Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[hammer01 29]

Tail in humans still exists when a mutation happens which allows it to be formed at birth, it's considered an illness now, but it still exists. The pelvic bones in the whale are really just useless, and the wings are pretty useless as well.

 

And on the DNA, you are wrong. First off, it's not a blueprint, a code, or anything like that. Those are just words to help understand what it does, but now what it is. DNA is a sequence of nucleotides, which will then create a certain grid of proteins which will then, be the cause to the "code". Now... DNA is composed of 4 seperate necleotipes, which are expressed as T, A, C, G, of which T can only connect with A and C can only conect with G, and the other way around. A mutation is when one of those necleotipes gets changed, making, or not, changes on the protein it is associated with, and create changes in the being with it. Sometimes a new necleotipe can be added, sometimes it is removed. And that is how mutations happen.

 

[edit] Now for the apes to humans. First off, it's not apes to humans, it's anscestor to apes and humans. The DNA is almost the same already, like something of 98% (I'm not sure on the number). Why is it so close? Because both species have arms, legs, hair, eyes, mouth, heart, lungs, etc. and only that small 2% or whatever percentage it is, will create the diferences between the two species. Now, 2% is it a LOT of mutations, but since they come from the same ancestor, it would be only be needed 1% changes in both (1% for humans and 1% for the apes, which would make them 2% diferent. This isn't exacly like this, as some mutations were probably the same in both cases). Before 2 people have a child (mother and father) their bodies and expecially their sperm and the female egg, will already be subjected to over 100 mutations, that is why the son is not an exact half mother, half father, he is something new, even if close to the parents. That is how fast mutations go, 200 (100 from the father + 100 from the mother) mutations that were not bad (or the parents would of died), at about 20 years old, into just one generation. Over the course of 100 generations, you see the maximum amount of mutations can be quite big (200 on the first gen, 400 (200 + 200) on the second, 800 on the third, so 100 x 2 ^ 100 = a very very big number), but of course most mutations would be the same, and maybe already happen before, so the number is not really that big. Then with all these mutations, why isn't the humans so different from each other? This comes to natural selection, which means, the fit survive, the unfit die in sorter terms, if the group stays together, there will not be much changes as the stronger would mate with the weaker, and the result would be a normal one, and so no changes would happen.

 

So, there are various ways of many changes happeing, which are normally associated with the conditions one creature lives in. Humans had the great evolution of being able to stand stright and start using tools, which then meant they could travel and addapt better to the new enviroment, without taking many changes as they did not need them, but still the changes can be noticeble today, like skin tones, hair color and so forth.

Your missing the point here. The mutation of DNA is the DESTRUCTION of DNA. which means nothing new can exist. Your whole argument is based off the lie that the mutation of DNA adds DNA, and is thus void. The following is a quote form Wikipedea. I will underline what i think is relevant in this current discussion.

 

In genetics, a mutation is a change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element. Mutations result from unrepaired damage to DNA or to RNA genomes (typically caused by radiation or chemical mutagens), from errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements.^[1][2][3]

 

 

 

Note that it says that insertion is possible. The problem is, it doesnt insert any new information, but rather copies DNA for the part being mutated from both parents.

 

 

 

And DNA is essentially a "blueprint" for an organism. You were using a fallacy, making something more complex than it needs to be in order to confuse me. But in all reality, seeing as how i just took a coarse on DNA, i do know what it is.

[Jistuma 1996]

Your missing the point here. The mutation of DNA is the DESTRUCTION of DNA. which means nothing new can exist. Your whole argument is based off the lie that the mutation of DNA adds DNA, and is thus void. The following is a quote form Wikipedea. I will underline what i think is relevant in this current discussion.

 

In genetics, a mutation is a change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element. Mutations result from unrepaired damage to DNA or to RNA genomes (typically caused by radiation or chemical mutagens), from errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements.^[1][2][3]

 

 

 

Note that it says that insertion is possible. The problem is, it doesnt insert any new information, but rather copies DNA for the part being mutated from both parents.

 

 

 

And DNA is essentially a "blueprint" for an organism. You were using a fallacy, making something more complex than it needs to be in order to confuse me. But in all reality, seeing as how i just took a coarse on DNA, i do know what it is.

