Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well we all get to choose our own fairy tales dont we. If you choose the fairy tale which says "350 million years ago, fish climbed onto a river bank and in less than 200 million years, they filled the land with thousands of 4 legged creatures, many of which changed to bipedal. Oh and they grew in that time to become many dinosaurs that became extinct after a 150 million year reign. This gave mammals a real chance to finally get evolved and within 65 million years we had modern man who can look at the stars and say "Who am I, what is my purpose". Now THAT is a fairy tale hard to believe.
A mutation. See? I only needed two words. Of course, in reality the situation you just described is not the only way for a trait to be present in a child when it was not present in either parent, but there is absolutely no reason why this could not happen. If someone has misled you into thinking it is not possible, that's unfortunate.frogman2x said:Let me make it easy for you. Explain how an offsdpring can get a trait from parents who do not have the gene for the trait.
No.Time is not the friend of evolution. It cannot change proven biological facts.
It's not, which is why I've given it to you. But since you have ignored the evidence, I might as well just be unreasonable at this point.I don't demand to see anything. I expect biological evidence for what is said. Is that unreasonable.
I don't think we can ever come to a common point understanding if we can't agree on facts that have already been observed. Speciation is one of those facts. You've been provided with several examples and haven't given a good explanation for why ANY of them are not speciation.Speciation is not a mechanism for an A to become a B. While some are unable to mate both remain the same species. The salamanders remain salamanders and if they can't find a mate, they become exinct salamanders.
As long as the science doesn't conflict with your religious dogma.Science (real science) is great, I love it. If it wasn't for science I wouldn't have 10 stents and a triple bypass to my coronary arteries keeping me alive today. If it wasn't for science, I wouldn't have been brought back to life twice on the operating table. If it wasn't for science I wouldn't have this wonderful computer with which I can communicate to people all around the globe. If it wasn't for science we wouldn't appreciate the universe as much as we do today. But I must emphasise this is REAL science I'm speaking of. Quantum physics is just amazing too, it's opening doors to some astounding possibilities. So yes, I love science.
Harder to believe than a talking snake, a mud man, a rib woman, and a tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Hardly.Well we all get to choose our own fairy tales dont we. If you choose the fairy tale which says "350 million years ago, fish climbed onto a river bank and in less than 200 million years, they filled the land with thousands of 4 legged creatures, many of which changed to bipedal. Oh and they grew in that time to become many dinosaurs that became extinct after a 150 million year reign. This gave mammals a real chance to finally get evolved and within 65 million years we had modern man who can look at the stars and say "Who am I, what is my purpose". Now THAT is a fairy tale hard to believe.
Okay--great! That's really good for me to hear. So I guess my next question would be, do you have any questions about the various mechanisms for change in DNA over time? This is regardless of common descent, and stuff we can easily verify in a lab--chemistry, physics, and even information theory, all "real science" I think you'd agree (or math). I can't guarantee I can answer them, but there are lots of biologists on this subforum and they love to help spread knowledge, especially for people who are really enthusiastic about science.
Well we all get to choose our own fairy tales dont we.
I just have time to address this right now, but actually most mutations in humans (who are the ones you want to talk about, it seems?) take place in noncoding sequences of DNA, so most mutations do not really do much of anything. There are a variety of mechanisms for this but the end result is that creatures with lots of noncoding DNA usually have a higher mutation rate than organisms that do not.I have looked at mutations in DNA, several times. From what I understand, over 90% (probably more like 99%) of mutations result in the death of the offspring or gives a problem which seriously hinders its existence.
I have looked at mutations in DNA, several times. From what I understand, over 90% (probably more like 99%) of mutations result in the death of the offspring or gives a problem which seriously hinders its existence.
If we are like bacteria, we would be unrecognisable as humans by now.
I have looked at mutations in DNA, several times. From what I understand, over 90% (probably more like 99%) of mutations result in the death of the offspring or gives a problem which seriously hinders its existence.
I can understand this because with DNA mutating randomly, anything can happen and it would be far more likely to produce something not desirable.
I'm not speaking of genes passed on by parents with regards to inherited eye colour etc, obviously. So with 1% being a fairly conservative estimate, it does beg the question, are millions of years enough time?
Every human is born with about 50 mutations.
"Through extensive validation, we identified 49 and 35 germline de novo mutations (DNMs) in two trio offspring, . . ."
