Here is an actual happening that will kind of prove my point:
There were a group of fish who got trapped in a cave that was completely dark. Since the fish could not see they kept running into the walls and hurting their eyes...since they did no longer need their eyes anymore they began no longer have eyes. This is said to be evolution...but if evolution is a benefit to the WHOLE SPECIES then it is just the ADAPTATION of one group...what would happen if you let the eyeless fish out of the cave??? They would be eaten and have no way to see it coming. How is that beneficial to the whole species???
I guess the point of that is to say the term evolution is used to loosly.
We are really getting down to the technical stuff. Yes I am familiar with plasmids...actually the funny thing is I just to a break from doing my take home test dealing with them and recombinate dna and genomes. I fully understand what you are saying and I am very pleased with your exactness.
I just wanted to come back to my definations I gave a while ago pertaining to your African-Canadians. You said a whole species evolved. Would the lightening of their skin help for the entire species? NO. Just for them. The africans still need the mellanin and just because the African Canadians evolve does not mean that the actual Africans will. Which means that that group of African Canadians ADAPTED.
My major problem with evolution is that if we evolved from apes and evolution is an ongoing process why are we not noticing that the apes we have now are slowly turning to look like humans?
I guess the defination for me of a true christian is someone who believes fully in God and the Bible and lives for Him....just sense you asked...
My Friend is doing better but he still had not woken up yet. I miss him so much...
jstar - the miller experiment did carry flaws that prevent it from being scientifically accetable as a substitute for the true primordial "goop" that may have predated organic molecule formations. but it was a wonderful attempt - and i believe that future attempts will get better. my ionizing radiation theory was postulated several years ago by a few different, independent groups. they were searching for an explanation as to why all DNA consists of the D-isomer and why all amino acids were of L-isomer configuration. the group was able to form D-isomers of ogranic molecules by subjecting hydrocarbons (suspected to exist due to geothermal reactionary conditions) to intense polarized radiation - the same type that has been observed from supernovas and quasars. is this speculative - sure - but it's an interesting theory. anyways, i'm not saying that it's the answer, but rather a possible scientific explanation. again, science struggles to explain the unobservable.
sing4jc - i'm glad that you're learning about DNA and potential mutations. have you also learned about plasmid DNA? they're circular bands of DNA that may be passed from one bacteria to another - allowing for extra DNA to be incorporated into a cell. plasmid DNA may also be incorporated into the host DNA by the very process of translocation - certain homologous regions between plasmid and host DNA match and allow the non-aligning region to be translocated. there are also DNA bits called transposons that "jump" in and out of DNA - the DNA codes for a specific endonuclease (which cuts the DNA at certain points) along with a string of other genes - and may be passed between cells directly or sometimes using a virus as a vector. another way mutations occur is after nondisjunction occurs - during mitosis and/or meiosis chromosomes fail to divide correctly after replication and extra genetic material is passed on to one of of the daughter cells - the daughter cell, having extra, nonessential DNA to play with, may then experience a mutation that gives a new function to the cell. all of these are examples of how genetic material is "created," or more specifically, added.
there are many examples of how new genetic material may be added to a cell. that is probably why different organisms have different numbers of chromosomes. in regards to people - i consider all humans as one species and therefore we all carry the same proportionate amount of genetic material. how do you explain how africans in canada continue to produce much more melanin than caucasian canadians? why don't african-canadians adapt and produce less melanin so that they can produce more vitamin D? it's because an individual does not evolve - a species does. if africans lived in canada for a few million years, i'm sure that you'll find that their skin color would become quite fair. and that process would come about by a DNA mutation that decreased the production of melanin somewhere down the genetic line. that's how mutations lead to beneficial advantages.
another thing - i'm pretty far removed from being a "true" christian (what exactly is that? who defines that?), so i coexist with the theory of evolution quite comfortably.
lastly - i hope that your friend has a quick and full recovery. hopefully he's already been placed at stable condition as you read this.
kg---you're right...there is no evidence whatsoever or any experiment to date that explains how life first began. On what evidence or info was your radiation theory based? Many people assume that amino acids, the building blocks of life, were created by some chemical reaction... and base it all on Miller's experiment, which was fundamentally flawed. People still seem to ignore that tiny little fact.
Hey, I"m new hehe but umm this is something i thought would be interesting to talk about. So...My thought on this is I ALSO believe in God. But there was a time when i didn't, I didn't think we came from anything but now i can't like think diffrent from what i think now but like to people who believe we came from apes i think it's KIND of stupid like how could we come from apes like you see the things of how apes come into Man but then how are there Women??
Just wanted to say I am a little behind...my friend got hit by lightening while sliding at a golf course(we had a freek thunderstorm) and has been in critical condition sense...now he is listed as stable so I finally am taking the time to write.
I have to agree with both JStar and Blondteen on their thoughts. KG what you said in the scientific world makes sense. But like Jstar said where did that first thing we evolved from come from? You gave a great explaination but what you said still had to be put their no matter how small the matter was. We just covered DNA in Bio. And in response to when u said Genetic Material can be created...it can't. Their are 4 kinds of mutations. Dublication- repeating existing pairs of genetic material. Deletion- loss of a base pair. Inversion- Switching around backwards. Translocation- crossing of 2 unlike(not homologous) chromosomes. No where in there does it "create new genetic material"
Also Africans didn't "evolve" they "adapted". They produced more melanin because they need it. They used genetic material they already have. They did not create a new substance.
