Evolution My ToE

[Audie]

Rejection is all based on ideology and various church doctrines. They just cannot bring themselves to admit that.

It is hard to admit to intellectual dishonesty,
ESPECIALLY as it is SOP for creationist rhetoric.

I would like to see, just once would do,
a coordinated effort to get a creationist to
put up or shut up.

No diversions, just one topic:
GIVE US A FACT CONTRARY TO TOE AND DEFEND IT
WITH FACTS.

There are more ways to get away than there are
creationists , so it will take some doing.

Subzy, you listening????

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is hard to admit to intellectual dishonesty,
ESPECIALLY as it is SOP for creationist rhetoric.

I would like to see, just once would do,
a coordinated effort to get a creationist to
put up or shut up.

No diversions, just one topic:
GIVE US A FACT CONTRARY TO TOE AND DEFEND IT
WITH FACTS.

There are more ways to get away than there are
creationists , so it will take some doing.

Subzy, you listening????

I would like to see that once too.

But Gish and buttercups is all it will be.

 

[Audie]

I would like to see that once too.

But Gish and buttercups is all it will be.

Ignore, do not respond to anything but the topic

 

[tas8831]

How can you draw the conclusions that you have and then openly declare that you do not understand the material you are making conclusions about?

The question of the Ages....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ignore, do not respond to anything but the topic

More than half the time I am unable to address even minor points of Gish, because they are so confused, convoluted, directionless and oddly formatted to be unreadable.

Ask for brevity and you get righteous scorched earth in response.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The question of the Ages....

We don't even need an answer. It just needs to be understood by them.

 

[Audie]

More than half the time I am unable to address even minor points of Gish, because they are so confused, convoluted, directionless and oddly formatted to be unreadable.

Ask for brevity and you get righteous scorched earth in response.

Try

And now it is good night lil Audie good night.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

This has been discussed in modern conversations to great length. If you think about it, I am sure you will recall the evidence.

Here is a brief list.

1. Billions of years and not days. I realize that says is interpreted differently by some, but the evidence supports 4.3 billion years for the Earth and 3.8 for living things.

2. The order of creation is not internally consistent in Genesis, not is it consistent with the evidence. Plants did not exist pejorative sun as one example.

3. Living things were not created entire as they exist now. The evidence shows a change in life over time as well as an increasing complexity.

4. No global flood.

5. Humans evolved like all other life. Adam and Eve are metaphorical. The order of human appearance is not internally consistent, not using consistent with the evidence.I

this is just what I could list quickly, without deeper reflection.

If the account is interpreted as metaphorical, there is no conflict.

(I’ve had other responsibilities & issues to contend with...couldn’t be helped, so just now getting around to this. More will be coming up, so bear with me, please. I put your responses in my tablet’s notes, so I’ll have them for quick reference.)

I’m gonna deal with these objections, one at a time, at my earliest convenience.

Gotta go for now. Have a good one.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, thank you. How is DNA different from chromosomes?

Let's go through a few of the basics Maybe this will help.

Atoms: All atoms are made of three things: protons, neutrons, and electrons. Electrons are negatively charged, protons are positively charged, and neutrons are neutral. The protons and neutrons are in the center of the atom, in the nucleus (not the same as the nucleus of a cell). The eectrons surround the nucleus. For a neutral atom, the number of protons and the number of electrons are the same and this number determines the chemical properties of the atom.

Element: an element is composed of just one type of atom: examples are hydrogen, carbon, iron, oxygen, nitrogen. The periodic table organizes the elements by their chemical properties.

Molecule: A molecule is a collection of atoms bound together via what are known as chemical bonds. For example, a molecule of water has two hydrogen atoms and a single oxygen atom bound together with the oxygen in the middle. A carbon dioxide molecule contains two oxygen atoms and a carbon atom bound together with the carbon in the middle. The way the atoms are connected to each other is important, so the same number and type of atoms can make a different molecule is arranged differently. The way the atoms are arranged and bonded together determines the chemical properties of the molecule.

Compound: something made of just one type of molecule. Water, carbon dioxide, sucrose (ordinary sugar), glucose (another common sugar in the body), tryptophan (an amino acid), etc.

Amino acid: a particular type of molecule having an 'amino group' consisting of nitrogen and hydrogen and an 'acid group' consisting of carbon and oxygen, together with a 'side chain' that varies from amino acid to amino acid. There are around 20 amino acids common in life and hundreds that can be made artificially.

Nucleic acid: a small molecule that contains a 5-carbon sugar, a phosphate group, and a nitrogen base. The sugar for living things is either ribose or deoxyribose. The first gives the nucleic acids in RNA and the second those in DNA. DNA has guanine, cytosine, thymine, and adenine. RNA has guanine, cytosine, thymine, or uracil.

