your mouth before using the product and how few are left after you rinse your mouth?

What they don't show you is that about 20 minutes later the population of bacteria has recovered to where it was before you used the mouthwash. And the new bacteria all come from those few that survived your mouthwash--so they are born with the greater resistance their parents had. That's why anti-biotics have to keep changing too.

Of course even if you were right and the number of harmful mutations was much greater than the beneficial mutations, it would not matter. Ever hear of natural selection?

Yes I have. Now explain how that is relavent.

If you don't understand the relevance, you don't understand natural selection. What do you think the effect of natural selection is on a population in which there is a harmful mutation? What do you think the effect of natural selection is on a population with a beneficial mutation?

You also missed my last question. Why do mutations make life-span irrelevant when it comes to evolution?

If you truly read the rest of that, you would understand.
If you truly read the rest of that, you would understand.

Read what? The rest of your post? I already did. You were describing a sort of Lamarckian theory of evolution which has long since been falsified. So it is you who needs to improve your understanding of how evolution works.

 

[jesusfreak22]

i am disgusted of some of the people in this forum. You need to get your life straitend out.
The name of the forum is "Christian Forums."
Some of you need to start acting like a christian!

 

[Asimov]

i am disgusted of some of the people in this forum. You need to get your life straitend out.
The name of the forum is "Christian Forums."
Some of you need to start acting like a christian!

Some of us aren't christians. And considering the way many christians act, I wouldn't want to act like one. I'd rather act like an atheist.

 

[Army of Juan]

i am disgusted of some of the people in this forum. You need to get your life straitend out.
The name of the forum is "Christian Forums."
Some of you need to start acting like a christian!

I don't get it, is this for or against evolution?

 

[notto]

i am disgusted of some of the people in this forum. You need to get your life straitend out.
The name of the forum is "Christian Forums."
Some of you need to start acting like a christian!

I know what you mean. Lieing about what evolution says. Pointing fellow Christians to sites like drdino.com and others by known liars. Telling people that if they accept science they aren't real Christians, etc. etc. I'm disgusted as much as you are.

It seems that some of the Christians here should take a step back and actually read a book about evolution before they approach the subject.

 

[raphael_aa]

i am disgusted of some of the people in this forum. You need to get your life straitend out.
The name of the forum is "Christian Forums."
Some of you need to start acting like a christian!

Nothing like venting, is there? Trouble is, it's not terribly accurate. This section of the forum is open to all members, christian or not. If dialogue with people of different opinion bothers you, you can visit the christians-only section. In the meantime, you may want to focus on the content of arguments rather than judging the motives of those who make them.

 

[Risen from the Dust]

Some of us aren't christians. And considering the way many christians act, I wouldn't want to act like one. I'd rather act like an atheist.

I think this is what jesusfreak22 was refering to -- that Christians shouldn't act with vehemence towards anyone.

I must confess, being still fairly new here, that the tone of some arguments are quite hostile toward each other.

I'd rather sit down and rationally conduct a discourse without throwing insults toward those who disagree with my own thoughts.

 

[Cirbryn]

Asimov: "Some of us aren't christians. And considering the way many christians act, I wouldn't want to act like one. I'd rather act like an atheist."

Risen from the Dust: "I think this is what jesusfreak22 was refering to -- that Christians shouldn't act with vehemence towards anyone."

Cirbryn: Asimov's comment came after Jesusfreak's, and was written in response to it.


Risen from the Dust: "I'd rather sit down and rationally conduct a discourse without throwing insults toward those who disagree with my own thoughts."

Cirbryn: Me too.

 

[VCman]

ok, I have an honest question here. I am really confused how mankind got the way it is, or rather how life "sprang" up from, for lack of a better word, "goop". I dont understand how the circulatory system in animals could just appear, all in perfect corelation with the respitory system, digestive system etc. If one of those systems which is supposed to function, doesnt, the animal cannot survive. In addition to that, there are no negligable sections in each system. They all build upon themselves, but are still dependent on every other part. It baffles my mind when I think about how the body works in perfect unison, each system working together to make successful life. But that is just one life. Each and every person on this earth has that same make up. Each adult having 50-75 billion cells, working in unity with one another. I find it hard to believe that this is just mere chance. If every system is dependent on the others, and each part of the sytem is important, how cam this just appear? Can the systems be dwindled down in complexity? Can blood be dwindled in complexity? Can we take things out of blood and still have it function perfectly? Thanks

-VC

 

[notto]

ok, I have an honest question here. I am really confused how mankind got the way it is, or rather how life "sprang" up from, for lack of a better word, "goop". I dont understand how the circulatory system in animals could just appear, all in perfect corelation with the respitory system, digestive system etc. If one of those systems which is supposed to function, doesnt, the animal cannot survive. In addition to that, there are no negligable sections in each system. They all build upon themselves, but are still dependent on every other part. It baffles my mind when I think about how the body works in perfect unison, each system working together to make successful life. But that is just one life. Each and every person on this earth has that same make up. Each adult having 50-75 billion cells, working in unity with one another. I find it hard to believe that this is just mere chance. If every system is dependent on the others, and each part of the sytem is important, how cam this just appear? Can the systems be dwindled down in complexity? Can blood be dwindled in complexity? Can we take things out of blood and still have it function perfectly? Thanks

-VC

Evolution doesn't say that anyting just came about instantly or even quickly and it does not say that it was done by chance.

I can see why you are in disbelief if that is what you think evolution is.

Our bodies and the systems you see have been developed over time by evolution acting on previous systems through natural selection and mutation. The systems coevolved over time through small changes which did not effect the overall system detrimentally. We can see different, rudimentary, and vestigal systems that are similar to ours in different animals. For instance, there are many different types of eyes, some of them can only sense light and dark, some can sense movement, some can focus such as ours. There is value in each type of eye. The same can be said for systems such as our respitory and ciruclation systems. We can find animals with 1, 2, 3, and 4 chamber hearts, some that use gills to exchange , some exchange through their skin, and we can find everything in between.

These didn't just pop into existence, but built on previous systems through a process that takes many, many generations to happen.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml

 

[jgarden]

Creationism and evolution are largely irrelevant. If one believes in a God inspired universe, who cares about the timeline Why can't Christians who believe in evolution go to Heaven?

 

[Arikay]

I also assumed christians weren't supposed to speak false things, in which case Jesusfreak needs to check the log in his own eye first.

The tone here can be harsh, but generally you get what you give. If someone comes here arrogant and looking for a fight, they generally wont get much back. If you come here nice and wanting to learn/debate etc. then the tone will be much different.

In this case the tone towards Jesusfreak is because this forum has had more than it's share of "Evolution is false, you are stupid, you can't be a christian evolutionists, haha im right *runs away*" kind of posts.

I think this is what jesusfreak22 was refering to -- that Christians shouldn't act with vehemence towards anyone.

I must confess, being still fairly new here, that the tone of some arguments are quite hostile toward each other.

I'd rather sit down and rationally conduct a discourse without throwing insults toward those who disagree with my own thoughts.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Creationism and evolution are largely irrelevant. If one believes in a God inspired universe, who cares about the timeline Why can't Christians who believe in evolution go to Heaven?

Because some of the Christians who don't believe in evolution won't let them... (as if they had a say in it)