Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Genetic mutation = occurs when an error in DNA/Gene reproduction occurs for whatever reason. This is subtractive ... read: DNA code is compromised ... i.e. code is missing, damaged, which may or may not affect that organism in a significant manner, depending on what sequence/s are compromised. This occurs randomly ... and it's affects, if any, are devolutionary in nature ... not evolutionary.
Wrong.
1. There are different kinds of mutations. The most common are point mutations on the DNA molecule. Less common are chromosomal mutations involving longer stretches of genetic code.
2. The DNA code is redundant. Somewhere around 40% of all point mutations on the genome do not do anything at all and are completely silent.
3. The vast majority of non-silent point mutations change a single amino acid on a single protein. These differences are the definition of "genetic variation," and are the sort of differences that account for the simple fact that each human is an individual and not a clone.
4. Regardless of whether they are positive or negative in effect, all of these mutations are additive to the genome. They add new information that did not previously exist. You personally possess about 100 such mutations that existed in neither of your parents.
5. In a changing environment in which organisms are not perfectly adapted, the alteration of that single amino acid will move the "operation" of that protein either closer to or farther from optimum. Since it is random, 50% of all non-silent point mutations will be potentially beneficial to the organism, if they are able to be fixed in the gene pool.
Considering chromosomal rather than point mutations:
1. One of the most common chromosomal mutations is called "gene duplication." In these cases, rather than one copy of a gene, two are inserted into the new cell after replication. This is additive to the genome, as the amount of genetic information associated with that gene is now doubled.
2. In these instances, one copy of the gene can be conserved for its original purpose, while the new duplicate is free to evolve in any direction that natural selection wants to drive it.
3. Gene duplications are responsible for such evolutionary innovations as tricolor vision and the mammalian clotting cascade.
QED: As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. But then again, you are a jeweler. So you have an excuse for your ignorance.
GuyNTexas, may I recommend you a book? "Molecular Biology of the cell" by Alberts, Johnson, Lewis, etc... ISBN:0-81534106-7 You might learn something and have more leverage in debates on this topic.
You still have not articulated what the alternative to the theory of evolution is.
I agree with not teaching creationism, but what do you have against evolution? Evolution is a solid, confirmed across scientific disciplines theory. for over a 100 years. That lead to devlopment of useful medicine and genetics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel
You want American kids to be stupider than the rest of the world?
Evolution is absolutely essential to understanding modern biology.
Teaching Creationism in public schools violates the First Amendment.
\
Evolution is science.
Creationism and ID are not.
There really is no debate, just people like us getting frustrated at the lies and ignorance coming from the other side.
See and here is the problem....If its tax money,teach both....
Thats the problem with "your side"...you want what you want and tuff crap on everyone else, well it doesnt work that way.
What gives the right to one side over the other?
Teach both and let the students decide......what are you affraid of?
See and here is the problem....If its tax money,teach both....
Thats the problem with "your side"...you want what you want and tuff crap on everyone else, well it doesnt work that way.
No offense, but tax money does not make a religious belief science, which I believe is what should be taught in science classes.
I'm all for teaching creationism in theology classes, but there is no place for it in science classrooms.
See and here is the problem....If its tax money,teach both....
Thats the problem with "your side"...you want what you want and tuff crap on everyone else, well it doesnt work that way.
What gives the right to one side over the other?
Teach both and let the students decide......what are you affraid of?
But these two are different 'things' with different degrees of validity. Otherwise why not throw voodoo into the tax paid mix as well?
p.s. lol, I still don't know what exactly creationism is. Are there any books that argue its case (other than the Bible and Koran)?
Can someone just tell me what a curriculum of a semester course in creationism would consist of? Thank you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