 

Damn it... thought I posted it... now I have to repeat my whole post.

 

First of, the quote you provided from the wiki does not mean the DNA is destroyed, it means it's changed. Also, you should quote the consequences of the mutation as well:

 

Mutations may or may not produce discernable changes in the observable characteristics (phenotype) of an organism. Mutations play a part in both normal and abnormal biological processes, including evolution, cancer, and the development of the immune system.

You are quote mining, chosing only parts of quotes that help your case while not paying atention of the rest of the text.

 

I'll give you a translation of the portuguese wiki page of that, since the english one has that quote which makes you confused:

 

Em Biologia, mutações são mudanças na sequência dos nucleotídeos do material genético de um organismo. Mutações podem ser causadas por erros de copia do material durante a divisão celular, por exposição a radiação ultravioleta ou ionizante, mutagênicos químicos, ou vírus. A célula pode também causar mutações deliberadamente durante processos conhecidos como hipermutação.

Translation:

In biology, mutations are changes to the sequence of necleotipes of the genetic material of an organism, Mutations can be caused by errors of the copy of the material during cell division, by exposior to ultraviolet or (ionizante, don't know the translation) radiation, by chemical mutagenics, or virus. A cell can also cause mutations delibritly during processes known as hipermutation.

 

Mutations do NOT destroy DNA, they change it. This should be one of the things that would keep you away from the theory of evolution, you have wrong facts about the mutation of DNA.

 

Here, 5 types of mutation:

 

 

I hope I made you learn a bit more of this part of biology that you have wrong facts about.

[hammer01 29]

Damn it... thought I posted it... now I have to repeat my whole post.

 

First of, the quote you provided from the wiki does not mean the DNA is destroyed, it means it's changed. Also, you should quote the consequences of the mutation as well:

 

You are quote mining, chosing only parts of quotes that help your case while not paying atention of the rest of the text.

 

I'll give you a translation of the portuguese wiki page of that, since the english one has that quote which makes you confused:

 

Translation:

In biology, mutations are changes to the sequence of necleotipes of the genetic material of an organism, Mutations can be caused by errors of the copy of the material during cell division, by exposior to ultraviolet or (ionizante, don't know the translation) radiation, by chemical mutagenics, or virus. A cell can also cause mutations delibritly during processes known as hipermutation.

 

Mutations do NOT destroy DNA, they change it. This should be one of the things that would keep you away from the theory of evolution, you have wrong facts about the mutation of DNA.

 

Here, 5 types of mutation:

 

 

I hope I made you learn a bit more of this part of biology that you have wrong facts about.

Fine.I guess i have my terms wrong. But give me one example of mutation of anything that actually added DNA. Thats my point here. It never adds the DNA necessary to make evolution possible. It mixes it around, but never with any good results. You talk about adapting. Then you talk about mutations. Mutations are random. Adapting inst. So which one is it?

[Jistuma 1996]

Fine.I guess i have my terms wrong. But give me one example of mutation of anything that actually added DNA. Thats my point here. It never adds the DNA necessary to make evolution possible. It mixes it around, but never with any good results. You talk about adapting. Then you talk about mutations. Mutations are random. Adapting inst. So which one is it?

As I said, mutations bring change, this change can be good, bad, or just irrelevant. I belive you agree with this?

 

If you don't please tell me and I will give examples on all 3 mutations (good bad and irrelevant). Also, by the DNA also having the capability of combining itself with others, and duplicating, it can add the information (Even if I feel it ain't information, I'll use that word.)

 

Now, why do the bad mutations don't stay? This would be the process of natural selection. Say you have a mutation that makes the teeth rot, the animal would not be able to eat and would die, this means that that animal would not pass that defectve gene into the next generation. Now, if the mutation made the teeth less subjective to rotting, then he would have better chances of surviving and it's offspring would have more chances of having that gene. When only the fit and strong can survive, the offsprings will be fit and strong as well.

[hammer01 29]

As I said, mutations bring change, this change can be good, bad, or just irrelevant. I belive you agree with this?

