Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
I do not have the time nor the inclination to read up on all these myths. But if a myth explains the observed facts, it is considered. Which specific myth do you want me to look up and discuss. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths 2012/8/4 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com You can refer to all of these. 2012/8/4 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com What other creation myth are you specifically referring to? Other than the Darwinian Evolution Myth and the God created it myth, I know of no other myth of consequence. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
Hi Axil, Our DNA and the processes in the cell are so complicated no one intelligent would ever design it the way it is. It really is just a molecule that can replicate itself with errors and when errors improve ability to produce more copies then you get more with that error. It's quite amazing and there's new discoveries every day. It's not just gene's that play a role but a whole host of non-gene parts of the DNA as well . There's more than I know and more than I'll ever understand. The fact that's it's so complicated makes it almost impossible to genetically engineer something like a human. At the moment the science is pretty much restricted to adding genes from one specie to another (usually bacteria but also cows so that the modified bacteria produces a useful chemical) There are labs rying to build new life forms and cataloguing parts (genes). I'm sure we'll see custom bacteria like life forms producing all sorts of useful chemicals relatively soon. It may take a century or so before we can make really complicated life forms from scratch. In our company, we are doing work on animal breeding programs where we animals are categorised by traits (haplotypes) and their DNA sequenced to identify mutations associated with the traits. Once this is done, males are selected that carry the desirable mutations (each one will sire 1000's of offspring) and then offspring will be tested at birth and only the ones that inherited the desirable mutations will be kept for breeding. The aim is to reduce breeding cycle from 6 years (gestation, grow to adult, produce, test traits, keep as breeder) to 1 yr (gestation, test DNA, keep as breeder). It's quite easy but very expensive when you plan to do 1000's of animals at $10-20K each just to develop the database. OK, that's enough. I'm here to watch and hopefully one day see some real proof that Rossi or Defkalion have a working reactor. If they do it will change the world. If they're just scammers like most free energy people we've all wasted a lot of time. Cheers, Colin On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The post of Colin Hercus interests me greatly, and I am greatful that he took the time to explain how things work for a bioinformatician. When a library of DNA fragments are finally complied across all known species, and object oriented life builder can be authored as a software process to select desirable traits with robust error correction mechanisms to form new life forms. With the environment of a target planet as a adaptive template, an organism(s) can be fabricated through a compilation linking these desirable traits against those required to thrive in that alien environment. IMHO, Genetics is just a sub-field of chemistry and therefore a proper subject for vortex. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Interesting facts but I fail to see how it would help bolster your argument. Saying that this model fits random mutation better is useless because you are simply expressing an opinion. You mention a lot of facts but have not tied it into your argument. How do these facts you enumerated support your contention? You say that the difference between a chimp and human is only 1%. Are you also going to say that this 1% difference is only on the parts of the DNA that encode into genes, (ie. the coding part of the DNA), or are you going to hide this fact also? That in fact, if you take the entirely of the Chimp DNA and compare it with Human DNA, the difference is a far cry from 1%. It is this level of disception that is prevalent in your darwinian-dogma world that serves to foist this big lie on the uninitiated. Before you ask me to take my blinders off, come clean and stop confusing people with facts only to hide your deception. Jojo PS. Absolutely, this is off-topic, but this is part of a bet. I am betting that a person who expresses a belief different from Darwinian dogma will be treated differently. I am not doing anything more than what Jed is doing is his amount of off-topic posts, but I will be treated differently and is now hanging on the verge of being banned. - Original Message - *From:* Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, August 04, 2012 9:01 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution Hi Jojo, I work as a bioinformatician and study DNA and mutations in DNA every day. I develop software for this that is used in 100's of Universities and we have over 200 citations on Google scholar. Darwin had a view of evolution that we now know was rather simple. A few things about DNA that I think are of interest: 1. We have about 3billion nucleotides in our DNA 2. Typically from one human to next there are about 1 million differences, most are small single nucleotide difference but there are also large differences
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
