U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 09-28-2011, 07:26 AM
 
570 posts, read 619,896 times
Reputation: 75

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Yes, but not just one word as that would be misleading. As I understand it, yes they can. Not directly into the cell, but by allowing potential mutations within the DNA Gentic structure to become apparent because the change it causes to the lifeform gives an advantage in those particular conditions. In other conditions where there is no advantage the change does not become apparent and the 'monkeys stay monkeys'.
Thanks for your response & Patience .
let me see if i get this right !!!
So if we examined the DNA structure of a 1 years old Monky or human etc ... then we examin it again when this monky or human is 30 years old ... is there any chanc that we could find some deference in the DNA structure ?
Is that what are you saying ?
"You have to understand that I am not talking about psychological or pathological changes, I am talking about bodily changes" .
Bcause from what I know the DNA molecule stands as a wall blocking the possibility that one species could change into another.
Isn't that a scientific fact ?
You see ... evolutionists problem is they always say that the change could happened only in a long period of time ... it could take millions of years & they forgot that all creatures have a limited ages to live so the length of time is not considered on that matter .
Either the genetic change occurs during that limited life time or it ends with this life .
Millions of years with different generations have no effect here .
*Another thing :
If humans and Apes comes from a common ancestor how come there is a difference in the DNA structure up to 5% which considered huge?!!!
About that common ancestor .. was he/it a human or Ape ?
How his DNA contained hereditary qualities of both Humans and Apes ?
You see ... There are clear contradictions make me doubt that they want to impose this theory on us even by force !!!
Believe me, I want to understand this but I really find it incomprehensible .

Last edited by squall-lionheart; 09-28-2011 at 08:08 AM..
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-28-2011, 07:42 AM
 
5,463 posts, read 5,798,284 times
Reputation: 1803
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
So if we examined the DNA structure of a 1 years old Monky or human etc ... then we examin it again when this monky or human is 30 years old ... is there any chanc that we could finde some deference in the DNA structure ?
Is that what are you saying ?
Yes - e.g. Intra-individual Change Over Time in DNA Methylation With Familial Clustering, June 25, 2008, Bjornsson et al. 299 (24): 2877. But unless the changed DNA is in sperm or egg cells it won't be passed on to the animal's offspring so you're looking in the wrong places for the source of variation which natural selection (and drift, etc) work upon.

This is the third time I've answered the same question. Seems strange you'd keep asking the same question only to ignore the responses. Why is that?

Quote:
Bcause from what I know the DNA molecule stands as a wall blocking the possibility that one species could change into another.
Am I wrong on this one ?
Yes.

Quote:
You see ... evolutionists problem is they always say that the change could happened only in a long period of time
Proof of this claim?

Quote:
If humans and Apes comes from a common ancestor how come there is a difference in the DNA structure up to 5% which considered huge?!!!
What ape species are you talking about, and where do you get this 5% number?

Quote:
About that common ancestor .. was he/it a human or Ape ?
Yes, a non-human ape by definition. That's how taxonomy works.

Quote:
How his DNA contained hereditary qualities of both Humans and Apes ?
Why would you think a non-human ape would have human DNA?

Quote:
Believe me, I want to understand this but I really find it incomprehensible.
The latter part is obvious but the former is still an open question.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2011, 08:12 AM
 
35,079 posts, read 9,090,484 times
Reputation: 4826
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
Thanks for your response & Patience .
let me see if i get this right !!!
So if we examined the DNA structure of a 1 years old Monky or human etc ... then we examin it again when this monky or human is 30 years old ... is there any chanc that we could find some deference in the DNA structure ?
You have to understand that I am not talking about psychological or pathological changes, I am talking about bodily changes .
Is that what are you saying ?
Bcause from what I know the DNA molecule stands as a wall blocking the possibility that one species could change into another.
Isn't that a scientific fact ?

As I understand it, yes. We could eventually find a genetic change in a monkey. In fact we have found plenty of examples of such natural genetic changes. These are put to anti - evolutionists who then argue 'That's not evolution, that's just change'. The 'fruit flies are still fruit flies' arguments applies.

That's where he time factor comes in. There has to be time for these changes to become so marked that we effectively have sub - species (they look different but can still interbreed) to a different species which as I understand it have diverged to genetic incompatibility.

There we have to take the present range of species, DNA relations and the fossil record as evidence that this has over time, happened.

As against that I have seen no credible evidence for any other mechanism. I have never heard of this idea of a DNA molecule blocking genetic change, especially since genetic change is going on all the time.

Quote:
You see ... evolutionists problem is they always say that the change could happened only in a long period of time ... it could take millions of years & they forgot that all creatures have a limited ages to live so the length of time is not considered on that matter .
Either the genetic change occurs during that limited life time or it ends with this life .
Millions of years with different generations have no effect here .
Are you winding me up? genetic changes actually are more rapid the shorter the life - span is because the changes get passed on quicker. The evolutionary period is speeded up, so to speak. That's why fruit flies are so useful in evolutionary studies because their life - span is so short that the process becomes more apparent than in a tortoise with a life - span of 200 years.

