What is the mechanism to stop "kinds"from turning into other "kinds"?

[pitabread]

Agreed, what already existed was inserted where it was not before. Yet it is you that insists we start with just a few letters of the DNA strand and then make more letters where they did not exist before. No, even worse, that these few letters not only make more, but become all brand new letters different from the original.

Do you understand what DNA is? You do those "letters" are not merely letters but actually chemical bases that make up molecular DNA (specifically guanine, cytosine, adenine, and thymine).

We already can and do observe a variety of mutations including simple base-pair substitutions to insertions, deletions, translocations, etc, all of which have the effect of re-arranging DNA sequences and result in novel DNA sequences.

So I have no idea what you mean by "make more letters where they did not exist before", since that by definition is what we see during DNA replication.

Furthermore, I have no idea where you got this bizarre notion of requiring "all brand new letters different from the original". I feel like you're just holding a pair of goalposts and running around with them willy-nilly at this point.

I require only what we see. The same DNA letters copied into the same format, different formats, or inserted into new places. All this supports my contention and assertions, not yours. You simply reaffirm what I have said over and over again without realizing it. Confusing the copying or insertion of DNA letters that already existed into a new order or new place, as meaning the same as a new DNA letter existing where that letter did not exist before in the DNA strand.

An insertion by definition is the insertion of a DNA nucleotide or nucleotides where they didn't exist before. Unless you are operating under a bizarre notion of how DNA works, what you want is already demonstrable.

Perhaps you should take some time to familiarize yourself with what DNA is: DNA - Wikipedia

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh, you mean like a point mutation.

Point mutation - Wikipedia

Golly, I am shocked that a biology expert like you does not understand this high school level stuff.

Allie... hilarious.

Sigh, you still simply show me what already exists.



Insertion of what already existed, deletion of what existed or substituting what exists with something else that already existed.

Im shocked someone claiming to understand biology cant get it thru their heads what it means to make a new DNA letter where that letter did not exist before.

Again, you only confirm what I have said over and over. You can only insert, delete or replace what existed with what exists. Never can you show an example of a new DNA letter being made.

 

[pitabread]

Im shocked someone claiming to understand biology cant get it thru their heads what it means to make a new DNA letter where that letter did not exist before.

Well superstar, why not explain it to us then? Since you're such an expert and all...

Never can you show an example of a new DNA letter being made.

What does this mean? Are you talking about the formation of a completely new chemical base? What does that have to do with anything?

 

[USincognito]

DNA. Like a computer program, it is only good for
one type of organism. Each 'kind' of plant and animal
require a specific OS, or DNA; written exclusively for them.

No, just no.

 

[USincognito]

"Kind" is a meaningless term with respect to biology.



This is a bizarre argument given that Mastiffs and Huskys didn't previously exist, but were both derived breeds from earlier canid species.

Or do you believe all dog breeds were individual created and weren't a result of domestication and artificial breeding?



Except species have "split" in two: Observed Instances of Speciation

Oh my word, is he still spamming his dog breading garbage. After the 40th time I had to block him.

 

[pitabread]

Oh my word, is he still spamming his dog breading garbage. After the 40th time I had to block him.

Really? So not his first time 'round the block with this nonsense?

Had I known, I wouldn't have wasted the time trying to engage. Oh well.

 

[USincognito]

Really? So not his first time 'round the block with this nonsense?

Had I known, I wouldn't have wasted the time trying to engage. Oh well.

Do a search for Chinook. You'll get at least a hundred hits and they'll all be him or a response to him.

 

[HitchSlap]

Sigh, you still simply show me what already exists.



Insertion of what already existed, deletion of what existed or substituting what exists with something else that already existed.

Im shocked someone claiming to understand biology cant get it thru their heads what it means to make a new DNA letter where that letter did not exist before.

Again, you only confirm what I have said over and over. You can only insert, delete or replace what existed with what exists. Never can you show an example of a new DNA letter being made.

This is the unintelligible.

 

[Jimmy D]

This month and next month I will see adaptation myself.
so ?
Whent the weather turns colder, I wear warmer shirts and sometimes a jacket or a coat if I have one.

That is never called properly evolution by anyone.

Apologies, I thought I was asking Justa for some reason. I don't feel that your preaching adds anything to the disscusion so I'll leave it there.

 

[Jimmy D]

Why not call Africans a separate species from Asians then?

Are you really pretending that you don't know the answer to this? How dishonest. I know for a fact that it has been explained to you. There is not enought genetic variation between different races to classify them as a sub species, neither are they geographically isolated.

The proportion of human genetic variation due to differences between populations is modest, and individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population.
Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations


"It is the highest form of self-respect to admit our errors and mistakes and make amends for them. To make a mistake is only an error in judgment, but to adhere to it when it is discovered shows infirmity of character."

Dale Turner

 

[Jimmy D]

What is the mechanism and how does it work that stops accumulated mutations from accumulating to the point of classifying the organism as, creationists say "something completely different "?

Because there are millions of pieces of evidence that says that can happen then it is certainly up to those that say it cannot to produce even more evidence for that position.

And of course it is entirely possible. I'd just like to know if it is fact, and if so, how does it work.

It would appear that there is no physical barrier that creationists can point to.

 

[AV1611VET]

It would appear that there is no physical barrier that creationists can point to.

Correct.

