first post is gonna be a bombshell

Liangonesearmy said:

nice of you to back up your buddy by ripping on someone else...

Click to expand...

Whoa, back up there chief. I wasn't backing him up at all. Like I said I was just pointing out to you that what you said is frequently applied to creationists on this forum.
Anyway, what makes you think he's my 'buddy'?

it's def. what Jesus woulda done

Click to expand...

Good thing I'm not a christian then.

Liangonesearmy said:

nice of you to back up your buddy by ripping on someone else... it's def. what Jesus woulda done

Click to expand...

it is tragically true though. We get countless creationists who come in here, insist that evolution includes the Big Bang and Abiogenesis, and then refuse to listen when it is explained to them properly. If course ignorance on either side is intolerable, but we see an awful lot more of it from creationists.

I heard that mutations are impossible. Or there so improbable that we wouldn't evolve so seamlessly. I'm not a science person myself, I'm a music producer but I thought I'd through it out there.

ok, well you are wrong. there is no problem with mutations at all.

I tend to find new athiests irritating too-A few of them have a certain smugness to them sometimes when they discuss religion
And the 1st post is not related to science or creationism at all

mattydrag said:

I heard that mutations are impossible.

Click to expand...

A mutation is simply an error in our DNA. It's quite common really.

mattydrag said:

I heard that mutations are impossible.

Click to expand...

Have you ever worked (as a summer job for example) in an apple-orchard? I have, and every year you could discover at least one mutation if you kept your eyes open.

Here is evolutionist in a nutshell; A person with a religious view towards nature, a religious view towards time, a religious view toward energy, a religious view towards chance, who might as well believe in mermaids and werewolves as to believe in athe mythical creatures called apemen. Evolutionist have pantheistic leanings in their nature based religion.

Thanks for demonstarting your closemindness.

I'm not dealing with some random occurence with plants growing (apple orchard), because that is not relevant. I'm dealing with some random occurence and we over millions or billions of years turned into the way we are it's hard to fathom and the probability of that happening. And random DNA mutations, what kind of DNA mutation I would like to know, have there been studies on noticable changes in the human body by DNA mutations on our present body today? I really don't know enough to debate, I'm not one sided, I just thought I could clarify things through asking questions.

Chris Lesley said:

Here is evolutionist in a nutshell; A person with a religious view towards nature, a religious view towards time, a religious view toward energy, a religious view towards chance, who might as well believe in mermaids and werewolves as to believe in athe mythical creatures called apemen. Evolutionist have pantheistic leanings in their nature based religion.

Click to expand...

I'm curious what this opinion is based on... certainly not reality.

OK, normally "trolls" on this forum would be creationists coming up with unintelligible gibberish and backing it up with flawed logic. Please try not to be like them.

Do you have to make sweeping generalizations about Christians? Not all Christians believe that gays are sinful just because they are gay. Also, we don't all think that there was an Adam and that his wife Eve was made with a spare rib.

Also, "Christians" who spread Christianity at swordpoint aren't listening to the words of Jesus. Don't judge the truth of a religion just because some have abused it.

You do make some good points about religion being wishful thinking, but could you say them in a way that was less offensive?

Chris Lesley said:

Here is evolutionist in a nutshell; A person with a religious view towards nature, a religious view towards time, a religious view toward energy, a religious view towards chance, who might as well believe in mermaids and werewolves as to believe in athe mythical creatures called apemen. Evolutionist have pantheistic leanings in their nature based religion.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but just because you state that Evolution is a religion five times in a row doesn't make it so.

Mythical creatures called "apemen"..... are you refering to species from the fossil record like Homo erectus? Since you have studied these fossils in detail, perhaps you can explain what they represent. By the way, how do you feel about talking snakes?

anyone going to answer my question? from a while ago last page?

Phred said:

Just because you can tell the difference between a fact and belief, don't expect everyone to have that ability.

Click to expand...

