Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ArtDrake]

I confirm Duskling's expectation of my sentiment on the matter. Please enlighten me. I really don't have time to read through all that            . I noticed it was heavily biased towards creationism, and decided that any theory it proposed was likely to have Intelligent Design elements, which is a nonscientific theory. Not what I'm looking for.

And I think both of you should do your homework and read this straightforwardly-laid-out site on the inequality of ID. I think you'll find it quite interesting. Especially the bits about irreducible complexity, if you're into the whole ID thing.

This site makes a few points about scientific literature, and how alternative theories that are open to research and experimentation (as is necessary in a scientific theory) have not been proposed in the scientific community. If so, tell me about it.

[bugfartboy]

I was wondering when you'd say that. So it's alright for me to have to read articles biased towards secular evolution, yet you find it absolutely appalling to have to read articles biased towards creationism?

[ArtDrake]

Oops. Deary me. It's not an article, per se, so much as factual account by a scientist with a relevant degree, called to testify for a Nebraska couska court in an ID case.

I, however, refuse to read through an article filled with misinformation and poor and uninspired cartoon drawing.

EDIT: Yes, I finally read through all the drivel. No scientific theory was presented; there was only promotion of creationism and questioning of existing evolutionary ideas through false premises. Fun for the lowest common Christian denominator, but hardly an alternative. You're going to have to point out the science to me.

And the words are "all" and "right." There is no word spelled, "alright."

[bugfartboy]

Actually, Ducky, alright is actually a word! *mock gasp of surprise*

Definition of "Alright"

Alrighty then. So where does this new genetic information needed to evolve come from?

[Deagonx]

In the last 4000 years no new species have domesticated.


That being said, every species that we assume have domesticated ever are based on theory.

[ArtDrake]

Buggy, the usage note:

—Usage note
The form alright  as a one-word spelling of the phrase all right  in all of its senses probably arose by analogy with such words as already  and altogether.  Although alright  is a common spelling in written dialogue and in other types of informal writing, all right  is used in more formal, edited writing§; alright should only be used when describing how a living person speaks, or when correctness is not of importance.

Correctness is of importance, and "alright" is not all right with me.

Oh, and the genetic information comes from random mutation, by ~.5% per million years, or thereabouts.

Game Crazy Kid:

First of all, you're changing the topic.
Second of all, I think we can confirm scientifically that all the animals we have ever domesticated are, in fact, real, and that they are not, as you suggest, based on theory.

[Deagonx]

Game Crazy Kid:

First of all, you're changing the topic.
Second of all, I think we can confirm scientifically that all the animals we have ever domesticated are, in fact, real, and that they are not, as you suggest, based on theory.

Is that REALLY what you gathered from all that?


The point I was trying to make, is that no man alive has been an eye witness to evolution. It is no more plausible than me saying I saw Jesus walk on water.

[bugfartboy]

Oh, and the genetic information comes from random mutation, by ~.5% per million years, or thereabouts.

But doesn't mutation only changing pre-existing genes? So where does the new gene come from?

[ArtDrake]

Nope. Mutation can occur in the form of copying, insertion from another chromosome out of context, deletion, or the changing of existing genetic code by errors in mitosis.

The new gene comes from additional copying, along with faulty transcription.

[Duskling]

The point I was trying to make, is that no man alive has been an eye witness to evolution. It is no more plausible than me saying I saw Jesus walk on water.

Maybe that is because, 1) At first, man hadn't bothered to look due to religion and the like, 2) We cannot keep an eye on animals in the wild, and 3) (Most likely) Because evolution may take up to billions of years to occur.

[bugfartboy]

But is that really new? Isn't it based off of already existing genes?

[ArtDrake]

Yep. We're all just based off of mutations on bacteria. Fun, eh? We take morphological shifts that require little in the way of speciation, and alternate those with actual developments based on mutations that give an organism an edge.

If you want to see it that way, we're all very old potatoes (figuratively). I like to think that each of us has completely new genetics that simply bear a strong resemblance to those of a parent because of how the newer genes were produced.

