Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vanderzyden · 09-15-2002, 09:39 PM

Nat,

You are not telling the whole story in your reply. Surely you know it.

But before I elaborate why, perhaps you can tell me why I should bother to engage you further, when you write things like this:

Quote:

Originally posted by Nat:
<strong>

Wow Vander, the more you post, the more you make yourself look like a fool. </strong>

Vanderzyden

Nat · 09-15-2002, 10:04 PM

Vander,

Why should I care if you respond to me or not? You haven't responded to my previous questions about support for some of your asinine statements (such as your contention that theoretical physics does not employ methodological naturalism or that many academic institutions are rejecting the Theory of Evolution)?

Quite honestly I think you are a fool - and a damn arrogant one at that. You have made stupid statement after stupid statement on this board and when people call you on them (even nicely) you simply ignore them. You are a loser who has no argument. Frankly you're dull and I am baffled that so many have bothered to engage you.

scigirl · 09-15-2002, 10:29 PM

Note that vanderzyden quoted this as proof that evolution has no evidence:

Quote:

The theory of evolution (is) a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.-- D.M.S. Watson, "Adaptation," Nature, Vol. 123 [sic Vol. 124] (1929), p. 233)

1929! Are you for real, Vander?

The structure of DNA hadn't even been elucidated yet!

You said the chromosome fusion needs more corroberation. Yet you reject all 29 of the "29 evidences" for macroevolution! How many do you need - 30? 30000? The fossil record was corroborated by genetic evidence (which by the way was ALL produced AFTER 1929.)

scigirl

scigirl · 09-15-2002, 10:39 PM

Ok you don't like chromosome fusions. Fine. How about gene duplications as evidence for macroevolution:

<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020304081153.htm" target="_blank">Gene Duplication Adapts To Changing Environment</a>

Quote:

ANN ARBOR --- As scientists piece together the genomes of more and more life forms---from fruit flies to humans---they're finding ample evidence that new genes have often been created through the duplication of existing genes. Of the more than 40,000 genes in the human genome, for example, about 15,000 appear to have been produced by gene duplication.

Evolutionary theories assert that some of these duplicated genes may acquire new functions and take on new roles. But exactly how do these changes occur? And do they, as scientists suspect, really help organisms adapt to their environments?

New answers to these questions come from a study of leaf-eating monkeys by researchers at the University of Michigan, the National Institutes of Health, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

In the work, published online March 4 by Nature Genetics, U-M's Jianzhi Zhang and colleagues show how a duplicated copy of a gene encoding a pancreatic enzyme has evolved to help the monkeys cope with an unusual diet.
...
Zhang and colleagues were particularly interested in a pancreatic enzyme, RNASE1, which breaks down bacterial RNA. Most primates have one gene encoding the enzyme, but the researchers found that the douc langur, a colobine monkey from Asia, has two---one encodes RNASE1, and its duplicate encodes a new enzyme, which they dubbed RNASE1B.
...
The duplication occurred about 4 million years ago, after colobines split off from the other Old World monkeys, Zhang's analysis showed. Through a series of computations and experiments, the researchers determined that the original gene encoding RNASE1 remained unchanged after duplication, but its twin, which encodes RNASE1B, changed rapidly.

Interestingly, the researchers found that the original enzyme works best at pH 7.4, but the new enzyme is most effective at pH 6.3---the acidity of the colobine small intestine. In fact, RNASE1B works six times better than RNASE1 under the more acidic conditions.
...
"Our results suggest that this is an adaptation to the more acidic environment of the small intestine in colobine monkeys," says Zhang. But if the new enzyme is so much more efficient, why has not natural selection done away with the old one? Apparently, it still performs an important function, Zhang speculates.

"We know that in humans, RNASE1 has two functions: to digest dietary RNA and to degrade double stranded RNA, perhaps as a defense against double-stranded RNA viruses," says Zhang. In the douc langur, RNASE1B has become super-efficient at the first job, but has lost the ability to do the second, his research shows. RNASE1, though upstaged in the first role, still carries out the second.

"So now they have different jobs to do," says Zhang. "Before the duplication, you have one enzyme doing two jobs. After duplication, you have two enzymes, each doing just one job, but doing it better than the other."

Zhang's analysis shows that the duplication occurred some six million years after colobines began eating leaves. "So leaf-eating did not depend on the new gene, but the new gene apparently improved the efficiency," he concludes.