I agree that most people don't. However, what is annoying about militant atheists is that they claim they are critical thinkers. Yet they are not critical enough to examine their own statements to determine which are facts and which are faith.

Yes, creationists, particularly the professional ones, do make statements of faith as tho they are fact. But they don't make the additional claims that they are critical thinkers. So it is not nearly as annoying when they fail to distinguish beliefs from fact.

mattydrag said:

I heard that mutations are impossible. Or there so improbable that we wouldn't evolve so seamlessly. I'm not a science person myself, I'm a music producer but I thought I'd through it out there.

Click to expand...

Mutations are errors in copying DNA. Paticularly in evolution, mutations are copying errors in the reproductive cells -- sperm and egg.

The average rate of mutation is about 2 per individual. That is, you have 2 mutations. I have 2 mutations. Every human has 2 mutations. With a human population of 6 billion, that's 12 billion mutations in just humans alive on the planet right now.

Professional creationists claim that beneficial mutations are very rare. The facts are that only 2.7 mutations per thousand are out and out harmful. The other 998.3 mutations out of a thousand are either neutral or they are beneficial. Remember that "beneficial" is in relation to a particular environment. A mutation for longer fur would be beneficial for a deer living in northern Canada but longer fur in a species of deer living on the African savannah would not be beneficial. Different environments.

Does this answer your question?

Well no. After the DNA's are mutated, can you show how it evolves? 2 mutations what are they? These mutations do they show how we as humans today are progressing at all?

Split Rock said:

Wooow there Lucaspa... do you have any references to back that up? I thought the cause (or causes) of homosexual behavior was still up in the air.

Click to expand...

Of course I have references! When do I not have references?

6: Cell Mol Life Sci 1999 Nov 15;56(7-8):634-46 Sexual behavior mutants revisited: molecular and cellular basis of Drosophila mating.Yamamoto D, Nakano Y.ERATO Yamamoto Behavior Genes Project, Mitsubishi Kasei Institute of LifeSciences, Machida, Tokyo, Japan. daichan@mn.waseda.ac.jp The study of Drosophila melanogaster by a combination of forward genetics with specific mutants, and reverse genetics, in which a given gene is expressed in an appropriate brain area to test its effect on behavior, provides a unique opportunity to explore the causal relationship between a particular gene, its function in the cell and the behavioral outcome at the organismic level. Enhanced male-to-male courtship has been shown to occur as a result of mutations in several different genes. For example, the Voila mutant exhibits intense GAL4 reporter expression in the tarsal gustatory sensilla, suggesting the importance of tapping by a male on the female abdomen with his forelegs. Feminization of parts of the antennal lobe and mushroom body by targeted expression of afemale-determining gene transformer+ (tra+) drives the male to court other males. Mutations in the tra target gene fruitless (fru), which is expressed inthe antennal lobe as well as the suboesophageal ganglion (the gustatory inputsare processed here), also induce homosexual courtship in males. These resultssuggest that sensory inputs mediated and/or processed by the tarsal receptors,suboesophageal ganglion, antennal lobe and mushroom body contribute to theregulation of male-female courtship. Mosaic analysis localized the neural centerfor male courtship behavior to the posterior dorsal brain, in which the sensoryinformation processed by the aforementioned neural structures may be integrated.Another mosaic study mapped the neural center for female sexual behavior, asmeasured by her receptiveness to copulation, to the anterior dorsal brain. Theissue as to how the mutations that reduce female sexual receptiveness, e.g.dissatisfaction (dsf), spinster (spin) and chaste (cht), affect the structureand/or function of this neural center deserves to be addressed urgently.Publication Types:ReviewReview, TutorialPMID: 11212311 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

