(December 5, 2015 at 1:28 pm)AAA Wrote:

(December 5, 2015 at 1:14 pm)Quantum Wrote: No, I don't think I have that elite knowledge. Also, if I thougj you can never attain it I would not recommend that you keep studying it. Odd that you would think that, are you really studying biology? But I know some elite biologists who really know their stuff, and they don't think that evolution does a poor job of explaining new genetic information.

I agree that a lot of scientists believe evolution does a fine job. But there ARE scientists who know their stuff who also disagree with it. I do understand it. The point you seem to be making is that because I have a different interpretation of the evidence than many scientists, I am wrong. Also biologists tend to give the answer that new genetic information arises from mutation, but mutations occur so infrequently within a cell, and they lead to a decrease in function or no change at all. 

If you know of a better explanation to add genetic information please share it so that I can maybe get on board with the theory of evolution.

I would like to revoke your scientist card, at least until you understand how cell reproduction works.

testing!

(December 5, 2015 at 1:22 pm)LastPoet Wrote: I have a mediocre knowledge of Biology. Still vastly more than you AAA. Intelligent design huh?  The cosmo constant as perfectly designed for life. Ass backward idiocy. Its like seeing a hole in the ground and when rain falls, water filling it, you conclude that the whole was perfectly designed to form  a puddle.

You sir, are doing it wrong.

Great! someone who can understand the biology then. First off I doubt you know more about it than me, I am at the top of my class at my university with a bio major, and I plan to get my PhD and go into research. If you understand the biology of it then let me ask you a question. How did the first proteins necessary for DNA replication evolve if you cannot reproduce (and thus change across generations) without them already being functional? The simplest question I have. If you can't answer it, then what makes you think it happened?

As for your analogy, it falls short because life is not as malleable as water in a hole. Life could not form under any condition, only specific ones. Water can fill any puddle, not just specific ones.

---

(December 5, 2015 at 1:23 pm)Quantum Wrote: If you really want to fully understand it yourself on a technical level, you need to get a PhD in speciation or a related topic. If you can't do that (and it would be completely understandable if you can't) you need to trust the experts to a certain degree. But you need to at least read what the best of them have to say on the matter.

I will be getting my PhD in biology, and I will be going into a career in research.

(December 5, 2015 at 1:43 pm)AAA Wrote: I will be getting my PhD in biology, and I will be going into a career in research.

You have an awful lot to learn to get to that point.

(December 5, 2015 at 1:33 pm)Mermaid Wrote:

(December 5, 2015 at 1:28 pm)AAA Wrote: I agree that a lot of scientists believe evolution does a fine job. But there ARE scientists who know their stuff who also disagree with it. I do understand it. The point you seem to be making is that because I have a different interpretation of the evidence than many scientists, I am wrong. Also biologists tend to give the answer that new genetic information arises from mutation, but mutations occur so infrequently within a cell, and they lead to a decrease in function or no change at all. 

If you know of a better explanation to add genetic information please share it so that I can maybe get on board with the theory of evolution.

I would like to revoke your scientist card, at least until you understand how cell reproduction works.

Oh my gosh, if that's the best you can do then you need to go learn how cell reproduction works. The cell cycle is highly regulated by kinases and cyclin enzymes that monitor the DNA and cell and keep only healthy cells from moving on. Then the DNA replicates, which by itself is amazingly complex, then the actual process of mitosis involves specific attachment of molecular machines, the winding of DNA into heterochromatin and many other complex regulatory mechanisms. If any one of these parts is not fully developed at the start, then you are unable to reproduce, and thus unable to evolve. Don't say I don't understand it just because you don't have any other way to argue the points I'm making.

---

(December 5, 2015 at 1:45 pm)Mermaid Wrote:

(December 5, 2015 at 1:43 pm)AAA Wrote: I will be getting my PhD in biology, and I will be going into a career in research.

You have an awful lot to learn to get to that point.

Yep, but I think I know more about it than you. Your reply is condescending and if you really want me to accept naturalism, then please share some EVIDENCE!!!! You can't just keep saying that you're right, that isn't good enough for me.

(December 5, 2015 at 1:49 pm)AAA Wrote:

(December 5, 2015 at 1:33 pm)Mermaid Wrote: I would like to revoke your scientist card, at least until you understand how cell reproduction works.

Oh my gosh, if that's the best you can do then you need to go learn how cell reproduction works. The cell cycle is highly regulated by kinases and cyclin enzymes that monitor the DNA and cell and keep only healthy cells from moving on. Then the DNA replicates, which by itself is amazingly complex, then the actual process of mitosis involves specific attachment of molecular machines, the winding of DNA into heterochromatin and many other complex regulatory mechanisms. If any one of these parts is not fully developed at the start, then you are unable to reproduce, and thus unable to evolve. Don't say I don't understand it just because you don't have any other way to argue the points I'm making.