Quote:
*Another thing :
Quote:
If humans and Apes comes from a common ancestor how come there is a difference in the DNA structure up to 5% which considered huge?!!!
About that common ancestor .. was he/it a human or Ape ?
How his DNA contained hereditary qualities of both Humans and Apes ?
You see ... There are clear contradictions make me doubt that they want to impose this theory on us even by force !!!
Believe me, I want to understand this but I really find it incomprehensible .
I suppose you have subtracted the reported 95% shared DNA and held up the 5% difference as 'huge difference'. Pardon me if I don't endorse your conclusion.

The point about the common ancestor is that there are quite a lot of relevant lines and a lot haven't been found yet. The relevant lines are both human and ape like in varying degrees. We find bipedalism, larger (or more complex though smaller) brains and numbers of other changes showing the gradual process of ape towards humans. Rather like the Macro evolution argument, if that is not denied, it is pretty daft to say that the process can't eventually end up where it is going.

Since the remains are fossil we can't get DNA from it but the DNA would be what it was. Primate DNA.

The contradictions seem to be based on your misconceptions. The reason why we 'force' this theory on everyone is because that's what the evidence indicates. The objections are either poor science, misconception, ignorance or downright denial. That is not a good basis for any alternative theory anyone might want to have imposed on us in its place.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-28-2011 at 08:27 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2011, 09:55 AM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,204,938 times
Reputation: 14879
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-Orangutans View Post
If humans and Apes comes from a common ancestor how come there is a difference in the DNA structure up to 5%
It is called genetic drift, as time passes the genetic difference grows. The base DNA difference between between Chimpanzees and more importantly Bonobos is 1.2% which differs by 1.7% in Gorillas, 3.1% from all other African apes and Orangutans. When the entire DNA structure is sequence we find a 4% to 5% difference as the result of deletions, duplication or realignment. This is one way the divergence of species is both tracked and dated. As a result we now know that Gorillas emerged from other African great apes first, then the ancestor of Chimpanzees and Bonobos and then the ancestors of modern humans.

Further reading:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

Anything else that I can help you with?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2011, 08:33 PM
 
15,813 posts, read 13,280,353 times
Reputation: 19712
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
Bcause from what I know the DNA molecule stands as a wall blocking the possibility that one species could change into another.
Isn't that a scientific fact ?
You see ... evolutionists problem is they always say that the change could happened only in a long period of time ... it could take millions of years & they forgot that all creatures have a limited ages to live so the length of time is not considered on that matter .
Either the genetic change occurs during that limited life time or it ends with this life .
Millions of years with different generations have no effect here .
.
Not all DNA is coding. Meaning lots and lots of DNA has no direct biological purpose since it does not make proteins. That non-coding DNA is sitting around in the genome randomly undergoing changes; transcription, translation, point mutations etc when it is copied and all of those changes get passed on to all the offspring.

These mutations of non-coding DNA are of particular interest in sexual reproducing organism because sometimes the mutations (like translocation between sister chromatids) cause the non-coding DNA to turn on (change to a start codon) and become coding DNA. This is one way that shows how drastic changes can happen seemingly quickly despite the fact the changes were building up slowly in the non-coding DNA over generations.

Plants have even more ways of accumulating changes in DNA since they commonly have entire duplication events where there entire set of chromosomes are duplicated leading to lots of extra DNA that can act as raw material for mutation while still maintaining function form the original set of genes.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2011, 12:15 AM
 
6,647 posts, read 3,880,869 times
Reputation: 657
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop View Post
Alright, fine. Now is the time where I ask for evidence supporting the Creationist stance so that it could be satisfactorily taught in school as a scientific hypothesis. Any empirical or peer-reviewed paper that satisfactorily includes the basis for conjecture of a Creator doing something, i.e., a paper perhaps entitled: The Novel Introduction Of Creation In A Non-Existent Plane of Empty Space Based on Spontaneous Complexities Arising Instantaneously From A Source Being.

I'll patiently wait while you provide the necessary scientific research which explains why Creation can come even remotely close to being compared or taught alongside Evolution.
Why would we need that ^^?!---We already have the awesome, random, purposeless, unintelligent, unconscious, "Naturedunit" (or "Universedunit", or "Evolutiondunit") as an answer for "the source", and how it all went/goes down.

Which is REALLY cool...since that has lead to things that are select, things that are purposeful, things that are intelligent, and things that are conscious...All by themselves!!...for no reason at all!!...WHOOPEEEEEEE!!!

