My Stupid Challenge

[-57]

Chuck D was a rapper (Public Enemy) who made an album called Fear Of A Black Planet. I think you have a fear of descent with modification.

Oh. OK.
NEXT

 

[AV1611VET]

When Adam has the same amount of support that Darwin has,

Then Adam would have to drop a LOT of support.

He has had support since 4004 BC.

Darwin only since 1809 AD.

 

[-57]

Citation required.

You can't demonstrate how mutations add up. All you do is present a coloring book version and claim they do. No citation required...only common sense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Citation required.

We're a little low on citations.

We tend to drive responsibly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can't demonstrate how mutations add up.

Lol....

You mean, aside of being able to check the DNA of your child and find therein the mutations of both you and your parents?

 

[-57]

Lol....

You mean, aside of being able to check the DNA of your child and find therein the mutations of both you and your parents?

...now add to that mutation over and over again until a new body part, organ, system etc is realized.

 

[blackribbon]

...now add to that mutation over and over again until a new body part, organ, system etc is realized.

First of all, there is no evidence of a mutation happening between most parents and children....even in the off hand chance someone does a DNA study (you act like they do this all the time). And the plain truth is there is zero scientific evidence that a mutation ever IMPROVED any creature. Mutations are mistakes and if the mutation is bad or extreme enough, it often means that the animal can't reproduce. There is certainly no proof that a new body part or organ appears (well, that improved an animal)...and a new body part would never be considered an improvement but at horrible mutation (we work hard to keep extra limbs off our newborns). And definitely no proof of change from one species to another. That goes against the 2nd law of dynamics which basically things go from organized to disorganized and nothing gets "better" or more organized over time. There are changes within a species but this is not "evolution" but rather adaptation (meaning because white alligators are easier to see, they will be killed first ... therefore, there will be less white alligator DNA in the population and less white alligators ... but all alligators will remain 100% alligator and not turn into some other sort-of-alligator like animal).

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

First of all, there is no evidence of a mutation happening between most parents and children....even in the off hand chance someone does a DNA study (you act like they do this all the time). And the plain truth is there is zero scientific evidence that a mutation ever IMPROVED any creature.

Paternity Tests! We DO do this all the time! The same process can be used to determine how closely (or far away) you are related to any other person with a high degree of fidelity. The same process can be used to show how distantly related any two species on the planet are inter-related. There have indeed been studies on these mutation rates, and they come in at between 70 and 120 mutations for each child that doesn't appear in either of its parents. These mutation rates are one metric for how we measure the differences between parents & offspring or between species.

On beneficial mutations, here's four beneficial mutations in humans alone from http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans that I found in a 7 second google search...

Beneficial mutation #1: Apolipoprotein AI-Milano

Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.

Beneficial mutation #2: Increased bone density

One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can amplify its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.

Beneficial mutation #3: Malaria resistance

As reported in 2001 (see also), Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease.

Beneficial mutation #4: Tetrachromatic vision

Most mammals have poor color vision because they have only two kinds of cones, the retinal cells that discriminate different colors of light. Humans, like other primates, have three kinds, the legacy of a past where good color vision for finding ripe, brightly colored fruit was a survival advantage.

The gene for one kind of cone, which responds most strongly to blue, is found on chromosome 7. The two other kinds, which are sensitive to red and green, are both on the X chromosome. Since men have only one X, a mutation which disables either the red or the green gene will produce red-green colorblindness, while women have a backup copy. This explains why this is almost exclusively a male condition.

There is certainly no proof that a new body part or organ appears (well, that improved an animal)...and a new body part would never be considered an improvement but at horrible mutation (we work hard to keep extra limbs off our newborns).

On new limbs, etc. There's a population of lizards that grew a cecal valve digestive tract among many other changes in as little as 36 years of evolution ( see: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm for details ) -

So, that was all pretty easy to find, first page of a Google search for all of this. I know they're not scientific papers but these serve as great primers for the actual scientific papers that support these layman news bites... I hope you don't have a strong penchant to avoid the evidence?

 

[Speedwell]

First of all, there is no evidence of a mutation happening between most parents and children....

No evidence, never been observed, yada yada yada--all straight from some second-rate creationist propaganda mill. If you are going to just parrot the stuff, try one of the more reputable sites like Answers in Genesis.

Or, you could learn what the theory of evolution actually claims and what evidence actually exists for it, but I see little hope of that.

