Evolution and Religion

[loseyourname]

I find it amusing that most evolutionists used to argue that mutations were positive, but now it's been tamed down to having no effect, equivalent of being neutral. That the millions of nucleotides are arranged in a specific sequence, is a fact. There is a specific sequence for everything, the eye, the nose, etc. It is mathematically improbable, as I.L. Cohen in Darwin Was Wrong has shown, because we are dealing with too great of a number. Millions of nucleotides cannot rearrange from one specific sequence, and change into another without a miracle. Mutations stem from random copying errors, and to suppose that from these errors the random event can reconstruct even a single complex organ like the pancreas or the kidney is unfounded, and guess again, improbable, and we've only covered this so much.

I don't even know where to begin with this one. I've told you before that yes, the chance of anyone sequence arising in a single step is astronomically small. Nobody argues that this has ever happened. The theory says that very small changes build upon each other. The chance of one mutation taking place and catching on is not nearly so small, and given that DNA is replicated millions of times by millions of individual organism each day, there are plenty of opportunities for this to happen. It is observed all the time in the lab. Microbial lifeforms are constantly evolving resistance to drugs. You put them in a new environment and they'll seemingly adapt to it instantly, due to nothing more than advantageous mutations. You have absolutely no argument here. But if you still feel the need to go on about this, by all means, post more calculations, and I will show why those ones are wrong too. We can do for the rest of our respective lives. I guarantee you that you will never post one single piece of evidence that I can't refute, whereas you will not even address any of mine.

Is this your hang up or the only thing you can flaunt as some sort of vague proof of evolution? This doesn't mean anything, any more than microevolution does.

I'm hung up on the fact that you keep lying. What you said was wrong. This is the not the only instance of that.

That is a faulty analogy. Ever heard of the scanning-tunneling microscopes and atomic-force microscopes which can see individual atoms? You're analogy is faulty, and ironically the same person that told me to not resort to character attacks is now resorting to the same things. And I think what you meant to say was "I think it is safe to say that I have the stronger case", not "who has the stronger case".

Atomic theory holds that atoms are made up of protons and electrons and neutrons, and yet no one has ever seen any of these particles. In fact, given that the best device we have is the electron microscope, it is not even theoretically possible to see an electron. If what you said about evolutionary theory were true, then atomic theory would be inscientific. There is no flaw in the analogy. Same holds for relativity. Nobody has ever observed space or time, and yet we hold that they are curved and that gravity comes from this curvature.

I meant to say what I said. Had I worded it the way you did, it would only have removed the nuance. It still says the same thing. I shouldn't even say that I have the stronger case, though. I have a case, period. You have nothing.

[Anonymouse]

If that were true, then atomic theory would be unscientific, given that we can't observe atoms or their constituent particles. Relativity would be unscientific, given that we can't observe space or time. Any scientific hypothesis mearly has to make testable predictions. Evolution makes many of these, and they are all confirmed.

Frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about. Any person reading through this thread can see repeated instances of you lying and me exposing it. They will also see that you have failed to ever address one single piece of evidence I have presented for you, whereas I have refuted every single piece of evidence you offered up. I think it is safe to say who has the stronger case.

That is a faulty analogy. Ever heard of the scanning-tunneling microscopes and atomic-force microscopes which can see individual atoms? You're analogy is faulty, and ironically the same person that told me to not resort to character attacks is now resorting to the same things. And I think what you meant to say was "I think it is safe to say that I have the stronger case", not "who has the stronger case".

[Anonymouse]

Mousy, I just explained this. Nothing ever changes an amino acid. When you change a nucleotide (which is what a mutation is), you have a one in three chance that the mutation will result in a different amino acid being expressed. This is because for most amino acids there exist three different codons that all encode for that one acid. If you get a different amino acid, there is still a good chance that no change in protein function will result, because there are really only four different types of amino acids (there are 20 different molecules, but only 4 different behaviors). This means you only have a one in five chance that a different amino acid being expressed will result in a different protein conformation. Multiply these together, and any mutation only has a one in fifteen chance of actually affecting the function of a protein. This means that that 94% of all mutations have no effect whatsoever.

