sammy7 on 'Evolution'

[Mellinia]

Its standard terminology in genetics.

 

The foundation of information science is source--->channel--->receiver. Source (DNA)--->channel (mRNA/codons)--->receiver (polypeptide/ribosome). So genetic drift, speciation, gene flow, change in allele frequency all generate NO new genetic information (no NEW nucleotides coming into being coding for NEW proteins-no new genetic information). Teachers omit this. The official myth says prokaryote--->every living thing on the planet. There is no source of BULK amounts of NEW genetic information. Such a claim is purely religious in nature and has NO foundation in science. Mutations=MISTAKES. Again John Sanford has a number of good talks on youtube about it. Natural selection REDUCES genetic information/variation in that the selected out phenotype is gone forever from the earth and the genetic information and variation of its genotype is gone, FOREVER.

 

Natural selection reduced the chance that faulty genetic info will be passed on to the offspring.

However, humans interfere with the process and natural selection does becomes simple among humans.

For example:

Huntington's disease. It's of a faulty gene.

People with the disease might have been weeded out if the mate selection process and our age length were as short as other animals. However, being social(we value their contribution as an individual) and having a longer life and because of 'love' (irrational behavior, this one), the people with the faulty gene still can survive long enough to reproduce and produce offspring, thus the faulty gene still exists.

Genetic info isn't like the ones in the computer where you key in and add.

Genetic info is shared. Organisms ensure that their genes are passed on. I believe you're familiar with how the nucleus of sperm is melded with the ones of the ovary?

 

Nucleotides are added when mutations of DNA or RNA occur. This is what I think you mean by new genetic info. This causes prokaryote-->us

 

 

 

Edited October 7, 2012 by Mellinia

[uncool]

Its standard terminology in genetics.

Then you should easily be able to find a reference for it, including a method of quantifying it (or at least for quantifying change in it). The rest of your post does not answer my question.

=Uncool-

[iNow]

In regards to the thread title, it would be nice if people stopped using the term "retarded" in a derogatory manner.

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Since sammy7 is now gone, this is moot

[A-wal]

If every deleterious mutation was 'selected' out....mankind would be extinct! Selection can only act on the phenotype as a whole. Either or, 0 or 1. It stays or it goes. It CANT go round sleuthing out individual nucleotides.

 

John Cuthber yes exactly, all those guys are evolutionary population geneticists, even though they have shown mutations are building up, they still believe mankind shares a common ancestor with chimpanzees and that mutations (mistakes) built billions of functionally sequenced nucleotides. I(obv) do not subscribe to the same faith as them. Sanford has another lecture on youtube which is 1 hour 40 min long or so where he goes into more detail.

They've locked your thread so I'll post it here. You've misunderstood. Humans developed to become the dominant species on the planet through the process of natural selection because any individuals with a genetic mutation that happened to be advantageous were more likely to survive long enough to reproduce and pass that advantage on to the next generation, where as those individuals who possessed a genetic mutation that was a disadvantage were less likely to survive long enough to pass on that genetic flaw. It's very simple.

 

 

 

Please answer these questions:

 

1. Do you believe that Noah was able to fit two of every strain of every land animal on the planet into one boat and provide them all with food and drinking water until the water level went back down? Do you believe that bats are a type of bird? Do you think it's acceptable to kill someone just because they don't believe in what you believe in? Do you think it's okay for people to sell their daughters into sex slavery? If you think the answer to those questions is no then how do you know which parts of the bible are right and which are wrong? If the answer to any of these questions is yes then how are you able to take yourself seriously and look at yourself in the mirror?

 

2. What makes your particular brand of religion better or more likely to be true than any other?

 

3. If you were born somewhere else where Christianity wasn't the main religion do you really think you'd still be a Christian?

 

4. Who created your god. If you think that your god is eternal then why do you think that the universe needs a creator?

 

5. Why would your god need to judge people? It should already know exactly what everyone's going to do before they're even born! If not then it's not all powerful is it?

 

6. How do Christians claim that their god is all about love when it sends people to hell for not believing in it but forgives paedophiles, rapists and murderers?

 

7. How do you explain the fact that the more intelligent a person is (particularly those with good reasoning and critical thinking skills), the less likely they are to believe in a god?

 

8. Do you think that your god will be more impressed with people who's main motivation is to get into heaven than it is with people who don't need an incentive to do the right thing?

 

9. If you'd never heard of any religions and were handed evolution along side creationism as potential candidates to describe how the complexity of life arose then which one would think is the most probable for providing an accurate description? Be honest!

 

 

[Moontanman]

They've locked your thread so I'll post it here. You've misunderstood. Humans developed to become the dominant species on the planet through the process of natural selection because any individuals with a genetic mutation that happened to be advantageous were more likely to survive long enough to reproduce and pass that advantage on to the next generation, where as those individuals who possessed a genetic mutation that was a disadvantage were less likely to survive long enough to pass on that genetic flaw. It's very simple.

 

 

 

Please answer these questions:

 

1. Do you believe that Noah was able to fit two of every strain of every land animal on the planet into one boat and provide them all with food and drinking water until the water level went back down? Do you believe that bats are a type of bird? Do you think it's acceptable to kill someone just because they don't believe in what you believe in? Do you think it's okay for people to sell their daughters into sex slavery? If you think the answer to those questions is no then how do you know which parts of the bible are right and which are wrong? If the answer to any of these questions is yes then how are you able to take yourself seriously and look at yourself in the mirror?

 

2. What makes your particular brand of religion better or more likely to be true than any other?

 

3. If you were born somewhere else where Christianity wasn't the main religion do you really think you'd still be a Christian?

 

4. Who created your god. If you think that your god is eternal then why do you think that the universe needs a creator?

 

5. Why would your god need to judge people? It should already know exactly what everyone's going to do before they're even born! If not then it's not all powerful is it?

 

6. How do Christians claim that their god is all about love when it sends people to hell for not believing in it but forgives paedophiles, rapists and murderers?

 

7. How do you explain the fact that the more intelligent a person is (particularly those with good reasoning and critical thinking skills), the less likely they are to believe in a god?

 

8. Do you think that your god will be more impressed with people who's main motivation is to get into heaven than it is with people who don't need an incentive to do the right thing?

 

9. If you'd never heard of any religions and were handed evolution along side creationism as potential candidates to describe how the complexity of life arose then which one would think is the most probable for providing an accurate description? Be honest!

 

 

Sadly sammy7 is no longer with us, he has been retired with extreme prejudice to that great YEC forum in the sky forever to debate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin....

 

Alas poor sammy I knew him well... good arguments though...

[A-wal]

Sadly sammy7 is no longer with us, he has been retired with extreme prejudice to that great YEC forum in the sky forever to debate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin....

 

Alas poor sammy I knew him well... good arguments though...

You should see my other ones.

[hypervalent_iodine]

In regards to the thread title, it would be nice if people stopped using the term "retarded" in a derogatory manner.

 

 

Agreed and changed.