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v43/n7/full/ng.862.html
For 50 mutations and a 99% lethality rate, as you claim, this would mean that each zygote has a 0.01^50 of making it, which is a very, very, very tiny number. Obviously, you are wrong. It doesn't take billions of fertilizations for human embryos to get past your completely ridiculous 99% deleterious mutation rate.
This is what I mean about us using facts. We have them. We actually look at them. You ignore them, and then make up stories such as your 90-99% of mutations being lethal fairy tale.
Now that we have your completely ignorant statements about the rate of deleterious mutations out of the way, let's look at the math.
At 50 mutations per generation, per person and a generation time of 25 years in a constant population of just 100,000 over a 5 million year period that puts us at 1 trillion mutations in the human population over the last 5 million years, the time since the proposed common ancestor with chimps. So the math shows that with a relatively small constant population of 100,000 there would have been 1 trillion mutations in that time. How many differences are there between us and chimps?
"Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements."
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature
If we assume that half of those mutations occurred in each of the lineages that puts it at 20 million mutations that had to occur in our lineage to produce the differences we see between humans and chimps. Just 20 million. There were about 1 trillion that did occur. That means that out of the 1 trillion mutations that occurred in the human lineage, just 0.002% of the mutations that did occur had to make it to the present, and many of those are neutral mutations.
We have done the math. It comes out just fine.
I just have time to address this right now, but actually most mutations in humans (who are the ones you want to talk about, it seems?) take place in noncoding sequences of DNA, so most mutations do not really do much of anything. There are a variety of mechanisms for this but the end result is that creatures with lots of noncoding DNA usually have a higher mutation rate than organisms that do not.
I have looked at mutations in DNA, several times. From what I understand, over 90% (probably more like 99%) of mutations result in the death of the offspring or gives a problem which seriously hinders its existence. I can understand this because with DNA mutating randomly, anything can happen and it would be far more likely to produce something not desirable.
With so many mutations going on, what are we observing? What is mutating now in humans?
We choose the facts, not fairy tales. We leave the fairy tales to the creationists.
So if lots of mutations are occurring in non-coding genes, they this is not evolution. Is it?
(Evolution/frog to a prince)
has never been observed and is based on just similarities
Better to call what Christians have faith in as believing in eyewitness accounts of the supernatural
How many fairy tales have talking snakes in them? Does the theory of evolution include talking snakes? A man made from dirt? A "Tree of the knowledge of good and evil?" If I read you GEN1-2, and you didn't know where it was from, would you think it was a literal historical account?I don't think you should be calling numerous eyewitness historical accounts "fairy tales" when what you believe (Evolution/frog to a prince) has never been observed and is based on just similarities. That is more in line with a fairy tale than creationism.
Personally, I don't call creationism a fairy tale, unless a creationist calls evolution a fariy tale (which is quite often here). Other than that, I agree with you.Better to call what Christians have faith in as believing in eyewitness accounts of the supernatural or something like that.
QV my OP.Personally, I don't call creationism a fairy tale, unless a creationist calls evolution a fariy tale (which is quite often here).
Take it easy--we're doing this the slow way, top-up way, not the "gotcha" waySo if lots of mutations are occurring in non-coding genes, they this is not evolution. Is it?
See, this is exactly the sort of thing we can clear up here! It is actually surprisingly subtle how tricky statements in genetics can be.I can understand this because with DNA mutating randomly, anything can happen and it would be far more likely to produce something not desirable.
(3) Error induced during DNA repair. As you can probably tell from these numbers, mutations definitely happen at a quite sizable rate. This is where those DNA repairing processes come in. Now, they wouldn't be very good processes if they have a high error rate, but they do make mistakes sometimes. This is a place where the discussion benefits from talking about simpler protists, because they have a simple (and quite interesting) model for this. See homologous recombination in bacteria.There is increasing evidence that the majority of spontaneously arising mutations are due to error prone replication (translesion synthesis) past a DNA damage in the template strand. As described in the article DNA damage (naturally occurring), naturally occurring DNA damages arise about 10,000 to 100,000 times per day per mammalian cell. In mice, the majority of mutations are caused by translesion synthesis.[22] Similarly, in yeast, Kunz et al.[23] found that more than 60% of the spontaneous single base pair substitutions and deletions were caused by translesion synthesis.
Not only is that a strawman, it's not even a strawman for the right thing.
What about you, frogman? Do you actually believe your own scientific arguments?
Or do you see evolutionists as otherwise sane people who happen to believe in a crazy theory, whose game you have to play if you want to engage them?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?