Often, large molecules are obtained by binding together many copies of smaller molecules. This is called polymerization and the large molecule is called a polymer. Each smaller molecule, in this case, is called a monomer. Examples: DNA is a polymer consisting of nucleic acids based on deoxyribose. In DNA, the nucleic acids always come in pairs (called base pairs) and they form a double helix. RNA is a polymer made from ribose-based nucleic acids. Usually, in life, RNA is single stranded (no pairs). Proteins are polymers made from amino acids.

In DNA, a 'codon' consists of three nucleic acids on one strand of the DNA (the pairs produce two strands, remember). For complex organisms (eucaryotes), the DNA is in the nucleus of the cell and is wrapped around proteins called histones into much larger structures called chromosomes.

But, shorter strands of DNA 'encode' for proteins, with each codon (three nucleic acids) being translated into an amino acid in the protein. In the 'decoding' of the DNA, the DNA is 'transcribed' into RNA, which leaves the nucleus and is then fed into a 'ribosome' that actually assembles the protein from the codons in the RNA. The DNA for a single protein is called a gene.

So, chromosomes contain large numbers of genes, each of which is a strand of DNA that encodes for a protein. Chromosomes also contain the histones, which are proteins that the DNA wraps around, making the whole thing more compact.

Now, some proteins (and their genes) are very common throughout living things (for example, the proteins necessary to convert glucose into energy units---ATP) while others are very specific to certain types of organisms. Each species has its own particular way of organizing the genes into chromosomes, although related species tend to do so in similar ways.

Chromosomes often come in pairs, expressing essentially the same genes, although often with small variations. So, it is possible to get one gene that codes for blue eyes on on chromosome and another copy that codes for brown eyes on another. When something like this happens, one copy tends to be the active one (the dominant one) and so, you would have brown eyes. other times, both copies might be used and the combined effects then occur in the organism.

This is all the 'genotype' of the organism: the genes. The phenotype is the result of how those genes are activated and used to produce the actual organism: it's shape, its metabolism, etc. So the phenotype is produced not just from the genes, but also how those genes are activated and how they are affected by the environment.

Which genes are used and which are not is also partially determined by proteins that bind to the DNA (promoters). These are different than the histones, which are the 'packing proteins'. The promoters respond to the environment (through chemical messengers) to determine which genes are transcribed and which are not. This often produces a very complex net of feedback mechanisms.

Anyway, I hope this has helped a bit. if you have more questions, I (and others) will be happy to help you learn.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

(I’ve had other responsibilities & issues to contend with...couldn’t be helped, so just now getting around to this. More will be coming up, so bear with me, please. I put your responses in my tablet’s notes, so I’ll have them for quick reference.)

I’m gonna deal with these objections, one at a time, at my earliest convenience.

Gotta go for now. Have a good one.

no problem. I look forward to it.

 

[dad]

If you really think each 'day' of creation is 24 hours each, you might figure that the last day of creation is not said to be over. But if you think that a day always means 24 hours, all I can say is, oh well.

I would not get hung up on interpretations of what the seventh day means. Seems to me Jesus was doing a whole lot in the Old Testament as well as when He came down and even now!

Here is the Almighty telling us for Himself!

Isa 62:1 - For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth.

Ha. When man rests on the Sabbath day, that does not mean he sleeps forever either.

 

[dad]

I don't doubt the historicity of the Bible. But each day of creation simply and yes I mean simply, obviously, and evidently, does not equate to 24 hours each.

So how many millions of years was it from day three when plants were made till the day the sun was created? Must have been hearty plants!?

 

[YoursTrue]

No. Not even close.

Although what *is* interesting is that chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes that are almost identical to those of humans, except that two pairs of the chimp chromosomes have fused into one pair of human. This is one of the strong pieces of evidence that chimps and humans are related by a common ancestor.

OK, let's see what's going on here.
So domestic cats have 38 chromosomes and the number of chromosomes for humans is 46. Give or take a few. Before I get to your statement about chimpanzees, can you please explain more about any difference between cats and humans insofar as the chromosomes go aside for the number of them? Are the 38 cat chromosomes in a human? (Let's start there before you get to chimpanzees.) I think it's a fairly simple question, but maybe you know the answer.

 

[YoursTrue]

I would not get hung up on interpretations of what the seventh day means. Seems to me Jesus was doing a whole lot in the Old Testament as well as when He came down and even now!

Here is the Almighty telling us for Himself!

Isa 62:1 - For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth.

Ha. When man rests on the Sabbath day, that does not mean he sleeps forever either.

The promise of new heavens and new earth is very important, and, of course, that involves Jesus. But I'm not getting hung up on the 7th day. I'm just pointing out to you what the Bible says. God's Word says each day of the 6 days of creation had an evening and a morning. But the 7th day is not described as evening and morning.
How do you get from Isaiah 62:1 where God says He will not rest, to man resting on the sabbath day? No close said for the 7th day.