Hi Mark, I too was amazed rto learn I had more bacteria cells in my body than human. I now know why beef is more tender if it's been hung for a week or two before eating :) a lot of the bacteria in our body is really useful and it's one reason we shouldn't take antibiotics if we can avoid it. Bacteria in our gut help with digestion, ones on our skin keep it healthy. It's all too much for me to keep track of so I specialise in sequence analysis and try to keep track of anything DNA or RNA related. I'm not familiar with Trevor, I'm actually computer science trained and now programming for DNA sequence analysis, so not biology training at all but it's fascinating stuff to follow and read. Cheers, Colin On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 12:02 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Hi Colin, Thanks for the very interesting details! ** ** Here is one more interesting tidbit… Due to the efforts of the *Human* *Microbiome* *Project* (HMP), which sequenced the microbiota (bacteria, virus, fungi, etc.) living in or on the human body, they estimate a total of about 1,000,000 genes from all these different organisms. Compare that to the number of genes in the human genome (~23,000 protein-coding genes), and one can see that the average human is a universe of microbiology! The vast majority of genes found in a human are NOT human! As Colin pointed out, it’s not unusual to find harmful microorganisms living undetected inside us. ** ** Colin, are you familiar with Dr. Trevor Marshall? http://www.trevormarshall.com/papers.htm ** ** *“Microbes and Human Disease” **presentation in St. Petersburg June 2012** *** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rFmAMDdbjsfeature=plcp ** ** -Mark ** ** ** ** *From:* Colin Hercus [mailto:colinher...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, August 03, 2012 6:01 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution ** ** Hi Jojo, I work as a bioinformatician and study DNA and mutations in DNA every day. I develop software for this that is used in 100's of Universities and we have over 200 citations on Google scholar. Darwin had a view of evolution that we now know was rather simple. A few things about DNA that I think are of interest: 1. We have about 3billion nucleotides in our DNA 2. Typically from one human to next there are about 1 million differences, most are small single nucleotide difference but there are also large differences where there will be bits missing (1000 nucleotides or so in one person relative to the other, around 600 occurrences) 3. Overall documented differences in DNA at single base level are about 3 million nucleotides though this keeps going up as we sequence more genomes 4. Each person born will have about 35 new single base changes (i.e. a very few but definitely some) 5. Some mutations result in eggs that fail to grow, some in miscarriages, some in early death, some have minimal or no effect. 6. The difference in DNA between a chimp and a human is about 1% or 30M nucleotides, only about 10 times what exists between all humans. 7. Sometimes there are large DNA changes, Viruses insert there DNA into ours, bits going missing during cell division, or bits get duplicated. Once a gene is duplicated one copy may evolve to take up a different function These changes can all be tracked between species and over time by studying the differences in DNA between different species. They sequenced DNA of Neanderthals (from fossils, DNA left in teeth and Bones.) Interestingly about 5% of DNA in Europeans is from Neanderthals rather than early descendant from Africa. National Geographic studied the Y chromosome from humans all around the world and has built extensive maps of migration from this by tracking changes. Interesting that the DNA changes of a few bp per generation fit the fossil maps and time frame of migration archaeologists have constructed. I could goon for hours. The science behind this is very sound, the evidence is there. I know DNA is incredibly complex, we are amazing chemical factories, but we are also full of mistakes and errors that limit our life, that lead to cancer, heart attacks and various inherited diseases, not counting our disposition to greed, selfishness, hate murder. This to me fits the model of random mutations with survival of the fittest much better than an intelligent design. I think before you take this subject very far you really should do a bit of study into genetics. Oh and take the blinkers off first. Colin ** **
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
Hi Daniel, That's a great list, never seen it before. Thanks for sharing Colin On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: What is your criteria to rule out all other creation myths except for the biblical one? 2012/8/4 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com ** I noticed that you have not actually said anything to counter what I posted. No fact to rebut my post or the facts in my posts. Instead, your strategy is one of obfuscation. That is, supply a bunch of irrelevant facts to obfuscate the real debate. Jojo -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