7: J Neurosci 2001 Jan 15;21(2):513-26 Abnormalities of male-specific FRU protein and serotonin expression in the CNSof fruitless mutants in Drosophila.Lee G, Hall JC.Department of Biology, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts 02454, USA.The fruitless gene in Drosophila produces male-specific protein (FRU(M)) involved in the control of courtship. FRU(M) spatial and temporal patterns were examined in fru mutants that exhibit aberrant male courtship. Chromosome breakpoints at the locus eliminated FRU(M). Homozygous viable mutants exhibited an intriguing array of defects. In fru(1) males, there were absences ofFRU(M)-expressing neuronal clusters or stained cells within certain clusters,reductions of signal intensities in others, and ectopic FRU(M) expression in novel cells. fru(2) males exhibited an overall decrement of FRU(M) expression inall neurons normally expressing the gene. fru(4) and fru(sat) mutants onlyproduced FRU(M) in small numbers of neurons at extremely low levels, and noFRU(M) signals were detected in fru(3) males. This array of abnormalities was inferred to correlate with the varying behavioral defects exhibited by these mutants. Such abnormalities include courtship among males, which has been hypothesized to involve anomalies of serotonin (5-HT) function in the brain.However, double-labeling uncovered no coexpression of FRU(M) and 5-HT in brainneurons. Yet, a newly identified set of sexually dimorphic FRU(M)/5-HT-positive neurons was identified in the abdominal ganglion of adult males. These sexually dimorphic neurons (s-Abg) project toward regions of the abdomen involved in male reproduction. The s-Abg neurons and the proximal extents of their axons were unstained or absent in wild-type females and exhibited subnormal or no 5-HTimmunoreactivity in certain fru-mutant males, indicating that fruitless controls the formation of these cells or 5-HT production in them.

13: Science 1993 Dec 24;262(5142):2063-5 Comment on:Science. 1993 Jul 16;261(5119):321-7Male sexual orientation and genetic evidence.Risch N, Squires-Wheeler E, Keats BJ.Publication Types:CommentLetterPMID: 8266107 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

14: Nat Genet 1995 Nov;11(3):248-56 Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females.Hu S, Pattatucci AM, Patterson C, Li L, Fulker DW, Cherny SS, Kruglyak L, HamerDH.Laboratory of Biochemistry, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes ofHealth, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA.We have extended our analysis of the role of the long arm of the X chromosome(Xq28) in sexual orientation by DNA linkage analyses of two newly ascertainedseries of families that contained either two gay brothers or two lesbian sistersas well as heterosexual siblings. Linkage between the Xq28 markers and sexualorientation was detected for the gay male families but not for the lesbianfamilies or for families that failed to meet defined inclusion criteria for thestudy of sex-linked sexual orientation. Our results corroborate the previously reported linkage between Xq28 and male homosexuality in selected kinships andsuggest that this region contains a locus that influences individual variationsin sexual orientation in men but not in women.PMID: 7581447 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]15: Sci Am 1994 May;270(5):44-9 Evidence for a biological influence in male homosexuality.LeVay S, Hamer DH.Publication Types:ReviewReview, TutorialPMID: 8197444 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
16: Science 1993 Jul 16;261(5119):321-7 Comment in:Science. 1993 Jul 16;261(5119):291-2.Science. 1993 Sep 3;261(5126):1257; discussion 1259.

Science. 1993 Sep 3;261(5126):1258-9.A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation.Hamer DH, Hu S, Magnuson VL, Hu N, Pattatucci AM.Laboratory of Biochemistry, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes ofHealth, Bethesda, MD 20892.The role of genetics in male sexual orientation was investigated by pedigree andlinkage analyses on 114 families of homosexual men. Increased rates of same-sexorientation were found in the maternal uncles and male cousins of thesesubjects, but not in their fathers or paternal relatives, suggesting thepossibility of sex-linked transmission in a portion of the population. DNAlinkage analysis of a selected group of 40 families in which there were two gaybrothers and no indication of nonmaternal transmission revealed a correlationbetween homosexual orientation and the inheritance of polymorphic markers on theX chromosome in approximately 64 percent of the sib-pairs tested. The linkage tomarkers on Xq28, the subtelomeric region of the long arm of the sex chromosome,had a multipoint lod score of 4.0 (P = 10(-5), indicating a statisticalconfidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of malesexual orientation is genetically influenced.PMID: 8332896 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

