What's new
By:

Science vs. Creationism

dalamon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
One Brow said:
Thriving on citrate was a new ability, and of course they were still bacteria, because no miracle occurred.
Click to expand...

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
 
PearlWatson said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
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!!!
 
PearlWatson said:
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?
Click to expand...

I know exactly how he feels.
 
AKMVP said:
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!!!
Click to expand...

Or is it just that the "evidence" has holes everywhere?
 
AKMVP said:
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
Click to expand...


Brings back really bad memories of Sea World.
 
PearlWatson said:
You have more information and rearranged information but not new.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PearlWatson said:
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."
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
nihms-44514-f0002.jpg

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.
Click to expand...
 
AKMVP said:
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*
Click to expand...

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?

tmpBF68_thumb_thumb1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top