 

If you don't please tell me and I will give examples on all 3 mutations (good bad and irrelevant). Also, by the DNA also having the capability of combining itself with others, and duplicating, it can add the information (Even if I feel it ain't information, I'll use that word.)

 

Now, why do the bad mutations don't stay? This would be the process of natural selection. Say you have a mutation that makes the teeth rot, the animal would not be able to eat and would die, this means that that animal would not pass that defectve gene into the next generation. Now, if the mutation made the teeth less subjective to rotting, then he would have better chances of surviving and it's offspring would have more chances of having that gene. When only the fit and strong can survive, the offsprings will be fit and strong as well.

I do not agree that mutations bring good change. My point to this whole escapade is that if evolution is the result of mutations then how do we get that other 2 percent of DNA that apes dont have, to get to humans? You answered this saying mutations add DNA, but in reality, they dont. An offspring is the combination of the DNA of both the father and the mother. The father ape does not have any of that other 2 percent of DNA. Neither does the mother. When they breed to have the offspring, if a mutation occurs, One of the following will happen: 1) a chromosome is deleted in the process, which does not result in any new information, 2) a chromosome is duplicated, which still doesn't result in any new information, 3) a chromosome is reversed, which just jumbles up the "code", still no new information is produced, 4) a chromosome is inserted/trans-located(they both seem the same to me...), meaning it is moved into an entirely new place, still no new information is added. No amount of that 2 percent of DNA difference has come from any of those...

 

 

 

I don't think either of us are getting anywhere in this topic...

[Jistuma 1996]

I do not agree that mutations bring good change. My point to this whole escapade is that if evolution is the result of mutations then how do we get that other 2 percent of DNA that apes dont have, to get to humans? You answered this saying mutations add DNA, but in reality, they dont. An offspring is the combination of the DNA of both the father and the mother. The father ape does not have any of that other 2 percent of DNA. Neither does the mother. When they breed to have the offspring, if a mutation occurs, One of the following will happen: 1) a chromosome is deleted in the process, which does not result in any new information, 2) a chromosome is duplicated, which still doesn't result in any new information, 3) a chromosome is reversed, which just jumbles up the "code", still no new information is produced, 4) a chromosome is inserted/trans-located(they both seem the same to me...), meaning it is moved into an entirely new place, still no new information is added. No amount of that 2 percent of DNA difference has come from any of those...

 

 

 

I don't think either of us are getting anywhere in this topic...

Yes, we are getting somewhere, I am begining to understand where you are getting confused and wrong.

 

As I showed in the image before, it is not the chromosome which is duplicated/change, it's only part of it. A chromosome is made of a LOT of DNA segments, and are part of those segments that change.

 

As I also said before, the human body keeps sufering mutations as he ages, and when he has a son, part of his genes will already be modified, expecially those of his sperm/eggs, as they are diferent types of cells that replicate fast.

 

Also, I never said Apes have more or less DNA than humans, they probably have about the same amount. But the DNA is made up by combination of nucleotipes, and it's the way those nucleotipes are arranged that will make different things.

 

Example:

 

One gene has ....TATGGCT...., and it goes and suffers a mutation, and turns into ....TGTAGCT...., the size of the chromosone didn't change, but the way the DNA acts in it has. That small change in the DNA might make something good happen, or might make something bad happen.

 

Are you understanding so far?

 

[edit]

"which still doesn't result in any new information" -> this is why I don't like using the word information. What is information for you? It's storage of data in a certain way, so how can duplicating something not add any new information? How can changing something not change the information?

 

I even think you are not understanding what information is, even if I hate to use that word to explain DNA. For example, text can be sorce of information, and changing of text can by all means, chance the information. I can give you an example, if I pick this phrase:

 

"The president of Portugal is Barrack Obama"

 

and change only one word of it:

 

"The president of France is Barrack Obama"

 

The information has changed drastically. And this is how information works, and how changing it will bring new information, which is just different information.

 

And please, DNA is not information, it's chemestry

[hammer01 29]

Yes, we are getting somewhere, I am begining to understand where you are getting confused and wrong.