Hi Jojo, I work as a bioinformatician and study DNA and mutations in DNA every day. I develop software for this that is used in 100's of Universities and we have over 200 citations on Google scholar. Darwin had a view of evolution that we now know was rather simple. A few things about DNA that I think are of interest: 1. We have about 3billion nucleotides in our DNA 2. Typically from one human to next there are about 1 million differences, most are small single nucleotide difference but there are also large differences where there will be bits missing (1000 nucleotides or so in one person relative to the other, around 600 occurrences) 3. Overall documented differences in DNA at single base level are about 3 million nucleotides though this keeps going up as we sequence more genomes 4. Each person born will have about 35 new single base changes (i.e. a very few but definitely some) 5. Some mutations result in eggs that fail to grow, some in miscarriages, some in early death, some have minimal or no effect. 6. The difference in DNA between a chimp and a human is about 1% or 30M nucleotides, only about 10 times what exists between all humans. 7. Sometimes there are large DNA changes, Viruses insert there DNA into ours, bits going missing during cell division, or bits get duplicated. Once a gene is duplicated one copy may evolve to take up a different function These changes can all be tracked between species and over time by studying the differences in DNA between different species. They sequenced DNA of Neanderthals (from fossils, DNA left in teeth and Bones.) Interestingly about 5% of DNA in Europeans is from Neanderthals rather than early descendant from Africa. National Geographic studied the Y chromosome from humans all around the world and has built extensive maps of migration from this by tracking changes. Interesting that the DNA changes of a few bp per generation fit the fossil maps and time frame of migration archaeologists have constructed. I could goon for hours. The science behind this is very sound, the evidence is there. I know DNA is incredibly complex, we are amazing chemical factories, but we are also full of mistakes and errors that limit our life, that lead to cancer, heart attacks and various inherited diseases, not counting our disposition to greed, selfishness, hate murder. This to me fits the model of random mutations with survival of the fittest much better than an intelligent design. I think before you take this subject very far you really should do a bit of study into genetics. Oh and take the blinkers off first. Colin PS I think this is totally off topic for Vortex On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Hello gang, In this post I will define the difference between Microevolution vs. Macroevolution. Yes, I believe evolution happens, I believe Microevolution happens, not Macroevolution. First, micro vs macro has nothing to do with the amount or number of changes. That is, numerous micro evolutions does not equate to a macro evolution. The main difference is the source of the changes. Microevolution or Adaptation is a process whereby an individual expresses certain traits that enable it to adapt more successfully to its new environment. The source of the changes is the information already encoded in its DNA. Upon the appearance of an environmental stress, certain genes could express itself resulting in a new macro trait that would enable it to adapt to its new environment. The information needed to create a new trait is already fully encoded in its DNA. Only the activation is done. This form of evolution is called Microevolution. The species evolve within its own DNA boundaries and changes occur within the species itself. Since microevolution is simply an activation of a dormat trait, the new trait created is not permanent. It is possible for the new trait to dissappear and lay dormant again once the stress is removed. And since changes are encoded in the DNA, microevolutionary changes are not additive. That is it does not persist within a species with new additions to it. It is all just an expression of what that species is inherently capable of based on the makeup of its DNA genes. Macroevolution or Darwinian Evolution on the other hand, is this idea that changes are the result of random mutation on one's DNA. Dormant traits are not expressed, rather new genes randomly come into being to create a new trait. And because huge changes to DNA are fatal, macroevolutionary change has to occur in small minute and small incremental changes occuring over generations. Otherwise, a major retructuring on one's DNA would cause massive genetic deformations causing less ability to compete and survive. Macroevolution is this idea that changes have to be mutated into place and that numerous successive changes would result in the creation of a new species. This is in essence what Darwinian Evolution
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
Interesting facts but I fail to see how it would help bolster your argument. Saying that this model fits random mutation better is useless because you are simply expressing an opinion. You mention a lot of facts but have not tied it into your argument. How do these facts you enumerated support your contention? You say that the difference between a chimp and human is only 1%. Are you also going to say that this 1% difference is only on the parts of the DNA that encode into genes, (ie. the coding part of the DNA), or are you going to hide this fact also? That in fact, if you take the entirely of the Chimp DNA and compare it with Human DNA, the difference is a far cry from 1%. It is this level of disception that is prevalent in your darwinian-dogma world that serves to foist this big lie on the uninitiated. Before you ask me to take my blinders off, come clean and stop confusing people with facts only to hide your deception. Jojo PS. Absolutely, this is off-topic, but this is part of a bet. I am betting that a person who expresses a belief different from Darwinian dogma will be treated differently. I am not doing anything more than what Jed is doing is his amount of off-topic posts, but I will be treated differently and is now hanging on the verge of being banned. - Original Message - From: Colin Hercus To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 9:01 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution Hi Jojo, I work as a bioinformatician and study DNA and mutations in DNA every day. I develop software for this that is used in 100's of Universities and we have over 200 citations on Google scholar. Darwin had a view of evolution that we now know was rather simple. A few things about DNA that I think are of interest: 1. We have about 3billion nucleotides in our DNA 2. Typically from one human to next there are about 1 million differences, most are small single nucleotide difference but there are also large differences where there will be bits missing (1000 nucleotides or so in one person relative to the other, around 600 occurrences) 3. Overall documented differences in DNA at single base level are about 3 million nucleotides though this keeps going up as we sequence more genomes 4. Each person born will have about 35 new single base changes (i.e. a very few but definitely some) 5. Some mutations result in eggs that fail to grow, some in miscarriages, some in early death, some have minimal or no effect. 6. The difference in DNA between a chimp and a human is about 1% or 30M nucleotides, only about 10 times what exists between all humans. 7. Sometimes there are large DNA changes, Viruses insert there DNA into ours, bits going missing during cell division, or bits get duplicated. Once a gene is duplicated one copy may evolve to take up a different function These changes can all be tracked between species and over time by studying the differences in DNA between different species. They sequenced DNA of Neanderthals (from fossils, DNA left in teeth and Bones.) Interestingly about 5% of DNA in Europeans is from Neanderthals rather than early descendant from Africa. National Geographic studied the Y chromosome from humans all around the world and has built extensive maps of migration from this by tracking changes. Interesting that the DNA changes of a few bp per generation fit the fossil maps and time frame of migration archaeologists have constructed. I could goon for hours. The science behind this is very sound, the evidence is there. I know DNA is incredibly complex, we are amazing chemical factories, but we are also full of mistakes and errors that limit our life, that lead to cancer, heart attacks and various inherited diseases, not counting our disposition to greed, selfishness, hate murder. This to me fits the model of random mutations with survival of the fittest much better than an intelligent design. I think before you take this subject very far you really should do a bit of study into genetics. Oh and take the blinkers off first. Colin PS I think this is totally off topic for Vortex On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Hello gang, In this post I will define the difference between Microevolution vs. Macroevolution. Yes, I believe evolution happens, I believe Microevolution happens, not Macroevolution. First, micro vs macro has nothing to do with the amount or number of changes. That is, numerous micro evolutions does not equate to a macro evolution. The main difference is the source of the changes. Microevolution or Adaptation is a process whereby an individual expresses certain traits that enable it to adapt more successfully to its new environment. The source of the changes is the information already encoded in its DNA. Upon the appearance of an environmental
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: PS. Absolutely, this is off-topic, but this is part of a bet. I am betting that a person who expresses a belief different from Darwinian dogma will be treated differently. I am not doing anything more than what Jed is doing is his amount of off-topic posts, but I will be treated differently and is now hanging on the verge of being banned. Double down? T
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
The post of Colin Hercus interests me greatly, and I am greatful that he took the time to explain how things work for a bioinformatician. When a library of DNA fragments are finally complied across all known species, and object oriented life builder can be authored as a software process to select desirable traits with robust error correction mechanisms to form new life forms. With the environment of a target planet as a adaptive template, an organism(s) can be fabricated through a compilation linking these desirable traits against those required to thrive in that alien environment. IMHO, Genetics is just a sub-field of chemistry and therefore a proper subject for vortex. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Interesting facts but I fail to see how it would help bolster your argument. Saying that this model fits random mutation better is useless because you are simply expressing an opinion. You mention a lot of facts but have not tied it into your argument. How do these facts you enumerated support your contention? You say that the difference between a chimp and human is only 1%. Are you also going to say that this 1% difference is only on the parts of the DNA that encode into genes, (ie. the coding part of the DNA), or are you going to hide this fact also? That in fact, if you take the entirely of the Chimp DNA and compare it with Human DNA, the difference is a far cry from 1%. It is this level of disception that is prevalent in your darwinian-dogma world that serves to foist this big lie on the uninitiated. Before you ask me to take my blinders off, come clean and stop confusing people with facts only to hide your deception. Jojo PS. Absolutely, this is off-topic, but this is part of