 

[blackribbon]

Paternity Tests! We DO do this all the time! The same process can be used to determine how closely (or far away) you are related to any other person with a high degree of fidelity. The same process can be used to show how distantly related any two species on the planet are inter-related.

On beneficial mutations, here's four beneficial mutations in humans alone from http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans that I found in a 7 second google search...

Beneficial mutation #1: Apolipoprotein AI-Milano

Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.

Beneficial mutation #2: Increased bone density

One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can amplify its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.

Beneficial mutation #3: Malaria resistance

As reported in 2001 (see also), Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease.

Beneficial mutation #4: Tetrachromatic vision

Most mammals have poor color vision because they have only two kinds of cones, the retinal cells that discriminate different colors of light. Humans, like other primates, have three kinds, the legacy of a past where good color vision for finding ripe, brightly colored fruit was a survival advantage.

The gene for one kind of cone, which responds most strongly to blue, is found on chromosome 7. The two other kinds, which are sensitive to red and green, are both on the X chromosome. Since men have only one X, a mutation which disables either the red or the green gene will produce red-green colorblindness, while women have a backup copy. This explains why this is almost exclusively a male condition.

On new limbs, etc. There's a population of lizards that grew a cecal valve digestive tract among many other changes in as little as 36 years of evolution ( see: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm for details ) -

So, that was all pretty easy to find, first page of a Google search for all of this. I know they're not scientific papers but these serve as great primers for the actual scientific papers that support these layman news bites... I hope you don't have a strong penchant to avoid the evidence?

Um...you have proven ADAPTATION, not evolution or that these genes are MUTATIONS...

As for paternity test....they are NOT genetic studies for mutations.... Have you had a genetic study done on you or your kids...or your parents...one focused on finding genetic MUTATIONS? No, these are not common. The closest might be the few that are done in utero to look for specific mutations...the kind that lead people to chose abortions. Or we do genetic mutation studies on babies that were spontaneous aborted to determine why.

Lets take your lizard example. For these to be indeed a "new species", it would have to be proven that the new "evolved" lizards could no longer breed with the original population. But if they can, they are still just variations or adaptations of the original animal and the same species.

 

[blackribbon]

No evidence, never been observed, yada yada yada--all straight from some second-rate creationist propaganda mill. If you are going to just parrot the stuff, try one of the more reputable sites like Answers in Genesis.

Or, you could learn what the theory of evolution actually claims and what evidence actually exists for it, but I see little hope of that.

Now that is useful scientific conversation..."yada yada yada". Thanks for your enlightened input.

 

[Speedwell]

Now that is useful scientific conversation..."yada yada yada". Thanks for your enlightened input.

Just giving you useful advice. Until you learn how evolution is supposed by science to work, you can't argue effectively against it. Spouting ill-informed nonsense about the role of mutations in evolution, denying that speciation has ever been observed and things like that will get you nowhere.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Um...you have proven ADAPTATION, not evolution or that these genes are MUTATIONS...

Adaptation across generations is evolution. Mutations that pass onto the next generation is an evolutionary process.

As for paternity test....they are NOT genetic studies for mutations.... Have you had a genetic study done on you or your kids...or your parents...one focused on finding genetic MUTATIONS? No, these are not common. The closest might be the few that are done in utero to look for specific mutations...the kind that lead people to chose abortions. Or we do genetic mutation studies on babies that were spontaneous aborted to determine why.

Like This genetic study for mutations in family mitochondrial DNA? http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/45860171/Parsons_TJ_Muniec_DS_Sullivan_K_et_al._A20160522-25677-10rrjxp.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1479067759&Signature=/uCdQVUi2FADJ66JKbKPzwpT4vU=&response-content-disposition=inline; filename=A_high_observed_substitution_rate_in_the.pdf - Same thing, first page of a Google search.

Lets take your lizard example. For these to be indeed a "new species", it would have to be proven that the new "evolved" lizards could no longer breed with the original population. But if they can, they are still just variations or adaptations of the original animal and the same species.

Even though they aren't considered a new species just yet anyway, I still have to ask: Why do they have to be unable to interbreed to be considered a new species? To give you some perspective, please answer the following:

1. are the European Herring and the Siberian Lesser Black-backed Gulls in northern Europe capable of producing offspring with each other?
2. for Extra points: Are they the same species? Why/Why not?

