Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Matt, its impossible to argue with you on a scientific level. When I bring science into the discussion all you do is insult and say it isn't science.
JCL and I have already explained why your "scientific" arguments are illogical and unsound. You need to take a course on basic rhetoric. I wouldnt insult you if your weren't so cocksure of your delusions.
Quote:
Heh. For someone who thought mitochondria would be a good food source for the first living cell, you focus on this so called 'true science' far too often.
You are the one who ignores or doesnt understand what poeple say. I said mitochondria probably originated as seperate organisms that lived symbiotically with other cells.
"As mitochondria contain ribosomes and DNA, and are only formed by the division of other mitochondria, it is generally accepted that they were originally derived from endosymbiotic prokaryotes." --wikipedia
This shows how the modern cells could have been formed by several different organisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Once again, sickle cell anemia might be 'good' in the sense that it prevents malaria, but it corrupted the genetic data on hand within humans
This is why I "insult" your "science" because the devlopment of sickle cell is not a "corruption" of genetic data. It is an adaptation that was favorable under certain circumstances. Selectively favorable traits are passed on. This is by it's very nature then, a beneficial development. If it wasn't favorable, it would not have been passed on. One can argue that any trait that is widespread in a given population must have had some favorable aspect, even if now it does not.
Just because you dont like it doesnt mean it's not true. Sickle cell developed naturally, probably through mutations, and was passed on because it offered an advantage to populations who lived in malaria-prone areas. This isnt a moral question. Of course malaria still exists in certain populations, even though they don't live in malaria areas anymore. Since all blacks living in America came here within a few hundred years ago, it will take some time before sickle cell is gone. But you must know, that rates of sickle cell among American blacks is much lower than for african blacks.
Quote:
The ONLY mechanism scientists have that could explain materialist evolution is one form or another of 'positive' mutations. Scientists will admit that there is no such thing, as evidenced in my posts. So...try again.
Scientists will admit no such thing, and i dont need to "try again". The basis of evolution through natural selection is mutation. You dont have any evidence to refute this--In fact I dont think you have a clue as to what mutation is. It's not Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles--sorry, species dont mutate into other species overnight as you seem to think evolution suggests.
Quote:
Eventually its going to lead to outright lethality and the end of any line that carries these mutations. You cannot argue with this logic.
Oh i cant can I? In fact this "logic" is hokum, like all your other arguments. Sure lethal mutations happen, but guess what, they dont pass on to future generations, because that organism cant survive to reproduce. Some mutations which can be harmful can indeed be passed as recessive. This explains the many genetic diseases that exist in populations, but the diseases are very rare.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
A mutation can be determined to be good or bad based on how it measures up to the original genetic data within that species.
It's difficult to argue against ideas that are so wrong. First of all, there is no "original genetic data" within a species. This implies a first, perfect state. Such things dont exists in nature; there is no template species from which all others derive.
Second, mutations are not really "good" or "bad".. Evolution has no morality. There are only favorable, neutral, and unfavorable (or lethal) mutations. Most mutations are either unfavorable or neutral. Neutral mutations can be passed on, and may or may not be persistent. Unfavorable or lethal mutations are notgenrally passed on, and if they are, they are usually recessive as said before. Recessive unfavorable genes are only harmful if both parents have them. Since they are uncommon in the population, the chances of this happening is very rare.
However, favorable mutations can be passed, and they can become generic. Each mutation on it's own may only provide a very slight selective benefit, but over time, these changes are directed by nature.
This is the mechanism by which evolution proceeds. An animal has a mutation whcih allows slightly better processing of food, so it it is more likely to survive and reproduce... this is passed on to its offspring, and eventually there are more favorable mutations, and so on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
We're only 3% different from corn. So does this mean we evolved from corn, or maybe I should say that corn and humans branched off from a similar ancestor?
Of course we are related to corn. And we did indeed have a common ancestor, both corn and humans are Eukaryotes(one of the three major branches of life), so the last Eukaryote before the animals-plant divergence was our last common ancestor with plants.
If you didn't know this, then this just confirms that you dont understand the evolution of life on Earth.
"Cytochrome c is a highly conserved protein across the spectrum of species, found in plants, animals, and many unicellular organisms. This, along with its small size (molecular weight about 12,000 daltons), makes it useful in studies of evolutionary divergence."
Because it is highly conserved it means that over time, it indicates very distant relationships very clearly. So the apparent close relationship to corn is expected, even though the actual genetic distance is very great.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you keep referring to "materialist" evolution? There is obviously no other kind. Science is only concerned with material or natural explanations, not fairy tales for children.
|