 

[YoursTrue]

So how many millions of years was it from day three when plants were made till the day the sun was created? Must have been hearty plants!?

You really need to pray for understanding, ask God for help.

 

[YoursTrue]

You do know that there are OLD EARTH creationists and YOUNG EARTH creationists, yes?

You'd best get your own house in order before you go casting aspersions at others.

If you really want me to start digging into the lies of creationists and the shoddy garbage they call 'science', I will do so.

Don't get so angry. You can look at what others believe, but I really don't know what you mean by the expressions old earth creationists and young earth creationists. I know what I believe (have come to realize), and further, it's not my house. Of course you can always look at your house. Whatever it is.

 

[YoursTrue]

You do know that there are OLD EARTH creationists and YOUNG EARTH creationists, yes?

You'd best get your own house in order before you go casting aspersions at others.

If you really want me to start digging into the lies of creationists and the shoddy garbage they call 'science', I will do so.

Oh, so because I said you, by which I am meaning those who defend evolution, can't even agree with one another, that's casting aspersions? I don't think so. It's stating truth. And you seem to be insulted by that truth.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes I did - I've read many other similar articles.

But, if your linking to it wasn't meant intended as some kind of accusation, why did you link it?

As I wrote, peer review is not perfect, but it is better than mere belief.
What annoys me about many of these kinds of articles is the implicit lumping together of all scientific publications, despite, in most cases, a focus on medicine/clinically-related ones, where there is potentially big money involved.

I like how frequently evolution haters accuse evolution researchers of being in it for the money, accusing us of just toeing the party line to get funding and all this.

That is truly an idiotic accusation, because, for one thing, much if not most purely evolution-related research is NOT very well funded, especially by government grants. The NSF funds some, but more often, if one is, for example doing a fossil dig or something like that, you need private funding.
The Institute for Human Origins, for example, is housed at the U of Arizona, but is almost entirely privately funded. My previous research, while my primary interests were evolution, had to include relevant research on a particular group of blood disorders to receive funding. And that was just enough to get by - no big bucks for me or most of my colleagues.

Anyway, back to the failure of peer review...

Most interesting - did you click on any of the links within that article?

I'm betting not, but I did. And just as I implied above, pretty much ALL of them were to articles on clinically-related research. The titles for the first 4 links:

Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again

Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?

Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.
...
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:
Observational study of original research papers sent for external review at 10 biomedical journals.



Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review.
...
METHODS:
To examine the evidence of the effects of editorial peer-review processes in biomedical journals,


The last 2 were in JAMA, by the way.

Your point?

What do you propose is better?

So much of what I read is conjecture, putting evidence into the theory and then moving on to figure that because apes stand somewhat upright, they're on the road to be humans. In a way. Somehow. By microsteps. Anyway, thanks for discussion, it has helped.

 

[YoursTrue]

Let's go through a few of the basics Maybe this will help.

Atoms: All atoms are made of three things: protons, neutrons, and electrons. Electrons are negatively charged, protons are positively charged, and neutrons are neutral. The protons and neutrons are in the center of the atom, in the nucleus (not the same as the nucleus of a cell). The eectrons surround the nucleus. For a neutral atom, the number of protons and the number of electrons are the same and this number determines the chemical properties of the atom.

Element: an element is composed of just one type of atom: examples are hydrogen, carbon, iron, oxygen, nitrogen. The periodic table organizes the elements by their chemical properties.

Molecule: A molecule is a collection of atoms bound together via what are known as chemical bonds. For example, a molecule of water has two hydrogen atoms and a single oxygen atom bound together with the oxygen in the middle. A carbon dioxide molecule contains two oxygen atoms and a carbon atom bound together with the carbon in the middle. The way the atoms are connected to each other is important, so the same number and type of atoms can make a different molecule is arranged differently. The way the atoms are arranged and bonded together determines the chemical properties of the molecule.

Compound: something made of just one type of molecule. Water, carbon dioxide, sucrose (ordinary sugar), glucose (another common sugar in the body), tryptophan (an amino acid), etc.

Amino acid: a particular type of molecule having an 'amino group' consisting of nitrogen and hydrogen and an 'acid group' consisting of carbon and oxygen, together with a 'side chain' that varies from amino acid to amino acid. There are around 20 amino acids common in life and hundreds that can be made artificially.

Nucleic acid: a small molecule that contains a 5-carbon sugar, a phosphate group, and a nitrogen base. The sugar for living things is either ribose or deoxyribose. The first gives the nucleic acids in RNA and the second those in DNA. DNA has guanine, cytosine, thymine, and adenine. RNA has guanine, cytosine, thymine, or uracil.