To help you decide, the European Herring can hybridize with the American Herring Gull living in North America, which can hybridize with the Vega or East Siberian Herring Gull, the western subspecies of which, Birula's Gull, can hybridize with Heuglin's gull, which in turn can hybridize with the Siberian Lesser Black-backed Gull. (see: http://www.darwinwasright.org/ring_species.html)

3. Are all of these Gulls the same species? Why/Why not?

 

[blackribbon]

Adaptation across generations is evolution. Mutations that pass onto the next generation is an evolutionary process.

Like This genetic study for mutations in family mitochondrial DNA? http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/45860171/Parsons_TJ_Muniec_DS_Sullivan_K_et_al._A20160522-25677-10rrjxp.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1479067759&Signature=/uCdQVUi2FADJ66JKbKPzwpT4vU=&response-content-disposition=inline; filename=A_high_observed_substitution_rate_in_the.pdf - Same thing, first page of a Google search.

Even though they aren't considered a new species just yet anyway, I still have to ask: Why do they have to be unable to interbreed to be considered a new species? To give you some perspective, please answer the following:

1. are the European Herring and the Siberian Lesser Black-backed Gulls in northern Europe capable of producing offspring with each other?
2. for Extra points: Are they the same species? Why/Why not?

To help you decide, the European Herring can hybridize with the American Herring Gull living in North America, which can hybridize with the Vega or East Siberian Herring Gull, the western subspecies of which, Birula's Gull, can hybridize with Heuglin's gull, which in turn can hybridize with the Siberian Lesser Black-backed Gull. (see: http://www.darwinwasright.org/ring_species.html)

3. Are all of these Gulls the same species? Why/Why not?

Part of the scientific definition of a species includes the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. So a horse and a donkey are not the same species because although they can produce an offspring (the mule), it is unable to reproduce. Gulls are a single species...so they can produce other gulls including plenty of hybrids which are ALL GULLS but they cannot interbreed with a pelican because it is a different SPECIES. In other words, a gull will always be a gull. This is high school level biology...not advanced genetics.

Proof of evolution on the most basic level would need to include an example of one species evolving into another species. Not adaptation or changes within a species (or "kind").

Further more, evolution requires that life come from something/products that were not living. Spontaneous generation has been proven false and it is the very basic premise of evolution. Evolutionist believe that life came from non-life by some mysterious action a million billion years ago. Creationists believe that life came from life/or a Living God. Which honestly, makes more sense and is more scientific feasible. If you want to convince me otherwise, I need to know what is the mechanism that turned mud or even chemicals into the most basic & simple yet very complex form of life, the bacteria.

 

[blackribbon]

Just giving you useful advice. Until you learn how evolution is supposed by science to work, you can't argue effectively against it. Spouting ill-informed nonsense about the role of mutations in evolution, denying that speciation has ever been observed and things like that will get you nowhere.

I do understand how evolution is supposed to work and it makes no sense scientifically. Spontaneous generation is not possible and is considered scientifically false. However, it is the very basic premise of evolution. Evolution requires some sort of magic to have even started the process...and magic isn't scientific. In order to believe in evolution, a person has to have faith in the unknown and unseen...which kind of sounds like religion and not science.

Evolution doesn't have any tangible proof...if it did, I would expect that there would be at least one human example of a person who wasn't completely human in some medical study by now. However, even in my major huge hospital, we only treat regular humans...not a single unit for not fully human beings...and even all the babies keep turning out to be fully human....even the genetically damaged or mutated ones in the NICU.

 

[blackribbon]

Can I add a third person to "believe" in?

Louis Pasteur and the LAW of Biogenesis (note...not a "theory" but an accepted scientific LAW).

 

[miknik5]

Which one is stupider?

1. Denying Adam (4004-3074 BC)

2. Denying Darwin (AD 1809-1882)

Please comment.

LOL!!!!

 

[miknik5]

How did any of us get here if it had not been for the first man?

 

[miknik5]

Where did Darwin come from?

 

[Speedwell]

I do understand how evolution is supposed to work and it makes no sense scientifically. Spontaneous generation is not possible and is considered scientifically false. However, it is the very basic premise of evolution. Evolution requires some sort of magic to have even started the process...and magic isn't scientific. In order to believe in evolution, a person has to have faith in the unknown and unseen...which kind of sounds like religion and not science.

Evolution requires the existence of self-replicating organisms which reproduce with variation. How such an organism came into existence is not known. Our lack of knowledge does not, however, invalidate the theory of evolution, which makes no claims about how such organisms arose.

Evolution doesn't have any tangible proof...if it did, I would expect that there would be at least one human example of a person who wasn't completely human in some medical study by now.

Why? The theory of evolution makes no such prediction.