GENETICS- CREATIONISTS need not be INTIMIDATED.

by hooberus 40 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Tuesday

  Ugn, these articles are great at ignorning VAST amounts of information.

  Could you please explain why we only have 22 pairs of chromosomes and primates have 24? We know that the loss of a chromosome would be fatal in any species, so if evolution is true one pair of chromosomes must have merged. If there's no evidence of that then evolution is completely false. So why then aren't these articles pointing to that obvious flaw in the theory of evolution?

  Because there is a merged chromosome, it's chromosome number 2. We know it's merged because it has extra telomeres in it. So why would a designer need to have it seem like evolution took place and chromosomes merged? What is the explanation of that merger, why was it necessary for humans to have if they were created separately from primates?

  This is just one small example of things that are left out in articles like these. Why people think that evolution cannot be in conjunction with creation all because an ancient book doesn't mention it is beyond me.
• 

  Gerard

  This is the best recent book for “extincting” neo-Darwinian theory by showing that the deleterious mutation rates are vastly higher than evolution can allow for.

  This book is another pseudo-scientific junk publication stunt by creationists. All living things undergo mutations during their lifetime; some are benign, some are not and some are apparently irrelevant. If the individuals monitored live in a green valey, they will have less mutations than those next to a toxic waste dump site; no secret about poison being bad for you. So for the 100000th time, those mutations helpful to better adapt to the environment are most likely to be passed on to future generations. And someone put in this guy's religious head that evolution happens at the level of species over a time period of millions of years.

  A rouge writer will never "debunk" evolution while mixing fantasy with facts.
• 

  Gerard

  All DNA served or serves a purpose, if even of DNA variety storage. I may code for proteins while in a specific stage of development such as the fertilized egg, fetus, child adolescent, adult and elder. Genes are turned on and off under a marvelous feedback system with sensors to the cell AND the environment. It is only a matter of seeing what DNA is being transcribed under what age or circumstances. Some DNA is turned on oonly during birth, only while exposed to cold, only while exposed to altitude, only when dieing...etc. In fact, it has been shown that large portions of seemingly "unused" or junk and folded DNA (hypercoiled DNA with its regular scafolding proteins) sometimes code for normal proteins while folded.
• 

  Gerard

  Burn the Ships, you have a good understanding of genetics and the facility to express it in layman's terms. Nice job. I wish i had your patience.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Thank you, Gerard.

  BTS
• 

  hooberus

  This is the best recent book for “extincting” neo-Darwinian theory by showing that the deleterious mutation rates are vastly higher than evolution can allow for.

  This book is another pseudo-scientific junk publication stunt by creationists.

  Here we see Gerard dismissing yet another book without having read it. This is similar to what he perviously said about another book that he hadn't read either (but only the preface that was posted). see: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/148600/2714534/post.ashx#2714534

  Remember my warning in the O.P.

  All living things undergo mutations during their lifetime; some are benign, some are not and some are apparently irrelevant. If the individuals monitored live in a green valey, they will have less mutations than those next to a toxic waste dump site; no secret about poison being bad for you. So for the 100000th time, those mutations helpful to better adapt to the environment are most likely to be passed on to future generations.

  If you would actually read the book, you would see that the author wouldn't necessarily disagree with the above statements.

  And someone put in this guy's religious head that evolution happens at the level of species over a time period of millions of years.

  Lets see, the author has a P.h. D. in genetics and is the (among other things) the:

  • Primary inventor of the biolistic (gene gun) process
  • Co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process
  • Co-inventor of the Genetic Vaccination process
  • Primary inventor of numerous conventionally-bred fruit varieties
  • Most of the world's transgenic crop acreage were transformed via my biolistic process

  http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/hort/faculty/sanford/

  So I think that even his now"religious" (former atheist) mind might understand that "evolution" supposedly "happens at the level of species over a time period of millions of years".

  A rouge writer will never "debunk" evolution while mixing fantasy with facts.

  And a post writer here will never "debunk" a book while mixing fantasy with facts either.
• 

  Tuesday

  Funny that the only thing you addressed were small comments on here that you could come up with a pithy reply for.

  Kent Hovind said he was a Science teacher and a doctor as well. Turned out he was lying and even his "million dollar challenge" would be changed once a Scientist could match it.

  Nothing addressing the merger of chromosome 2 eh? Big shock. That's because all creationists ever do is address straw men that have nothing to do with evolution. Scientists have known for quite some time that "junk" DNA is not junk. As the mapping of genomes continue and DNA modification occurs you'll see more and more proof of evolution. For example right now geneticists are working with proteins by injecting them into eggs of chickens which turns on those inactive parts of their DNA to create teeth and extending their tails.

  Straw men arguments only convince those who are ignorant of the subject that the speaker is right, much like the writer of these articles you've posted. (and yes I realize the last sentence is probably the only thing you'll address in either of my posts, because it's the easiest to make some stupid comment about.)
• 

  mkr32208

  Creationist are never intimidated by an intelligent argument; they just scream "god did it!" Then run away...
• 

  Gerard

  I didn't read our "warning"? Sure, now I have to spend $30 in junk fiction in order to call you on this bullshit? I don't need to read creationist crap to realize it is crap from the onset. I have a few degrees myself in molecular biology and waving his titles does not impress me. He could not publish properly his dishonest hypothesis as a scientist, so he wrote a fiction story. What a big man! In addition, he declared in a Kansas court that regardless of the evidence, he believes that the Earth is only 5000 years old. That is the quality of his intelectual honesty. Faith is not science. Faith is not truth. Faith is hope for what is not. Science can say "we don't know"; creationists want to believe Superman did it. Want the truth or want it easy? Oh wait, easy does it, right?

  Take your wand. Swirl and flick. Nice job!
• 

  Gerard

  One more thing: get your terminology straight and tell your creationist friends: evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organismn through successive generations, or "descent with modification". It is a demonstrated and measurable phenomenon. Live with it. It does NOT attempt to describe the origin of life. The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began. Comprende?

  How many antibiotics, airplanes, engines, vaccines, computers, laws of nature etc were invented or discovered by pulling a god out of your ass? Science must be curious and while standing at the edge of knowledge, creating hypotheses is necesary, these are expected to have a root in reality and knowledge, not a want.

  Creationism is nothing more than one more religious faith without logical proof or material evidence. It brings no additional knowledge. Don't pretend it is science!