a bet. I am betting that a person who expresses a belief different from Darwinian dogma will be treated differently. I am not doing anything more than what Jed is doing is his amount of off-topic posts, but I will be treated differently and is now hanging on the verge of being banned. - Original Message - *From:* Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, August 04, 2012 9:01 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution Hi Jojo, I work as a bioinformatician and study DNA and mutations in DNA every day. I develop software for this that is used in 100's of Universities and we have over 200 citations on Google scholar. Darwin had a view of evolution that we now know was rather simple. A few things about DNA that I think are of interest: 1. We have about 3billion nucleotides in our DNA 2. Typically from one human to next there are about 1 million differences, most are small single nucleotide difference but there are also large differences where there will be bits missing (1000 nucleotides or so in one person relative to the other, around 600 occurrences) 3. Overall documented differences in DNA at single base level are about 3 million nucleotides though this keeps going up as we sequence more genomes 4. Each person born will have about 35 new single base changes (i.e. a very few but definitely some) 5. Some mutations result in eggs that fail to grow, some in miscarriages, some in early death, some have minimal or no effect. 6. The difference in DNA between a chimp and a human is about 1% or 30M nucleotides, only about 10 times what exists between all humans. 7. Sometimes there are large DNA changes, Viruses insert there DNA into ours, bits going missing during cell division, or bits get duplicated. Once a gene is duplicated one copy may evolve to take up a different function These changes can all be tracked between species and over time by studying the differences in DNA between different species. They sequenced DNA of Neanderthals (from fossils, DNA left in teeth and Bones.) Interestingly about 5% of DNA in Europeans is from Neanderthals rather than early descendant from Africa. National Geographic studied the Y chromosome from humans all around the world and has built extensive maps of migration from this by tracking changes. Interesting that the DNA changes of a few bp per generation fit the fossil maps and time frame of migration archaeologists have constructed. I could goon for hours. The science behind this is very sound, the evidence is there. I know DNA is incredibly complex, we are amazing chemical factories, but we are also full of mistakes and errors that limit our life, that lead to cancer, heart attacks and various inherited diseases, not counting our disposition to greed, selfishness, hate murder. This to me fits the model of random mutations with survival of the fittest much better than an intelligent design. I think before you take this subject very far you really should do a bit of study into genetics. Oh and take the blinkers off first. Colin PS I think this is totally off
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
Jojo, haven't you said that you'd post an off topic thread for every thread Jed posted? I think you are going beyond your promise. You cannot win the bet without following the rules you established yourself. 2012/8/3 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com ** Hello gang, In this post I will define the difference between Microevolution vs. Macroevolution. Yes, I believe evolution happens, I believe Microevolution happens, not Macroevolution. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
*They sequenced DNA of Neanderthals (from fossils, DNA left in teeth and Bones.) Interestingly about 5% of DNA in Europeans is from Neanderthals rather than early descendant from Africa.* * * This is a great example of adaptive evolution. The Neanderthals spent 200,000 years in Europe and during those long ages became hardened to the native pathogens in their environment. With just a handful of interbreeding events, the huge adaptive advantage of the Neanderthals' immune system for living in Europe totally replaced the same system in the African interlopers. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jojo, I work as a bioinformatician and study DNA and mutations in DNA every day. I develop software for this that is used in 100's of Universities and we have over 200 citations on Google scholar. Darwin had a view of evolution that we now know was rather simple. A few things about DNA that I think are of interest: 1. We have about 3billion nucleotides in our DNA 2. Typically from one human to next there are about 1 million differences, most are small single nucleotide difference but there are also large differences where there will be bits missing (1000 nucleotides or so in one person relative to the other, around 600 occurrences) 3. Overall documented differences in DNA at single base level are about 3 million nucleotides though this keeps going up as we sequence more genomes 4. Each person born will have about 35 new single base changes (i.e. a very few but definitely some) 5. Some mutations result in eggs that fail to grow, some in miscarriages, some in early death, some have minimal or no effect. 6. The difference in DNA between a chimp and a human is about 1% or 30M nucleotides, only about 10 times what exists between all humans. 