 

As I showed in the image before, it is not the chromosome which is duplicated/change, it's only part of it. A chromosome is made of a LOT of DNA segments, and are part of those segments that change.

 

As I also said before, the human body keeps sufering mutations as he ages, and when he has a son, part of his genes will already be modified, expecially those of his sperm/eggs, as they are diferent types of cells that replicate fast.

 

Also, I never said Apes have more or less DNA than humans, they probably have about the same amount. But the DNA is made up by combination of nucleotipes, and it's the way those nucleotipes are arranged that will make different things.

 

Example:

 

One gene has ....TATGGCT...., and it goes and suffers a mutation, and turns into ....TGTAGCT...., the size of the chromosone didn't change, but the way the DNA acts in it has. That small change in the DNA might make something good happen, or might make something bad happen.

 

Are you understanding so far?

 

[edit]

"which still doesn't result in any new information" -> this is why I don't like using the word information. What is information for you? It's storage of data in a certain way, so how can duplicating something not add any new information? How can changing something not change the information?

 

I even think you are not understanding what information is, even if I hate to use that word to explain DNA. For example, text can be sorce of information, and changing of text can by all means, chance the information. I can give you an example, if I pick this phrase:

 

"The president of Portugal is Barrack Obama"

 

and change only one word of it:

 

"The president of France is Barrack Obama"

 

The information has changed drastically. And this is how information works, and how changing it will bring new information, which is just different information.

 

And please, DNA is not information, it's chemestry

I understand DNA is not information, but rather stores the information necessary to create an organism.

 

 

...Yes i understand what information is... im not a 5 year old... Im a 6 year old. BIG difference! lol jk. I think i am begining to understand what you are saying. I still by no means believe in the hypothesis of evolution, i understand where you are coming from. I cant type up much more tonight, mostly because its almost midnight, i will throw another obstacle in the path of evolution tomorrow afternoon...

[Dun_Irongut 104]

I understand DNA is not information, but rather stores the information necessary to create an organism.

 

 

...Yes i understand what information is... im not a 5 year old... Im a 6 year old. BIG difference! lol jk. I think i am begining to understand what you are saying. I still by no means believe in the hypothesis of evolution, i understand where you are coming from. I cant type up much more tonight, mostly because its almost midnight, i will throw another obstacle in the path of evolution tomorrow afternoon...

 

I always find it odd when people try to throw obstacles in the way of a legion of educated scientists. Sure, you can question their knowledge, it's just that you should probably train to question it first. Once anyone has done that, it's definitely open to direct attack. Even I don't purport to know more than them or you, just that in most cases, the prevailing research and opinion science prevails. And if it doesn't, it is disproved by further research and examination. 

[Jistuma 1996]

I understand DNA is not information, but rather stores the information necessary to create an organism.

 

 

...Yes i understand what information is... im not a 5 year old... Im a 6 year old. BIG difference! lol jk. I think i am begining to understand what you are saying. I still by no means believe in the hypothesis of evolution, i understand where you are coming from. I cant type up much more tonight, mostly because its almost midnight, i will throw another obstacle in the path of evolution tomorrow afternoon...

I'm glad we are getting somewhere, I will continue to try and give the information you need to better understand what the theoy of evolution is and how it works.

[Nefarious Aus Shitpost 891]

Did you know European christians are alot different from American christians?

 

 

No they're really not, just the levels of intelligence between the two vary from location to location.

 

Anyway, can someone please explain to me why photosynthetic organisms began to respire out of the blue and din't simply continue to evolve as photosynthetic organisms? (And we could be plantmen. I WANT TO BE A PLANTMAN!)

[hammer01 29]

Did you know European christians are alot different from American christians?

 

Yeah, they are. We have grown fat in our wealth, and they often times have more faith than we do. Other than that, no, they aren't much different...

 

 

EDIT: Ok, so how about this: The simplest protein of life, the Ribonuclease. There are 124 amino in the protein. There are also 20 different types of amino acids. The first Amino acid needed to form this protein is abbreviated "Lys". The next one needed is "Glu" The chances of bothe of these connecting are 1 in 20 times 1 in 20, or 1 in 400. The next one needed is "Thr". The chances of these three being attached to each other in the right order are 1 in 20 times 1 in 20 times 1 in 20, or 1 in 8000. Continue this math until all of the 128 amino acids have been attatched in the correct order, the chance of this happening randomly is: 1 in 34028240000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 approximately. In my books that counts as impossible. And this is the simplest protein needed to for life to exist. There are some with over 10,000 amino acids... i could have put the chance for that down, but i think you get the point...

[argonian 14254]

Yeah, they are. We have grown fat in our wealth, and they often times have more faith than we do. Other than that, no, they aren't much different...

Most of Europe is just as rich as America, it's not as if we don't have tons of fat and rich people too. And I don't know about the faith thing.

[Wavejammers 328]

Yeah, they are. We have grown fat in our wealth, and they often times have more faith than we do. Other than that, no, they aren't much different...

 

 

EDIT: Ok, so how about this: The simplest protein of life, the Ribonuclease. There are 124 amino in the protein. There are also 20 different types of amino acids. The first Amino acid needed to form this protein is abbreviated "Lys". The next one needed is "Glu" The chances of bothe of these connecting are 1 in 20 times 1 in 20, or 1 in 400. The next one needed is "Thr". The chances of these three being attached to each other in the right order are 1 in 20 times 1 in 20 times 1 in 20, or 1 in 8000. Continue this math until all of the 128 amino acids have been attatched in the correct order, the chance of this happening randomly is: 1 in 34028240000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 approximately. In my books that counts as impossible. And this is the simplest protein needed to for life to exist. There are some with over 10,000 amino acids... i could have put the chance for that down, but i think you get the point...

America is a fruit salat of diffrerent christian ways, Mormons, Baptists and so on, while most european countries stick with the traditional Catholicism or Evangelicalism, meaning many people in Europe have become atheist/agnostic.

 

Earth is 4,5 billion years old, remember, if this "Random chance" happend over 9000 times every femtosecond, it wouldn't take long for you got the result you want, please come with more information if you want your case fleshed out.

 

No they're really not, just the levels of intelligence between the two vary from location to location.

 

Anyway, can someone please explain to me why photosynthetic organisms began to respire out of the blue and din't simply continue to evolve as photosynthetic organisms? (And we could be plantmen. I WANT TO BE A PLANTMAN!)

Plantmen are cool.

But sadly they are good food for bugs and mammals (Mice, Rabbits, Hares, ect), and remember, bugs and mammals also evolve. That 'soon' will turn into a plantman after millions of years of evolution, And if plants don't find ways to protect themselves against the new bugs and mammals, they will die out.

Plantmen are never going to happen, sorry, there are also billions of other ways it will fail, but I ain't got time fo dat.

But there is a second way complete your dreams, MUTATIONS! Recently, a snail that lives under water have been discovered, it eats plants, and keep them in their belly, so they can produce oxygen to them, pretty cool right?

 

I know I wrote this very murky and unclear, but if you understand the basics of Evolution, you know where I'm going

[hammer01 29]

Most of Europe is just as rich as America, it's not as if we don't have tons of fat and rich people too. And I don't know about the faith thing.

Im talking spiritually....

 

 

Ill get to oscars answer after i get back from going cross country skiing...

[Campor 28]

-Snip- I still by no means believe in the hypothesis of evolution, -Snip-

 

Evolution isn't a hypothesis. It's a scientific theory. It has evidence backing it to a degree that it is accepted as the most likely explanation for what it is explaining. Anything can be a hypothesis. The only things that can be categorized as a theory are things that are closer to fact.

 

Gravitational theory is still a theory. We know gravity exists, and we know that essentially everything in gravitational theory is true. That is why it is a theory. Only reason it isn't a fact is that it hasn't been completely and wholly picked apart yet. Same with the theory of evolution. It is a theory because it is quite plainly evidenced to exist. The actual act of evolution itself is proven.

 

I'm not going to get involved with the topic of faith or religion because I don't much enjoy debating it any more, but please don't try and claim that evolution is a hypothesis when it is not. They are very different terms and mean very different things. The theory of evolution is not a hypothesis.