17: J Pers Soc Psychol 2000 Mar;78(3):524-36 Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates inan Australian twin sample.Bailey JM, Dunne MP, Martin NG.Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois60208-2710, USA. jm-bailey@nwu.eduWe recruited twins systematically from the Australian Twin Registry and assessedtheir sexual orientation and 2 related traits: childhood gender nonconformityand continuous gender identity. Men and women differed in their distributions of sexual orientation, with women more likely to have slight-to-moderate degrees of homosexual attraction, and men more likely to have high degrees of homosexual attraction. Twin concordances for nonheterosexual orientation were lower than in prior studies. Univariate analyses showed that familial factors were important for all traits, but were less successful in distinguishing genetic from shared environmental influences. Only childhood gender nonconformity was significantly heritable for both men and women. Multivariate analyses suggested that the causal architecture differed between men and women, and, for women, provided significant evidence for the importance of genetic factors to the traits'covariation.

These are not all of them. But a PubMed search will turn up more.

mattydrag said:

Well no. After the DNA's are mutated, can you show how it evolves? 2 mutations what are they? These mutations do they show how we as humans today are progressing at all?

Click to expand...

Oh, boy, where to start. Bear with me, this is going to take some time.

Evolution happens to populations. Not individuals. It's the characteristics of the population that changes over the generations.

Evolution is not about "progress". It's about adapting to the environment. And the environment is everything that interacts with an individual -- climate, predators, prey, brothers and sisters, other members of your species, availability and type of food that you eat, etc. Now, later I'll get to evidence that some populations of humans are adapting to different environments and are changing. But to say "progress" means that you have to put a value judgement on change, and evolution can't do that.

I can't show you the mutations that you have, because I don't have the sequence of all of your DNA. Many mutations are "silent" in that they make no difference to the proteins coded by the DNA. Proteins are made up of amino acids and each 3 bases in DNA code for an amino acid. There are 64 groups of 3 bases (there are 4 bases) and only 20 amino acids with 2 start and 2 stop groups. So many amino acids have 2 or 3 groups of 3 bases (called a codon) that code for them. The third base can often be a different base and still make the same amino acid. These mutations are called "silent". Many amino acids have similar properties, so changing that amino acid doesn't change the protein. For instance, both leucine and isoleucine are amino acids, but they are really similar. So a mutation that changes a leucine to an isoleucine isn't going to make any difference.

Now, once there is a mutation that does make a difference, it is subject to natural selection. However, humans are pretty immune to natural selection right now, because our technology ensures that most people survive and have kids. But, in most populations, there are always more kids born in a generation than can survive and reproduce. In fact, most natural populations are static -- the numbers don't change from generation to generation. But, that is because the excess is eliminated before they can have kids. So, there is a metaphorical "struggle for existence". Think of it like an elimination tournament in sports. Any variation (and mutations are one type of variation) that gives an advantage in the tournament and helps the individual "win" will have that individual survive and have kids. And, because of inheritance, the mutation will likely be passed down to his kids.

Over generations, what this means is that a favorable mutation will end up being in every member of the population because everyone will be descended from that individual that got lucky and got the mutation first. So, the population has changed from no one with the mutation to everyone having the mutation.

Now, for humans, one mutation that has been identified that makes us human is in the FOXP2 gene. This genes controls the fine muscles for speech. Between us and other species there is a change in one amino acid that allows us to have fine control of these muscles and complex speech.

Now, for humans evolving, some populations of humans are relatively isolated from the rest of humanity. These include people who live at high altitude in the Andes and Himalayas. These people have separate changes that allow them to live at that altitude:
http://www.biology-online.org/2/11_natural_selection.htm

The !Kung live in the Kalahari desert and have adaptations to living in that desert. !Kung have some forms of some genes (alleles) that are unique to them and not present in any other human population.