[Rob]

Well, the problem with the whole mutation thing is:
A) Most mutations are not passed down, as a mutation must occur in a gamete to be passed down to offspring.
B) Most mutations either have no effect or they have a negative effect and/or kill you. Now, there are some mutations that are beneficial, but...
C) Mutations, while they can have a variety of effects, and can even add new DNA to a gene pool, but are incapable of producing new chromosome sets. While mutations may lead to more genes in a gene pool, they do not lead to more DNA passed down to offspring, which would be necessary in order for bacteria with a single chromosome to evolve into a human with 42 chromosomes.

[ArtDrake]

Sometimes there are characteristics that skip a generation for many generation, defying statistical probability, and sometimes two blue-eyed parents have a brown-eyed child. Mendelian genetics can't explain these, and you need to delve further into the subject.

Imagine there is a gene, created by a mutation, that tells a cell to create an extra chromosome. This extra chromosome may be harmful, and the organism might not pass it on. But if it does, that chromosome isn't part of the original genetic replication system in the organism, and during reproduction (binary fission or sexual), this new chromosome, or even both, are highly subject to change. Perhaps, out of thousands of offspring, this bacterium produced a few score that manage to take the second chromosome and do something useful with it. Also, with the system of plasmids in bacteria, different strains can exchange beneficial genetic data, which could eventually become included into the second chromosome.

Also, I must insist that bacteria don't have chromosomes. They have a single, long loop of DNA that tends to be in the center of the bacterium.

[Rob]

Addressing your last point first, this is the definition of chromosome from biology-online.org.
Chromosome: A structure within the cell that bears the genetic material as a threadlike linear strand of DNA bonded to various proteins in the nucleus of eukaryotic cells, or as a circular strand of DNA (or RNA in some viruses) in the cytoplasm of prokaryotes and in the mitochondrion and chloroplast of certain eukaryotes. Yes, bacteria only have a single loop of DNA. That is their chromosome.
Now, I since your first point was more of a suggestion, I won't address it, but I will address your second point. You ask me to imagine a gene that tells the cell to create an extra chromosome. First of all, there isn't one. Secondly, if there was one, and if the cell did create an extra chromosome, the cell would die or, in a multicellular organism, develop into a cancer, as extra chromosomes are all but certain to have a negative effect. Having an extra chromosome (or missing a chromosome) is called aneuploidy, a chromosomal abnormality that leads to negative effects. In fact, the word aneuploid is taken from the Greek words meaning "not","good", and "fold." Like I stated earlier, most mutations have negative effects, and aneuploid is all but certain to have negative effects. The only reason I am using the term "all but certain" instead of certain is because I am not an expert on aneuploidy. However, no article that I have read mentioned any benefits. An extra or missing chromosome may lead to cancers, down syndrome, or a number of other bad conditions.
Aneuploidy occurs during cell division when chromosomes do not separate properly between tow cells. Since bacterial chromosomes do not separate (since they are never attached) it would be highly unlikely (I'm only using "highly unlikely" instead of "impossible" because I am not, as stated before, an expert on the subject) for aneuploidy to occur in bacteria. If it did indeed occur in bacteria, the bacteria would be unable to function properly and die. If a bacteria did indeed have a gene with the marvelous ability to encode a protein that would make an extra chromosome from scratch, there would be no reason for the cell would not be able to replicate the extra chromosome, as the chromosome would react with the enzymes responsible for DNA replication just like any other chromosome.
The main weakness of your argument comes from the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of a gene capable of creating an extra chromosome, as such a gene does not exist today. In fact, it is probably impossible for a gene to create an extra chromosome, as genes are blueprints for protein, not nucleic acids. You ask me to imagine a gene that could something when there is no evidence that any gene could do what you described. Asking me to imagine a gene that could do what you said is worse than a Christian asking someone to imagine a God who could create everything. At least God is God, and by being God he is understood to be all powerful. If God existed, he could indeed create everything. But no gene could do what you said. You claim to be objective and only believing in the facts, but claiming such a gene to exist would require wishful thinking or a determination to assert evolution's correctness. If your explanation, "Imagine there is a gene..." is fine, then why would you be against someone saying "Imagine there is a God..."? Saying God did something is much better than saying a gene did something that it can't do. I can't imagine a gene that could do something that no gene can do. It simply isn't possible. Why do you say that you only pay attention to the facts when you come up with something like a gene that creates an extra chromosome? At least Christians admit they put faith in God.