the theory of evolution

PROPHECYKID · Apr 15, 2012

Schroeder said:
sO how do genes create new functions. If all we see came from a single cell organism how did the dna of it, or whatever it may have been, come to create new info to speciate into new completely different organisms. Besides the usual a tiny change at a time. Say a fish coming to get info in its dna to know what to do with a DEFECT in its reproduction that supposedly had it become a land animal. How would a animal always in the sea get info in its dna to be a land animal. know what to eat, how to deal with weather change, what food to eat, etc. maybe i have heard this explained but just have forgotten.

It just seems impossible to me to have a animal suddenly have a DEFECT in its reproduction and some how figure out how to use it in a way that makes it a whole different class of animal. wheres the info coming from to help it do such things.

This video explored this subject and much more.
105 - The Genes Of Genesis - Amazing Discoveries TV

chilehed · Aug 18, 2012

Schroeder said:
So how do genes create new functions...

It's just thermodynamics. A base-pair mutation can result in the expression of a different protein, the end result being some difference in the organism. It's chemicals doing what chemicals do.

Schroeder · Jan 28, 2013

chilehed said:
It's just thermodynamics. A base-pair mutation can result in the expression of a different protein, the end result being some difference in the organism. It's chemicals doing what chemicals do.

chemicals dont evolve.

Schroeder · Jan 28, 2013

cupid dave said:
Apes have 24 chromosomes.

About 7 million years ago, one mutation oxcurred as an Act-of-god which fused two of the chromosomes togther, give all humans thereafter only 23 chromosomes.

Gen 5:2 says god called them, the man and his wife, the "Adamites," a species:

Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created.

The text of Genesis 5 compared to the present paleonotology.

it says HUMANKIND not adam. and in genesis 1:26 it states they were created separate of animals. though you could argue that God created more humans then just adam and eve. but that Adam and eve were part of his plan of salvation or work to save man or whatever. that there were more then adam and eve. It says He created THEM. It goes on to say God said they were to eat the fruit and herbs. So they might not have eaten each other at this time. Also death is not a sin so they could still die without messing up the whole idea of orginal sin. And die without killing each other for food. But again i wasnt there and its not clear so its hardly an arguement.

mathetes123 · Jan 28, 2013

Incariol said:
Mutations.

Again, through mutations.

Why?

It probably wouldn't, which is why such enormous changes don't happen rapidly.

Yeah, because it happens gradually, not all at once.

Learning.

Mutations dont add information, only jibberish. Information and design comes from an intelligent designer.

troodon · Jan 28, 2013

mathetes123 said:
Mutations dont add information, only jibberish. Information and design comes from an intelligent designer.

Right, so the mutations responsible for many Europeans maintaining lactose tolerance into adulthood aren't actual mutations? It is, in fact, the lactose intolerant human beings (the vast majority of the earth's population) who carry the mutation?

Out of curiosity, what sort of selective pressure was it that made lactose intolerance of such high importance to Asians and Native Americans? I mean, under your model for this, that selective pressure had to have virtually wiped out the genes for lactose tolerance in these races... lactose tolerance was (apparently) a death sentence in Asia and North America for thousands of years. Very strange.

mark kennedy · Jan 31, 2013

troodon said:
Right, so the mutations responsible for many Europeans maintaining lactose tolerance into adulthood aren't actual mutations? It is, in fact, the lactose intolerant human beings (the vast majority of the earth's population) who carry the mutation?

Out of curiosity, what sort of selective pressure was it that made lactose intolerance of such high importance to Asians and Native Americans? I mean, under your model for this, that selective pressure had to have virtually wiped out the genes for lactose tolerance in these races... lactose tolerance was (apparently) a death sentence in Asia and North America for thousands of years. Very strange.

It's actually a mutation in the LCT gene that is causing lactose intolerance. In this case it's exactly what he is describing, a disruption of the natural process due to an error in the gene. With such an array of DNA repair mechanisms it's puzzling that mutations get past such a strict screening process but obviously they do. I think it comes down to a cost/benefit thing, it's just more trouble then it's worth to repair this dysfunctional gene.

troodon · Jan 31, 2013

mark kennedy said:
It's actually a mutation in the LCT gene that is causing lactose intolerance. In this case it's exactly what he is describing, a disruption of the natural process due to an error in the gene. With such an array of DNA repair mechanisms it's puzzling that mutations get past such a strict screening process but obviously they do. I think it comes down to a cost/benefit thing, it's just more trouble then it's worth to repair this dysfunctional gene.

This paper says that non-persistence is basal, as do this one and this one. These are all recent papers by the way, it's not like I'm delving into the '70s to find stuff that agrees with my claim.

The first one claims that "Several authors (16) have attempted to make mathematical models, often assuming coevolution of the cultural trait of milk drinking, to explain how modern gene frequencies of lactase persistence were reached within 6000–9000 years, the period since humans first domesticated livestock and practiced milk-based pastoralism. All models make the assumption that the ancestral state was nonpersistence (the normal mammalian state), and this is strongly supported by the haplotype phylogenies (see below)" so it sounds to me like this is, indeed, the prevailing interpretation of the data.

the theory of evolution

PROPHECYKID

Veteran

More options

chilehed

Veteran

More options

Schroeder

Veteran

More options

Schroeder

Veteran

More options

mathetes123

Newbie

More options

troodon

Be wise and be smart

More options

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum

More options

troodon

Be wise and be smart

More options

Similar threads

the theory of evolution

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Newbie

Be wise and be smart

Natura non facit saltum

Be wise and be smart

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency