Science vs. Creationism

[MVP]

What are a, b, and c supposed to be?

Read all the story here.

https://www.strangeark.com/bfr/archive/historical/Remarkable_case_hind_limbs_humpback_whale.pdf

 

[Deleted member 848]

Duplication does not always lend itself to information loss, but it never lends itself to information gain.

I took my information from a genetics professor. My simplification was for debate purposes.

A simplification? Those statements say completely different things. Your 'simplifications' are misleading, and I'm sure this isn't the only one. If your 'debate purposes' are misleading other readers in this forum, perhaps you should reconsider what your 'purpose' with your involvement in this thread truly is.

I read about translocation before you mentioned it. It seems like that would be comparable to an out of order page in the copy of the book.

Yes, but think deeper. This translocation is more like "one and 30% of a laminated page (if we assume that the gene is in an imprinted area, and therefore the DNA is methylated) being thrown 40 pages ahead into a chapter in the book with pages made of papyrus".

There is simply so much variation in the mere structure of the nucleic acid backbone within a single chromosome-- let alone between chromosomes. Moving half of a gene from chromosome 14 to 8 in the middle of another gene begets new start and stop transcription sites, which can create novel genes-- which, of course, can be beneficial or detrimental. Translocations are in no way intrinsically deleterious.

Please stop it with the simplifications. They both inhibit your understanding of the science, as well as the other readers of this thread.

 

[PearlWatson]

"Please post "creationist explanation" about sexual function of hind limb remnants in whales, I would like to read it".

I can explain to you the sexual function of "hind limb remnants."

A male whale has a 12 foot long dick so when he goes to make babies he needs support for this.
A female whale has to support a 12 foot long dick...

Now do you get it?

 

[babe]

A simplification? Those statements say completely different things. Your 'simplifications' are misleading, and I'm sure this isn't the only one. If your 'debate purposes' are misleading other readers in this forum, perhaps you should reconsider what your 'purpose' with your involvement in this thread truly is.



Yes, but think deeper. This translocation is more like "one and 30% of a laminated page (if we assume that the gene is in an imprinted area, and therefore the DNA is methylated) being thrown 40 pages ahead into a chapter in the book with pages made of papyrus".

There is simply so much variation in the mere structure of the nucleic acid backbone within a single chromosome-- let alone between chromosomes. Moving half of a gene from chromosome 14 to 8 in the middle of another gene begets new start and stop transcription sites, which can create novel genes-- which, of course, can be beneficial or detrimental. Translocations are in no way intrinsically deleterious.

Please stop it with the simplifications. They both inhibit your understanding of the science, as well as the other readers of this thread.

I suppose turnabout is fair play. When Pearl sees advocates of actually Marxist lingo, such as "religion is the opiate of the masses", it's not a scientific debate anymore, and she's entitled to her faithful retorts. Intellectual "bully tactics" by atheists beget non-scientific simplifications at some level of popular religious sentiment.

To be fair, Dal, some people's efforts at particularly accurate statements of science will strike a true expert as woefully misspoken wild errors of fact. I understand your point, and appreciate your contributions to my education. I wouldn't worry too much about all the other readers. In a 'net forum it's "caveat emptor", so to speak, for whatever pearls you have that you're willing to throw out on a thread. People will be people, God only can love them, sometimes. . . .

 

[PearlWatson]

A simplification? Those statements say completely different things. Your 'simplifications' are misleading, and I'm sure this isn't the only one. If your 'debate purposes' are misleading other readers in this forum, perhaps you should reconsider what your 'purpose' with your involvement in this thread truly is.

Yes, but think deeper. This translocation is more like "one and 30% of a laminated page (if we assume that the gene is in an imprinted area, and therefore the DNA is methylated) being thrown 40 pages ahead into a chapter in the book with pages made of papyrus".

There is simply so much variation in the mere structure of the nucleic acid backbone within a single chromosome-- let alone between chromosomes. Moving half of a gene from chromosome 14 to 8 in the middle of another gene begets new start and stop transcription sites, which can create novel genes-- which, of course, can be beneficial or detrimental. Translocations are in no way intrinsically deleterious.

Please stop it with the simplifications. They both inhibit your understanding of the science, as well as the other readers of this thread.

None of the details you added have contradicted my point that in any of these instances (duplication, translocation, recombinant) no new information is added.

You have more information and rearranged information but not new.

Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., Biology: "The adverse effects of gene duplication, such as Down’s syndrome, are well known. Although the methodology is available, evidence of functionally useful genes as a result of duplication is yet to be documented."

 

[PearlWatson]

Thriving on citrate was a new ability, and of course they were still bacteria, because no miracle occurred.

E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions.


I agree that one kind turning into another kind would be a miracle, but that's exactly what Darwinists believe, and claim the evidence supports.

Creationists:

fish---->other fish

Darwinists:

fish---->amphibians

 

[MVP]

I can explain to you the sexual function of "hind limb remnants."

A male whale has a 12 foot long dick so when he goes to make babies he needs support for this.
A female whale has to support a 12 foot long dick...

Now do you get it?

ROFL. Let me ask you do you know what size is dolphin or porpoise dick? And do you know that whale or dolphin dick is inside the body before erection and does not need any support. And during erection and coitus they are under water, thus no support for erect penis is needed either. Here is some dolphin mating video for your education:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZffLgEKOq58

 

[MVP]

I just laugh how creationists are desperately jumping all over the animal kingdom trying to deny obvious evidence of evolution. One day it is humans, then apes, next day it is bird, than whales, than invertebrates. It is actually funny to constantly deny absurd claims. Bring more!!!