No natural process ruins nucleotides. When a mutation takes place, it is because of a replication error that results in a different nucleotide being placed on the copy DNA molecule from what was on the original. This results in a different sequence, which, as I've explained above, will have no effect 94% of the time.

I find it amusing that most evolutionists used to argue that mutations were positive, but now it's been tamed down to having no effect, equivalent of being neutral. That the millions of nucleotides are arranged in a specific sequence, is a fact. There is a specific sequence for everything, the eye, the nose, etc. It is mathematically improbable, as I.L. Cohen in Darwin Was Wrong has shown, because we are dealing with too great of a number. Millions of nucleotides cannot rearrange from one specific sequence, and change into another without a miracle. Mutations stem from random copying errors, and to suppose that from these errors the random event can reconstruct even a single complex organ like the pancreas or the kidney is unfounded, and guess again, improbable, and we've only covered this so much.

Do you even know anything about genetic drift? Genetic drift is the reason Armenians tend to have larger eyes than Native Americans. All it means that bottlenecked populations will pass on alleles in different frequencies (the frequency of the alleles responsible for larger eyes are more prevalent in the Armenian population than in the Native American population). Arguing against this principle is sheer idiocy. It is the way we breed animals and plants for food consumption and for pets. It is the basis for genetic variation. You can't argue that it doesn't take place. It is very easily observed.

Is this your hang up or the only thing you can flaunt as some sort of vague proof of evolution? This doesn't mean anything, any more than microevolution does.

[loseyourname]

If that were true, then atomic theory would be unscientific, given that we can't observe atoms or their constituent particles. Relativity would be unscientific, given that we can't observe space or time. Any scientific hypothesis mearly has to make testable predictions. Evolution makes many of these, and they are all confirmed.

Frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about. Any person reading through this thread can see repeated instances of you lying and me exposing it. They will also see that you have failed to ever address one single piece of evidence I have presented for you, whereas I have refuted every single piece of evidence you offered up. I think it is safe to say who has the stronger case.

[Anonymouse]

By the way folks it should be mentioned that creationists or rather creationism is oftened equated as being unscientific. It should be noted that evolution itself is unscientific. No worldviews on human origins, be they creation nor evolution are scientific. Science means knowledge and that would imply that we actually know something concerning what we are dealing with. The very essence of the scientific method would be reproducibility, and since no one was alive to observe evolution, nor can we today repeat the evolutionary history, evolutionary theory is beyond the bosom of the scientific method.

[loseyourname]

That is what I was referring to, the amino acids, that was what my question was geared to, and that was what the statement of the article spoke of regarding change, you have still not answered how a change in amino acids will not affect the organism.

Mousy, I just explained this. Nothing ever changes an amino acid. When you change a nucleotide (which is what a mutation is), you have a one in three chance that the mutation will result in a different amino acid being expressed. This is because for most amino acids there exist three different codons that all encode for that one acid. If you get a different amino acid, there is still a good chance that no change in protein function will result, because there are really only four different types of amino acids (there are 20 different molecules, but only 4 different behaviors). This means you only have a one in five chance that a different amino acid being expressed will result in a different protein conformation. Multiply these together, and any mutation only has a one in fifteen chance of actually affecting the function of a protein. This means that that 94% of all mutations have no effect whatsoever.

We can even take nucleotides and how they are all arranged in a specific pattern and to change that would ruin the nucleotide in whatever function it carries.

No natural process ruins nucleotides. When a mutation takes place, it is because of a replication error that results in a different nucleotide being placed on the copy DNA molecule from what was on the original. This results in a different sequence, which, as I've explained above, will have no effect 94% of the time.

The nucleotides themselves are the same everywhere. It is the sequence that encodes the information necessary to produce living organisms.

