RE: The Problem with Christians
March 17, 2016 at 6:19 pm
(This post was last modified: March 17, 2016 at 6:40 pm by AJW333.)
(March 15, 2016 at 4:04 pm)Esquilax Wrote:Contextually, I was using "mutation" to refer to substantial changes in the DNA. What you are calling mutation here, I would regard as "variation" but If you want to score points, that's OK with me. The major issue at hand is that substantial DNA mutations are typically harmfull to the organisms survival - a point conceded by others on this thread.(March 15, 2016 at 7:25 am)AJW333 Wrote: Plenty of substance that you choose to ignore. Is it "silly" to say that our actual experience of genetic mutation in humans is overwhelmingly negative? Absolutely not.
Actually, it is silly, given that what you're saying isn't, you know, true? Your lack of knowledge on this subject is really very embarrassing: you asked in an earlier post "how many mothers wish that their babies have genetic mutations?" and in turn, I have a question for you: do you know how many mothers are going to have babies with genetic mutations?
All of them.
I mean, hell, man, did you even look this up before you spoke? Human beings have about sixty genetic mutations from birth, inescapably. We gain more the longer we live. The vast majority of mutations are small and entirely neutral: my hyper-extending elbows are mutations, and they haven't done me any damage. I know the popular, uninformed conception of mutations are the big, dramatic ones, but as usual, the reality is far more low key and, well, realistic. Unless you're a direct clone of your parents, every single difference in appearance between you and your parents are mutations. I'm taller than anyone in my family: mutation. Big feet? Mutation. And so on.
(March 15, 2016 at 4:04 pm)Esquilax Wrote:Of all the major mutations that would substantially change human DNA, the trend is overwhelmingly negative. Here is a list of just some of them;Quote:Is it "silly" to question how a 3 billion piece code mutated itself into existence when all we tend to see is mutation doing damage to human DNA? Absolutely not.
We don't tend to see that. You don't even see that, because I'm fairly convinced you've never so much as attempted to look.
Achondroplasia
Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency
Antiphospholipid Syndrome
Autism
Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease
Breast cancer
Charcot-Marie-Tooth
Colon cancer
Cri du chat
Crohn's Disease
Cystic fibrosis
Dercum Disease
Down Syndrome
Duane Syndrome
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
Factor V Leiden Thrombophilia
Familial Hypercholesterolemia
Familial Mediterranean Fever
Fragile X Syndrome
Gaucher Disease
Hemochromatosis
Hemophilia
Holoprosencephaly
Huntington's disease
Klinefelter syndrome
Marfan syndrome
Myotonic Dystrophy
Neurofibromatosis
Noonan Syndrome
Osteogenesis Imperfecta
Parkinson's disease
Phenylketonuria
Poland Anomaly
Porphyria
Progeria
Prostate Cancer
Retinitis Pigmentosa
Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (SCID)
Sickle cell disease
Skin Cancer
Spinal Muscular Atrophy
Tay-Sachs
Thalassemia
Trimethylaminuria
Turner Syndrome
Velocardiofacial Syndrome
WAGR Syndrome
Wilson Disease
https://www.genome.gov/10001204
In terms of positive changes that mutations have brought to humanity, I don't doubt that there are some. But I would argue that they are more subtle than radical. How many gene mutations radically changed humanity for the better?
(March 15, 2016 at 6:24 pm)Stimbo Wrote:Pretty much rules out a whole chunk of physics, especially in the quantum world, which pretty much always begins with the theoretical.(March 15, 2016 at 6:13 pm)AJW333 Wrote: How do you reconcile the theories of extra dimensions and SCIENTIFIC fact? No one's proven that they exist but yet many scientists are convinced that they are real.
What someone - even scientists - believe is irrelevant. What they can show to be true is not.
(March 15, 2016 at 8:44 pm)Esquilax Wrote: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."[/url] A theory in science isn't distinct from a fact, a theory is made of multiple facts, posed as an explanation of why they happen."Repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation." So if this is the case, how was the theory of evolution tested and observed? Did anyone observe one species turn into another species, ever?