I have been working as an industry biologist for 27 years and have an advanced degree in biology. You look like a complete idiot when you assume things about people.

Mutations are hardly rare. How does your immune system handle them? What mutations can result in loss of cell fitness? What mutations can enhance fitness?

(December 5, 2015 at 1:30 pm)Quantum Wrote: Where did you get this information?

What information? Mutation rates? my genetics textbook

(December 5, 2015 at 1:33 pm)AAA Wrote:

(December 5, 2015 at 1:27 pm)Irrational Wrote: If you're sincere, I would advise you to learn first what science really is about. Forget evolution for now. Most people who argue against the scientific consensus on scientific topics tend to be ignorant on what makes science one of the best (if not the best) methods to attain knowledge about how the world works.

Key words to consider while studying: peer review process, credible journals, replicability, falsifiability, pseudoscience vs. science, and theory in the scientific sense.

I appreciate the advice, and I am sincere, but I think I already know how science works. I have tremendous respect for the scientific method as it has led to the advancement of humanity. But one key thing about science that you left out is that the advancements are always made starting with disagreement in the evidence. Then you carefully weigh the evidence and accept the theory that best explains the evidence. Most of what I have seen on this page is me trying to lay out the evidences that lead me to conclude design, and other people telling me that I need to go back and study it again. No one is really presenting evidence.

Even if no evidence has been presented here, the evidence you're after has already been presented in the papers that you, as an aspiring biology researcher, should be reading. Do you not see that mere disagreement and questioning does not mean a damn thing when the majority of biologists accept the validity of evolution as a really good theory? Peer review is something you'll have to deal with a lot later in your career.

And what kind of university are you studying at? You will not have the best future as a biologist if you keep insisting evolution is not the best theory of the relationships between organisms ... unless you actually come up with a much better theory than the one currently accepted, that is.

(December 5, 2015 at 1:53 pm)AAA Wrote:

(December 5, 2015 at 1:30 pm)Quantum Wrote: Where did you get this information?

What information? Mutation rates? my genetics textbook

Did you then do the calculation of the resulting genetic "drift" in the population over geological time yourself? How did you come to the conclusion that the rate is too low to explain genetic diversity?

(December 5, 2015 at 1:28 pm)AAA Wrote:

(December 5, 2015 at 1:14 pm)Quantum Wrote: No, I don't think I have that elite knowledge. Also, if I thougj you can never attain it I would not recommend that you keep studying it. Odd that you would think that, are you really studying biology? But I know some elite biologists who really know their stuff, and they don't think that evolution does a poor job of explaining new genetic information.

I agree that a lot of scientists believe evolution does a fine job. But there ARE scientists who know their stuff who also disagree with it. I do understand it. The point you seem to be making is that because I have a different interpretation of the evidence than many scientists, I am wrong. Also biologists tend to give the answer that new genetic information arises from mutation, but mutations occur so infrequently within a cell, and they lead to a decrease in function or no change at all. 

If you know of a better explanation to add genetic information please share it so that I can maybe get on board with the theory of evolution.

I've mainly been avoiding this conversation because I'm trying to get a new business off the ground and I don't have time for a lot of online "play time", but I have to jump in at this point. AAA, you sound like you've done a bit of reading, but you're dead wrong about how a lot of how cellular biology works.

1) New genetic information arises from mutations, yes, but there are several forms of mutation which can occur. These include but not limited to: point mutations (changing of one base pair to another), frame-shift mutations (changing where the cellular "reader" starts reading the sequence for the genes that follow in that segment), transpositions (a piece that gets "clipped out" and moved elsewhere in the genome, often interrupting or changing other genes nearby and how those genes express), recombinations (shifting of DNA fragments during the process of making gametes and recombining them), and most importantly duplication mutations (where a whole gene gets copied into twins of itself, where a subsequent mutation of the duplicate does not change the function of the original, allowing for "new" genes to evolve from the copy).

2) While many mutations do something bad to the organism, most mutations are totally neutral, as they occur in places that don't code for proteins or serve any other major function in the cell. Others are beneficial, however rare this event may be is irrelevant. Every human born has an average of ten (10) unique mutations; most of them do nothing, but sometimes we have either problems or benefits as a result. None of this requires intelligence or design. They are simply by-products of the way DNA codes and replicates.

If you're going to challenge evolutionary biology, fine. But at least do so from a basis of actual knowledge, not straw-man building.

Edit to Add: I am a retired biologist, as well, and my fiancee is currently working as a genetics lab tech with her biochem degree... so you're barking up the wrong tree if you want to convince us, without peer-reviewed information, of these wild assertions you're making about cellular chemistry.