This is tautological and we are once again back to the assumption of evolution and all the assumed mechanisms that lead it.

Do you even know anything about genetic drift? Genetic drift is the reason Armenians tend to have larger eyes than Native Americans. All it means that bottlenecked populations will pass on alleles in different frequencies (the frequency of the alleles responsible for larger eyes are more prevalent in the Armenian population than in the Native American population). Arguing against this principle is sheer idiocy. It is the way we breed animals and plants for food consumption and for pets. It is the basis for genetic variation. You can't argue that it doesn't take place. It is very easily observed.

[loseyourname]

Here's another piece from the talk origins archive that explains genetic drift: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html

This part, in particular, stands out (notice the bold-faced type):

The relative importance of drift and selection depends, in part, on estimated population sizes. Drift is much more important in small populations. It is important to remember that most species consist of numerous smaller inbreeding populations called "demes". It is these demes that evolve.

Studies of evolution at the molecular level have provided strong support for drift as a major mechanism of evolution. Observed mutations at the level of gene are mostly neutral and not subject to selection. One of the major controversies in evolutionary biology is the neutralist-selectionist debate over the importance of neutral mutations. Since the only way for neutral mutations to become fixed in a population is through genetic drift this controversy is actually over the relative importance of drift and natural selection.

[Anonymouse]

By the way, different organims do not have different numbers of hemoglobins. They have different amino acids sequences within their hemoglobins. As I said, the average fish has an alpha hemoglobin (which is one of four pieces to the molecule) that differs by 73 amino acids from the average human.

That is what I was referring to, the amino acids, that was what my question was geared to, and that was what the statement of the article spoke of regarding change, you have still not answered how a change in amino acids will not affect the organism.

We can even take nucleotides and how they are all arranged in a specific pattern and to change that would ruin the nucleotide in whatever function it carries.

Finally, to answer your question as to why we see different molecules in different species, well, they have evolved separately. It's just random genetic drift, benign mutations, made evident by the fact that we even see variation within a species. Not all humans have the same hemoglobin, and this is due simply to chance drift.

This is tautological and we are once again back to the assumption of evolution and all the assumed mechanisms that lead it.

[loseyourname]

It still begs the question of why each organism is geared to that specific number of hemoglobins.

By the way, different organims do not have different numbers of hemoglobins. They have different amino acids sequences within their hemoglobins. As I said, the average fish has an alpha hemoglobin (which is one of four pieces to the molecule) that differs by 73 amino acids from the average human. The average chimpanzee has no variation from the average human, and the average gorilla differs by one. These, of course, are only averages. In fact, not all humans have the same hemoglobin. The reason for this is simply non-expressive mutation. Most mutation is completely benign, in that is has no effect whatsoever on the function of a given protein. For one thing, there are many different nucleotide sequences that all result in the same amino acid being expressed, and so no change whatsoever will even be noticeable at the molecular level. But beyond that, even mutations that result in a different amino acid being expressed are not necessarily going to change the conformation of the protein that the amino acid is a part of, for the reason I gave earlier - that many amino acids, though different in the elements they contain, behave in exactly the same manner. Thus, there are literally millions of different overall sequences you can have for a compete hemoglobin molecule that will all resuly in a fully functional molecule that is indistinguishable from any other hemoglobin without doing some form of spectral or photometric analysis.

Finally, to answer your question as to why we see different molecules in different species, well, they have evolved separately. It's just random genetic drift, benign mutations, made evident by the fact that we even see variation within a species. Not all humans have the same hemoglobin, and this is due simply to chance drift.

[loseyourname]

Dude, do you know anything about proteins? The piece I quoted referred to the sequence of amino acids within a protein. Any protein, really. Hemoglobin was the example picked by me, not by the article. It claimed that if you changed the sequence, the protein would no longer function. That isn't true, and I told you why it isn't true. Again, the men you are getting your information from are lying. Flat out. Be a little stronger of mind and actually look into these things yourself. Don't just take the words of liars.