If the sheriff says, "Don't leave town," there's no barrier at the edge of town that scientists will be able to find.

Even if they looked all day.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Cats birth cats, dogs birth dogs, elephants birth elephants....

And felines birth felines.
And mammals birth mammals.
And tetrapods birth tetrapods.

Are you getting the hint?

Here's where you define the word "kind"?

Is "mammal" a "kind"?
How about "feline"?

[qutoe]
p.s. remember mankind is evil and full of wickedness, everywhere except the small remnant. All the money making enterprises under the sway of satan have NO MOTIVE TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT.

They don't have to be honest, and they aren't. (this includes every category of mankind's enterprises, including religion).[/QUOTE]

Not sure what this irrelevant bit does in this thread.

 

[DogmaHunter]

DNA. Like a computer program, it is only good for
one type of organism. Each 'kind' of plant and animal
require a specific OS, or DNA; written exclusively for them.

So how do you then explain all the observed instances of speciation?

 

[DogmaHunter]

i will give you 2 reasons:

1) some biological systems need at least several parts to their minimal function. for instance: the auditory system need at least 3-4 parts for a minimal hearing. so it can't evolve in a functional stepwise-

the image from here:

The Auditory System | VT Hearing Aids and Evaluations | Bennington/Manchester/Rutland | Southern VT Audiology

It's funny because if you compare mammalian hearing system to reptile hearing system, you can see that the reptiles are "missing" several of those mammalian parts.

ps: the parts they are missing, are actually found as jaw re-inforcements in reptiles. Yet reptiles hear just fine (for their way of life)

2) since complex systems are evidence for design

They are not. As has been explained to you a billion times before.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The mechanism is the inbuilt correction within the DNA.
No species has ever become another species, unless incorrectly classified. Thats the entire point.....

Observed Instances of Speciation

 

[tas8831]

Ask God, he is the one that did it.

You could have just written "I don't know."

But since you gave a 'real' answer - what is the evidence that supports it?

Ever seen a child born that didnt receive half his genes from the father and half from the mother?

Who was Eve's mother?

Thought not. That you failed to understand what complete meant is not my fault, nor half into Eve.

That you left out where Eve got the other half from is not my fault.

That you don't think through your knee-jerk replies is not my fault.

What Adam was is not what you and I are. Adam was created perfect.

Still no evidence for this.

And he did, what was in Eve once was all contained in Adam. This is why it takes a male and female to produce children.

Ad hoc nonsense. So now you are doubling-back to Adam being polyploid = dead.

And forever remain e coli of the same subspecies.

But they don't mate, which you apparently did not learn in your imaginary biology classes.

Apparently you missed the class, or just chose to miss the point made.

I did not miss the class wherein it was claimed that bacteria mate, because no such class exists (maybe in home school). And there was no point to be made since its foundational premise was in error.

 

[Jimmy D]

Correct.

If the sheriff says, "Don't leave town," there's no barrier at the edge of town that scientists will be able to find.

Even if they looked all day.

Sadly the Sheriff went missing a long time ago, all we've got are vague recollections from people who never met him.

 

[tas8831]

Lets understand it is not the same at all.

It belongs to the cytochrome c family of proteins.

That you might confuse an entire family of proteins as being the same, might be the start of the problem.

You seem to be implying that I got tripped up because I didn't know that there are families. But, you see, I do know about that. Unlike you, apparently, I also know that when comparing a protein or a gene from one species to another, the folks doing the comparing also know that there is more than one, and actually make sure that they are comparing the same proteins/genes.

Because - and I know this might be hard for you to admit - there are people that do this for a living and know more about it than a dude that just googles things as they come up.

And here I thought you wanted to label all those sub members of the same family as separate. I stand corrected. It now appears you wanted to label sub members as being the same.

You stand corrected for thinking that when comparing cytochrome c in one species to another, you thought I was referring to comparing different classes of cytochrome c.



Nice diversion, but the point remains - and actually I need to correct something I had written - I said they DIFFER by 80%, that is wrong - they are about 80% similar (differ by 80%).

But my point remains unaddressed.

 

[tas8831]

Sigh, you still simply show me what already exists.

Sigh, so you really think that we should be able to show you a nucleotide popping into existence from nothing? That is what YOU believe, not me.

Where do you think nucleotides come from?

Insertion of what already existed, deletion of what existed or substituting what exists with something else that already existed.

That is how it works.

But apparently I am wrong - please tell me, oh biology expert, where nucleotides come from.

Where do you think the nucleotides used in DNA replication come from?

Please tell me, I yearn to learn!

Im shocked someone claiming to understand biology cant get it thru their heads what it means to make a new DNA letter where that letter did not exist before.

I'm shocked that the greatest biologist on christianforums thinks that DNA is a letter.

Also shocked that the guy claiming DNA is a bunch of letters does not understand that the letters do not magically appear.

Again, you only confirm what I have said over and over. You can only insert, delete or replace what existed with what exists. Never can you show an example of a new DNA letter being made.

You cannot explain what you mean by "new DNA letter being made".


Here are some papers about nucleotide synthesis.

Take a gander at those and marvel at the fact that nucleiotdes can be made in cells, and those nucleotides are then used to synthesize DNA (not letters), and that when this happens, mutations are incorporated.

Also - read this:

The Dunning-Kruger Effect Shows Why Some People Think They're Great Even When Their Work Is Terrible