 

[LogGrad98]

I can explain to you the sexual function of "hind limb remnants."

A male whale has a 12 foot long dick so when he goes to make babies he needs support for this.
A female whale has to support a 12 foot long dick...

Now do you get it?

I know exactly how he feels.

 

[LogGrad98]

I just laugh how creationists are desperately jumping all over the animal kingdom trying to deny obvious evidence of evolution. One day it is humans, then apes, next day it is bird, than whales, than invertebrates. It is actually funny to constantly deny absurd claims. Bring more!!!

Or is it just that the "evidence" has holes everywhere?

 

[LogGrad98]

ROFL. Let me ask you do you know what size is dolphin or porpoise dick? And do you know that whale or dolphin dick is inside the body before erection and does not need any support. And during erection and coitus they are under water, thus no support for erect penis is needed either. Here is some dolphin mating video for your education:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZffLgEKOq58

Brings back really bad memories of Sea World.

 

[Deleted member 848]

You have more information and rearranged information but not new.

Expound on this, please. If you re-arrange the sequence into an order that is different from all other species-- are you suggesting that it isn't not new simply because it is rooted from information that was pre-existing, and it has since been re-arranged?

I'm not quite sure I follow.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., Biology: "The adverse effects of gene duplication, such as Down’s syndrome, are well known. Although the methodology is available, evidence of functionally useful genes as a result of duplication is yet to be documented."

1) Bergman is a garbage scientist
2) Duplicated genes not having evidence of functionality?

Starch consumption is a prominent characteristic of agricultural societies and hunter-gatherers in arid environments. In contrast, rainforest and circum-arctic hunter-gatherers and some pastoralists consume much less starch1-3. This behavioral variation raises the possibility that different selective pressures have acted on amylase, the enzyme responsible for starch hydrolysis4. We found that salivary amylase gene (AMY1) copy number is correlated positively with salivary amylase protein levels, and that individuals from populations with high-starch diets have on average more AMY1 copies than those with traditionally low-starch diets. Comparisons with other loci in a subset of these populations suggest that the level of AMY1 copy number differentiation is unusual. This example of positive selection on a copy number variable gene is one of the first in the human genome. Higher AMY1 copy numbers and protein levels likely improve the digestion of starchy foods, and may buffer against the fitness-reducing effects of intestinal disease.

Diet and AMY1 copy number variation. (a) Comparison of qPCR-estimated AMY1 diploid copy number frequency distributions for populations with traditional diets that incorporate many starch-rich foods (high-starch) and populations with traditional diets that include little or no starch (low-starch). (b) Cumulative distribution plot of diploid AMY1 copy number for each of the seven populations in the study.

 

[Deleted member 848]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1462165/

Our result suggested that the difference in GC content at synonymous sites between the two Amy-type genes was due to the change of selection intensity immediately after gene duplication but before speciation of the montium species.

 

[PearlWatson]

ROFL. Let me ask you do you know what size is dolphin or porpoise dick? And do you know that whale or dolphin dick is inside the body before erection and does not need any support. And during erection and coitus they are under water, thus no support for erect penis is needed either. Here is some dolphin mating video for your education:

*dolphin pron*

We are talking about a whale and then you give me dolphin pron?

What am I supposed to learn from the video? I can't see the internal structure in that video, but I am supposed to conclude that dolphins don't use or need their pelvic girdle? Why are all their sexual organs connected to it then?

 

[PearlWatson]

1) Bergman is a garbage scientist

Says the med student about the guy with a ph.D.

Why should I listen to anything you have to say after this comment?

 

[MVP]

We are talking about a whale and then you give me dolphin pron?

What am I supposed to learn from the video? I can't see the internal structure in that video, but I am supposed to conclude that dolphins don't use or need their pelvic girdle? Why are all their sexual organs connected to it then?

I gave you dolphin as example because you had claimed that whales must use their pelvic limb remnants for sexual function since their penises are huge - hello!!! dolphins and porpoises are kind of related to whales, don't you think so?? And it is so funny how in the same article where you took your diagram there is ventrodorsal view of it with arrows pointing to tibia and femur. You know what tibia and femur is right?

And to answer you last question - because we are all mammals and had common ancestor. What do you think human penis is attached to? Bull? dog? Horse?
See and compare some animals genital systems for example. Striking similarities due to common ancestor.

 

[MVP]

Or is it just that the "evidence" has holes everywhere?

Evidence of evolution is striking and whatever those tiny holes you are trying to talk about are regularly filled in the more we learn and find about it.
While creation on the other hand is basically one big hole. There is nothing whatsoever proving it. Myths and legends about it hold same value like about Zeus, Thor and Hades.

 

[LogGrad98]

Evidence of evolution is striking and whatever those tiny holes you are trying to talk about are regularly filled in the more we learn and find about it.
While creation on the other hand is basically one big hole. There is nothing whatsoever proving it. Myths and legends about it hold same value like about Zeus, Thor and Hades.

To someone with only a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.

 

[MVP]

To someone with only a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.

To someone who believes in 2000+ year old books modern science is kind of scary, I understand that. When Columbus and his sailors first discovered America natives thought that they are Gods. Some natives from tribes in Amazon still look with ave when they see planes ( and probably are thinking about it as divine creation as well).