And lastly if you are a true "christian" you would not believe in evolution because it goes against the bible.
ionizing radiation from a supernova-like event led to coupling between hydrocarbons that had assumed a low-energy configuration ("chair formation" for all you chemistry buffs) and nitrogenous bases created from geothermal sulfur reactions. this coupling enabled easy binding with negative ions such as phosphorous and oxygen and thus RNA was formed. RNA, like any entropy-driven reaction, is actually in a lower-energy state when coupled to exact opposite RNA (coding vs. anti-coding, or template vs. coding) - this spontaneous thermodynamic reaction then produced DNA. after several millions of years, the most successful DNA-replicating reactions utilized RNA to serve as enzymes to assist in DNA replications ("riobzymes"). after more millions of years, specific RNA molecules were incorporated into DNA code that were then utilized with more efficient forms of RNA (proteins) to catalyze DNA replication. the rest, as they say, is history.
this is actually one of several proposed mechanisms for the origins of life. and it is perfectly feasible from a thermodynamic point of view. but i understand where you're coming from, jstar - the scientific origin of replicating life requires multiple steps that are, at best, highly improbable and at worst impossible. are several billion years enough time for such reactions and co-reactions to be created? i don't know. as i said before, science has a tough time explaining how things begin because oftentimes it is difficult to observe the beginning event of a process that takes millions/billions of years - and may be beyond our ability to accurately reproduce in a controlled experiment.
Okay, for the purpose of this question only, let's say that evolution is true...all of it. Well, answer me this: where did that first living substance, from which all else has evolved, come from?
You guys remember the movie "contact"? well...it starts at a time when scientists are "scanning the skies for signs of intelligent life in space"...they receive nothing but static, no real sounds from space. One day this lady (jodie foster) receives a transmission of prime numbers. They, just like we would, conclude that there is intelligence behind the transmission.
So why is it that we can see intelligence behind a string of numbers, but we can't see the intelligence behind the complex information in the DNA of any plant or animal? Creation has a design...and thus, a designer.
Well...not exactly. Evolution does not straight out contradict the Bible. Like KG said, some people are able to picture God as a God that would use evolution to create us.
I do believe, however, that evolution does refute the character of God as represented in the Bible.
And by the way...you must remember that there are two types of evolution. Microevolution (ie humans as a species getting taller over the centuries, cows being bred to produce better milk, bacteria developing immunity to antibiotics, etc) is when changes occur within a species. Macroevolution (ie man evolving from an ape) is when changes occur from one species to another. I totally agree with microevolution...I don't know anybody that doesn't (unless you still agree with that quote from above.) Just be careful to designate which type of evolution you are talking about.
perhaps to you. there are plenty of God-believing people that have recognized evolution as a credible explanation for the patterns of organism changes. many scientists believe that perhaps god created DNA and then allowed evolution to occur. science can only explain observations; it is much more difficult to explain how things began with science because it is harder to observe the beginning of an event that started (scientifically speaking) a few billion years ago; and it is impossible to use science to explain god because we do not have any mechanism in which to measure observations of god.
but what science is very good at is observing changes - such as with organisms throughout time. we can compare different animals' DNA and see how closely related several species are. that's why evolution is such a recognized theory in science - there is so much information detailing the changes of organisms that evolution is the most credible scientific explanation consistent with the data.
yes, there are holes in it. but the manner of science is to establish a theory and improve upon it as more data become available. yes, science is always open to scientific questioning. and that's the beauty of science - it seeks to come up with better explanations for observed phenomona based upon rational lines of inquiry. it always seeks to improve itself.
i think that we did evolve from the ape family. sure not all apes evolved, but maybe we were a certain species, that of-course no longer exists. sure there that whole story of Adam and Eve, but im not sure how much i belive in it. I think that God put creatures on this earth and then what happend happend. some creatures evolved and others didnt
Yes,you are right,some mutations can be good.That is why I said they TEND to be harmful.But,just because some scientist says that such a thing happened,doesn't mean it actually did.This whole thing is a theory.Scientists heve not aquired enough information to make this theory a law. Also,who says scientists are not to be challenged?Lots of people challenge the idea,especially true Christians.God made men.God made animals.Anyone who refuses to accept His word on the matter are wrong.Evolution of any kind is refuting His word.Yes,some natural adaptations occur,but not to the extent that scientists claim.God even says that when scientists start refuting His word,it is coming close to the End times.
yes, you can gain genetic material. if you have an abnormal number of DNA replication cycles your daughter cell will have more DNA than its parent cell. if your DNA replicates incorrectly you have "new" DNA complared to your parent cell. and current evolution theory does not hold that genetic mutations serve an individual's adaptation purposes; they are incorporated into evolutionary patterns of species over time that get selected for depending upon the environmental pressures. yes - mutations tend to be more harmful than beneficial - that's why evolution takes longer than a few years to occur. and some mutations are not harmful - look at the differences in skin pigment in northern europeans vs. africans and then look at how the amount of sunlight-derived vitamin D differes depending on the amount of pigment you have. that is certainly in line with evolution and adaptation. here's another example on a shorter time line: take one bacterial cell that is known to be sensitive to a certain antibiotic. let the cell proliferate to become 100 million cells while stressing the cells with heat, UV light, or chemicals. grow all of those cells with that antibiotic and you will find at least one cell that can now grow on that antibiotic. compare that cell's DNA with the first cell's DNA. they will be different - and that's an example of a beneficial mutation.
read about heat shock proteins before talking about the lack of complete fossilized evidence of gradual evolution - the bottleneck theory is easily as popular, if not more popular, than gradual theory. and there are plenty of fossil records of bipedal organisms that are similar to current apes and current humans, but are still markedly different from both.
there are many unknowns when dealing with evolution. but it's hardly crap. it's a scientific theory - and as such, it is at least open to scientific criticism. but it's less open to guesses that an animal with a mutation must surely die and thus provide a convincing counter-argument to evolution.
Topics 
You are so right.
