Evolution

[Cyberman]

Done.

Kudosed.

[popeyespappy]

DNA does not change unless a mutation occurs, mutations in chromosomes create a sterile host, so cannot reproduce, on this very basic fact alone evolution has to be questioned, if change in chromosomal structure creates an sterile host, the mutation stops with them... So physical evolution caused by mutation is impossible.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer.

As a biologist your moron friend should know better. Mutations do not necessarily create a sterile host. While a mutation can produce a sterile host most mutations are in fact neutral. Mutations come in four basic flavors: neutral, loss of function, modification of function and gain of function. A neutral mutation has no discernible effect on the host. This is possible because parts of any organisms DNA serves no function. Changes to these parts of the genetic code usually produce no changes in an organism.

Loss of function mutations degrade or destroy a gene’s ability to do something. A frame shift mutation that inactivates production of a protein is an example of a loss of function mutation. Normally, but not always, this would be a bad thing.

Modification of function mutations coopt a function already in use. They can affect the timing or quantity of protein production. They can also affect protein structure. These types of changes can allow for beneficial changes such as longer or stronger bones.

Gain of function mutations that help an organism adapt to its environment are not seen as frequently as loss or modification of function mutations. It is type of mutation that produces new functional coded elements within the genetic sequence. There are multiple mechanisms capable of producing gain of function mutations. Recombination and horizontal transfer can both add new material to DNA. Sometimes that material does nothing. Sometimes it is harmful. Sometimes it allows for new functions or features.

[Jergus Baca]

DNA does not change unless a mutation occurs, mutations in chromosomes create a sterile host, so cannot reproduce, on this very basic fact alone evolution has to be questioned, if change in chromosomal structure creates an sterile host, the mutation stops with them... So physical evolution caused by mutation is impossible.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer.

As a biologist your moron friend should know better. Mutations do not necessarily create a sterile host. While a mutation can produce a sterile host most mutations are in fact neutral. Mutations come in four basic flavors: neutral, loss of function, modification of function and gain of function. A neutral mutation has no discernible effect on the host. This is possible because parts of any organisms DNA serves no function. Changes to these parts of the genetic code usually produce no changes in an organism.

Loss of function mutations degrade or destroy a gene’s ability to do something. A frame shift mutation that inactivates production of a protein is an example of a loss of function mutation. Normally, but not always, this would be a bad thing.

Modification of function mutations coopt a function already in use. They can affect the timing or quantity of protein production. They can also affect protein structure. These types of changes can allow for beneficial changes such as longer or stronger bones.

Gain of function mutations that help an organism adapt to its environment are not seen as frequently as loss or modification of function mutations. It is type of mutation that produces new functional coded elements within the genetic sequence. There are multiple mechanisms capable of producing gain of function mutations. Recombination and horizontal transfer can both add new material to DNA. Sometimes that material does nothing. Sometimes it is harmful. Sometimes it allows for new functions or features.

Thank you Popeyespoppy I wasnt sure and so didnt reply i am glad that through this post i am able to expand my knowledge not just to argue against theists but mainly because of my own scientific personal growth. It just made me realise that i have to study a lot more to bring my knowledge of evolution to perfection. Are you a scientist yourself?

[Minimalist]

Sometimes it allows for new functions or features.

In those cases the theists insist "goddidit," Pap.

[Jackalope]

One for the Hall of Wit and Epicness, I fancy.

I'm so proud, I even spelt 'bollocks' correctly.

[justin]

Hello guys I had an argument with a mormon scientist (biochemist) About an evolution, he of course believe that evolution is a big load of crap and I as a growing scientist tried to disagree with him, however I am only building my scientific knowledge and means of arguing I would like you guys to help me to first expand my knowledge and secondly to prove him wrong, I am attaching the former comment that he made and I sincerely hope that I will here some responds related to this topic and to the comment thank you.

with regards Jergus

"comment"

Science is an amazing thing, it helps us understand certain aspects of our bodies and the surrounding environment, but the facts are science is all theory till proven wrong! Most aspects of the universe and evolution is all theory... It is not a fact, anyone who understands science knows it cannot be 100% as we currently are unable to provide the evidence of many theories.
Science theory helps us try to piece together information to try to make sense of the world. Evolution is not a proven fact, it makes for good theory, but we cannot prove evolution, DNA does not change unless a mutation occurs, mutations in chromosomes create a sterile host, so cannot reproduce, on this very basic fact alone evolution has to be questioned, if change in chromosomal structure creates an sterile host, the mutation stops with them... So physical evolution caused by mutation is impossible.
Natural selection on the other hand makes sense, lots of geno types in a species create a possibility of many out comes when breeding and can change the colour of hair, skin, muscle growth brain function and so on... This is evolution, but it cannot explain how a single cell turned into a human; then all of a sudden show no sign of change for millions of years... Height, skin colour or health abnormalities may have changed but that's natural selection not monkeys turning into people!
One thing science history teaches is how wrong scientists have got it in the past... Evolutional theory is on the verge of destruction by scientists at the moment because evidence continues to dictate that traditional evolutional thoughts aren't possible.
All men everywhere are free to live anyway they wish... I choose to believe to have faith in a loving God, you choose to have faith in Science! It's the same principle, yet my faith gives me hope, love, charity, values, peace and long suffering... Your faith in sciences gives you very little because you know very little about it, because the more a man understands science, the more he questions how little he knows and how possible the idea of something bigger than him exists.

for someone to have the answers to everything he sure has have alot of things wrong! i`m willing to bet he lied about being a biochemist lol

[popeyespappy]

Ask the Mormon if he has kids. If the answer is yes, ask him how that is possible considering about 8% of his DNA is there as a result of mutations caused by retrovirus. If mutations cause sterility at a rate that would prohibit evolution, how come he isn't sterile?

[Jergus Baca]

He doesnt he only got married now, christians dont breed unless joined under the enlightenment of god in the church

[Justtristo]

Yeah, that's basically a checklist of the more common creationist bafflegab. Evolution is just a theory; mutations are harmful; how can a single cell turn into a human; people do not come from monkeys; evolution is a theory on the decline; faith in science is the same as faith in a god; science is a sterile faith; god is beyond science. Check, check and check. You might want to congratulate your opponent on being a typical creationist.

Welcome aboard, by the way.

I was under the impression that young earth creationists did not believe in mutations, because a mutation is new information. Which is something young creationists deny is possible when it comes to DNA.

[Cyberman]

You're implying that creationists have consistent arguments . It varies from cretinist to creotard, of course, but it's not uncommon to see "checkmate proofs" of the impossibility of evolution because all mutations are detrimental, even fatal, to the organism. To this kind of closed and bolted mindset, mutations equal the typical 50s sci-fi monsters.