Get used to examples of gene duplication - I'm going to present more and more of this data in the future (maybe not tomorrow, but when I get a chance). They are great proofs of not only that evolution DID occur, but also HOW it could occur. Ok I'll leave the "why" to someone who cares!

scigirl

monkenstick · 09-15-2002, 10:43 PM

vanderzyden, its clear that you haven't read Nature in a very long time, not since 1929 it would seem. Since then, you may be interested to know that there have been huge (HUGE) advances in biology, particularly molecular biology. 1929 is 70 odd years ago - even a decade is an AGE in modern biology - i'd love to find that graph of increases in amount of megabases sequenced over the years - knowledge is increasing exponentially.

scigirl · 09-15-2002, 10:53 PM

I love how Vander simultaneously rejects macroevolution because of a paucity of evidence, yet claims that the "29 evidences for macroevolution" is the same tired old boring stuff.

How can there be tired old boring stuff, and no stuff, at the same time?

I'm confused. Maybe I need more sleep, but I just don't get it.

scigirl

MrKrinkles · 09-16-2002, 01:14 AM

Vanderzyden,

Here is a definition of evolution:

"Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population."

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html" target="_blank">Talk.Origins</a>

Your claim that there is "no convincing evidence" for this is just silly.

Brooks

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: MrKrinkles ]</p>

Xixax · 09-16-2002, 05:47 AM

This thread is starting to make my head hurt when I read it. Just when I think someone couldn't be any more dense or evasive, he somehow exceeds my doubt.

I'm nearly ashamed such people are able to escape college with a degree. ( I agree with scigirl, why didn't this nut argue with his other science professors about their 'dogmatic naturalism'? )

Argh.

Coragyps · 09-16-2002, 06:28 AM

Posted again, primarily because it's Monday morning and I've been out since 1:00 AM chasing asteroid shadows:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely you realize that mutations aren't beneficial.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Van, I realize that you don't want to give out much information about yourself, but just this once, grant me this one little datum:

Are you lactose-tolerant?

Coragyps

hyzer · 09-16-2002, 07:56 AM

V-

You still have not explained the mechanism of gravity. How do large bodies attract other bodies? How is space curved?

Whereas scientists CAN explain the mechanisms of evolution, if I may, that is the point of scigirl’s comparison of the theory of evolution to the theory of gravity.

hyzer

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-15-2002, 10:04 PM	#302
Nat Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: USA Posts: 100	Vander, Why should I care if you respond to me or not? You haven't responded to my previous questions about support for some of your asinine statements (such as your contention that theoretical physics does not employ methodological naturalism or that many academic institutions are rejecting the Theory of Evolution)? Quite honestly I think you are a fool - and a damn arrogant one at that. You have made stupid statement after stupid statement on this board and when people call you on them (even nicely) you simply ignore them. You are a loser who has no argument. Frankly you're dull and I am baffled that so many have bothered to engage you.

09-15-2002, 10:43 PM	#305
monkenstick Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 214	vanderzyden, its clear that you haven't read Nature in a very long time, not since 1929 it would seem. Since then, you may be interested to know that there have been huge (HUGE) advances in biology, particularly molecular biology. 1929 is 70 odd years ago - even a decade is an AGE in modern biology - i'd love to find that graph of increases in amount of megabases sequenced over the years - knowledge is increasing exponentially.

09-15-2002, 10:53 PM	#306
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	I love how Vander simultaneously rejects macroevolution because of a paucity of evidence, yet claims that the "29 evidences for macroevolution" is the same tired old boring stuff. How can there be tired old boring stuff, and no stuff, at the same time? I'm confused. Maybe I need more sleep, but I just don't get it. scigirl

09-16-2002, 01:14 AM	#307
MrKrinkles Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: NW USA Posts: 93	Vanderzyden, Here is a definition of evolution: "Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population." <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html" target="_blank">Talk.Origins</a> Your claim that there is "no convincing evidence" for this is just silly. Brooks [ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: MrKrinkles ]</p>

09-16-2002, 05:47 AM	#308
Xixax Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 2,101	This thread is starting to make my head hurt when I read it. Just when I think someone couldn't be any more dense or evasive, he somehow exceeds my doubt. I'm nearly ashamed such people are able to escape college with a degree. ( I agree with scigirl, why didn't this nut argue with his other science professors about their 'dogmatic naturalism'? ) Argh.

09-16-2002, 06:28 AM	#309
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	Posted again, primarily because it's Monday morning and I've been out since 1:00 AM chasing asteroid shadows: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Surely you realize that mutations aren't beneficial. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Van, I realize that you don't want to give out much information about yourself, but just this once, grant me this one little datum: Are you lactose-tolerant? Coragyps

09-16-2002, 07:56 AM	#310
hyzer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: philadelphia Posts: 1,844	V- You still have not explained the mechanism of gravity. How do large bodies attract other bodies? How is space curved? Whereas scientists CAN explain the mechanisms of evolution, if I may, that is the point of scigirl’s comparison of the theory of evolution to the theory of gravity. hyzer

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.