You need to get hip to the fact that "Random, Purposeless, Unintelligent, Unconscious Change--to--Select, Purpose, Intelligence, and Consciousness"...is the most whacked-out "Creation Story" of all. The "6-Day Instapoof By Biblegod" story...though VERY whacked-out too...is a distant second.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2011, 06:27 AM
 
35,079 posts, read 9,090,484 times
Reputation: 4826
If you can accept the changing of a bowl of muddy water into a neat blue crystal without anyone putting it together with tweezers under a microscope, I can't see what, in principle, is your objection other than an irrational preference for the invisible mind theory.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2011, 02:26 PM
 
6,647 posts, read 3,880,869 times
Reputation: 657
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
If you can accept the changing of a bowl of muddy water into a neat blue crystal without anyone putting it together with tweezers under a microscope, I can't see what, in principle, is your objection other than an irrational preference for the invisible mind theory.
Oh...I can "accept" that okay.

It's the SOURCE of the atoms/molecules that make up that "muddy water"...and the "laws/processes" that work to "act upon it" to change it...having come originally from NOTHING that I cant accept.

The only "logical and reasonable" answer for the SOURCE of all the matter and energy in the universe....and the "laws" that "govern" that matter and energy to do what it has done, so as to become what it has become, and continue in it's state of becoming...is an entity that "always has been, and had no beginning" and had/has the power to "create from nothing"...and that entity, definitively, would be "God".
If the "matter and energy" in the universe has "always been"...and has had the "power" to "control" itself, to become what it has become, and continue in it's state of becoming...then THAT definitively is "God".

Something has had to have "always been", and everything else came after it and from it. And whatever that is, would by that "attribute" definitively be "God".
Something that has "always been, that everything came from" may be incomprehensible to us...but it is the only logical and reasonable concept.
That I define that "something" as "God", is based upon that unique attribute (always been, that everything came from) that "something" possesses.
It is in this way I state that "God" necessarily exists.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2011, 04:20 PM
 
35,079 posts, read 9,090,484 times
Reputation: 4826
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
Oh...I can "accept" that okay.

It's the SOURCE of the atoms/molecules that make up that "muddy water"...and the "laws/processes" that work to "act upon it" to change it...having come originally from NOTHING that I cant accept.

The only "logical and reasonable" answer for the SOURCE of all the matter and energy in the universe....and the "laws" that "govern" that matter and energy to do what it has done, so as to become what it has become, and continue in it's state of becoming...is an entity that "always has been, and had no beginning" and had/has the power to "create from nothing"...and that entity, definitively, would be "God".
If the "matter and energy" in the universe has "always been"...and has had the "power" to "control" itself, to become what it has become, and continue in it's state of becoming...then THAT definitively is "God".

Something has had to have "always been", and everything else came after it and from it. And whatever that is, would by that "attribute" definitively be "God".
Something that has "always been, that everything came from" may be incomprehensible to us...but it is the only logical and reasonable concept.
That I define that "something" as "God", is based upon that unique attribute (always been, that everything came from) that "something" possesses.
It is in this way I state that "God" necessarily exists.
Well, I am not too bothered about that and it might even be true is some rather unreligious way. I just tend to think that if it is accepted that matter and biomatter changes and forms without the need for a deity thumbing the controls to make it all work, then I don't see why, tracing it all back to what was before the Event we should suddenly put the 'god' label on it. After all this thread is about anti- evolution, not about the case against a naturalist/materialist theory of cosmic origins. If you are ok with the evolution evidence, then we don't have a lot to quarrel about.

I guess we can agree to differ but where I can leave a mind as an option it seems that is an option you are ruling out. Or are you just considering a less likely explanation?

Btw. I liked your style of a few words linked by three little dots. Looked familiar.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2011, 08:13 PM
 
6,647 posts, read 3,880,869 times
Reputation: 657
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Well, I am not too bothered about that and it might even be true is some rather unreligious way. I just tend to think that if it is accepted that matter and biomatter changes and forms without the need for a deity thumbing the controls to make it all work, then I don't see why, tracing it all back to what was before the Event we should suddenly put the 'god' label on it. After all this thread is about anti- evolution, not about the case against a naturalist/materialist theory of cosmic origins. If you are ok with the evolution evidence, then we don't have a lot to quarrel about.

I guess we can agree to differ but where I can leave a mind as an option it seems that is an option you are ruling out. Or are you just considering a less likely explanation?

Btw. I liked your style of a few words linked by three little dots. Looked familiar.
As I said to rifleman in a previous post---I can't handle debating people that deny evolutionary theory...it tweaks me out and messes up my constitution.
MOF...IMO, anyone that, in light of the information we now have, could/would deny Evolutionary Theory, isn't "all there".

I only forego the option of there not being a "Source Force/Entity", because I can't logically and reasonably see it as able to be any other way...and any "source" everything came after and from, and which controlled/maintained/sustained what had been created...would definitively be "God" to me, no matter what "label" others put to it.

The sentence structure of linking portions with three little dots goes back to my youth...that's just always been my way of writing down my thoughts, and how I've always written. Check out the archives of even my very first posts to this forum...you'll see.
I feel it's more than coincidence that it was also the habit of another that had a "vibe" I found myself so "in tune" to that it would lead to a change of the "core concepts" I subscribe to.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top