Often, large molecules are obtained by binding together many copies of smaller molecules. This is called polymerization and the large molecule is called a polymer. Each smaller molecule, in this case, is called a monomer. Examples: DNA is a polymer consisting of nucleic acids based on deoxyribose. In DNA, the nucleic acids always come in pairs (called base pairs) and they form a double helix. RNA is a polymer made from ribose-based nucleic acids. Usually, in life, RNA is single stranded (no pairs). Proteins are polymers made from amino acids.

In DNA, a 'codon' consists of three nucleic acids on one strand of the DNA (the pairs produce two strands, remember). For complex organisms (eucaryotes), the DNA is in the nucleus of the cell and is wrapped around proteins called histones into much larger structures called chromosomes.

But, shorter strands of DNA 'encode' for proteins, with each codon (three nucleic acids) being translated into an amino acid in the protein. In the 'decoding' of the DNA, the DNA is 'transcribed' into RNA, which leaves the nucleus and is then fed into a 'ribosome' that actually assembles the protein from the codons in the RNA. The DNA for a single protein is called a gene.

So, chromosomes contain large numbers of genes, each of which is a strand of DNA that encodes for a protein. Chromosomes also contain the histones, which are proteins that the DNA wraps around, making the whole thing more compact.

Now, some proteins (and their genes) are very common throughout living things (for example, the proteins necessary to convert glucose into energy units---ATP) while others are very specific to certain types of organisms. Each species has its own particular way of organizing the genes into chromosomes, although related species tend to do so in similar ways.

Chromosomes often come in pairs, expressing essentially the same genes, although often with small variations. So, it is possible to get one gene that codes for blue eyes on on chromosome and another copy that codes for brown eyes on another. When something like this happens, one copy tends to be the active one (the dominant one) and so, you would have brown eyes. other times, both copies might be used and the combined effects then occur in the organism.

This is all the 'genotype' of the organism: the genes. The phenotype is the result of how those genes are activated and used to produce the actual organism: it's shape, its metabolism, etc. So the phenotype is produced not just from the genes, but also how those genes are activated and how they are affected by the environment.

Which genes are used and which are not is also partially determined by proteins that bind to the DNA (promoters). These are different than the histones, which are the 'packing proteins'. The promoters respond to the environment (through chemical messengers) to determine which genes are transcribed and which are not. This often produces a very complex net of feedback mechanisms.

Anyway, I hope this has helped a bit. if you have more questions, I (and others) will be happy to help you learn.

I thank you for your trying to help me understand, and I see that I can't understand much of the above.

 

[Bear Wild]

I think I have to go slower than the information you're presenting. I don't understand what you mean when you say first that the number of chromosomes does not equate to the total genetic sequences. Since I don't understand why the number of chromosomes (47 in humans) does not equate to the total genetic sequences, which I also don't understand. I'm thinking I don't understand what shared dna is. Or phenotypic expression. So unless it's explained to me in a way I can understand, I do not understand it.

Somebody probably answered this but you need to ignore the number of chromosomes as important when it comes to understanding genetics. Chromosomes are primarily important in the process of cell division and can be seen as packages of the genetic code called DNA which condense and become visible under a light microscope before a cell divides. This packaging makes sure that a new duplicate set of dna can form and be divided evenly between two cells dividing.
What determines what an organism looks like and how it functions is the total genetic sequence of DNA and not the packaging for cell division as chromosomes. Thus the entire genetic sequences of DNA functions independently from the chromosomes. The basic functional components of DNA are called genes which contain the sequence of DNA to code for the production of a specific protein needed for cell development or function. This is a basic simple presentation of a very complex genetic code but the point is that the chromosomes just package the important dna sequences that form the genes that code for how an organism looks and functions.

Now for phenotypic expression - these are the segments of the genes that code for how an organism looks like. These are the gene segments of the dna that give all of the variations on how even organisms of the same species can look so different. Just consider the variation in dogs. These are the gene sequences that can be rapidly changed in time and are the least conserved in time. (the full explanation for this is much more complicated but this is my start)

Other genetic sequences code for more critical functions of an organism - utilizing oxygen and sugars to make energy for the body. Sequences that control the development of an embryo dividing the layers of cells, and proteins that have critical roles in the function of the different cells of the body. These are very conserved gene sequences shared but most living organisms.

Thus the 90% of shared genetic code between cats and humans are the critical genes that are well conserved between organisms. It is only the 10% not shared by cats and humans that account for all the differences we see between cats and humans called the phenotypic expression. Thus my cat is furry has claws and generally ignores me except on my cats terms while I am not very furry and do not have claws and respond to my cats on their terms. The phenotypic differences.

I how this helps a little and is not too confusing. At least you seem to want to understand and that desire to learn is appreciated.


M