7. Sometimes there are large DNA changes, Viruses insert there DNA into ours, bits going missing during cell division, or bits get duplicated. Once a gene is duplicated one copy may evolve to take up a different function These changes can all be tracked between species and over time by studying the differences in DNA between different species. They sequenced DNA of Neanderthals (from fossils, DNA left in teeth and Bones.) Interestingly about 5% of DNA in Europeans is from Neanderthals rather than early descendant from Africa. National Geographic studied the Y chromosome from humans all around the world and has built extensive maps of migration from this by tracking changes. Interesting that the DNA changes of a few bp per generation fit the fossil maps and time frame of migration archaeologists have constructed. I could goon for hours. The science behind this is very sound, the evidence is there. I know DNA is incredibly complex, we are amazing chemical factories, but we are also full of mistakes and errors that limit our life, that lead to cancer, heart attacks and various inherited diseases, not counting our disposition to greed, selfishness, hate murder. This to me fits the model of random mutations with survival of the fittest much better than an intelligent design. I think before you take this subject very far you really should do a bit of study into genetics. Oh and take the blinkers off first. Colin PS I think this is totally off topic for Vortex On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Hello gang, In this post I will define the difference between Microevolution vs. Macroevolution. Yes, I believe evolution happens, I believe Microevolution happens, not Macroevolution. First, micro vs macro has nothing to do with the amount or number of changes. That is, numerous micro evolutions does not equate to a macro evolution. The main difference is the source of the changes. Microevolution or Adaptation is a process whereby an individual expresses certain traits that enable it to adapt more successfully to its new environment. The source of the changes is the information already encoded in its DNA. Upon the appearance of an environmental stress, certain genes could express itself resulting in a new macro trait that would enable it to adapt to its new environment. The information needed to create a new trait is already fully encoded in its DNA. Only the activation is done. This form of evolution is called Microevolution. The species evolve within its own DNA boundaries and changes occur within the species itself. Since microevolution is simply an activation of a dormat trait, the new trait created is not permanent. It is possible for the new trait to dissappear and lay dormant again once the stress is removed. And since changes are encoded in the DNA, microevolutionary changes are not additive. That is it does not persist within a species with new additions to it. It is all just an expression of what that species is inherently capable of based on the makeup of its DNA genes. Macroevolution or Darwinian
RE: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
Hi Colin, Thanks for the very interesting details! Here is one more interesting tidbit. Due to the efforts of the Human Microbiome Project (HMP), which sequenced the microbiota (bacteria, virus, fungi, etc.) living in or on the human body, they estimate a total of about 1,000,000 genes from all these different organisms. Compare that to the number of genes in the human genome (~23,000 protein-coding genes), and one can see that the average human is a universe of microbiology! The vast majority of genes found in a human are NOT human! As Colin pointed out, it's not unusual to find harmful microorganisms living undetected inside us. Colin, are you familiar with Dr. Trevor Marshall? http://www.trevormarshall.com/papers.htm Microbes and Human Disease presentation in St. Petersburg June 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rFmAMDdbjs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rFmAMDdbjsfeature=plcp feature=plcp -Mark From: Colin Hercus [mailto:colinher...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 6:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution Hi Jojo, I work as a bioinformatician and study DNA and mutations in DNA every day. I develop software for this that is used in 100's of Universities and we have over 200 citations on Google scholar. Darwin had a view of evolution that we now know was rather simple. A few things about DNA that I think are of interest: 1. We have about 3billion nucleotides in our DNA 2. Typically from one human to next there are about 1 million differences, most are small single nucleotide difference but there are also large differences where there will be bits missing (1000 nucleotides or so in one person relative to the other, around 600 occurrences) 3. Overall documented differences in DNA at single base level are about 3 million nucleotides though this keeps going up as we sequence more genomes 4. Each person born will have about 35 new single base changes (i.e. a very few but definitely some) 5. Some mutations result in eggs that fail to grow, some in miscarriages, some in early death, some have minimal or no effect. 6. The difference in DNA between a chimp and a human is about 1% or 30M nucleotides, only about 10 times what exists between all humans. 7. Sometimes there are large DNA changes, Viruses insert there DNA into ours, bits going missing during cell division, or bits get duplicated. Once a gene is duplicated one copy may evolve to take up a different function These changes can all be tracked between species and over time by studying the differences in DNA between different species. They sequenced DNA of Neanderthals (from fossils, DNA left in teeth and Bones.) Interestingly about 5% of DNA in Europeans is from Neanderthals rather than early descendant from Africa. National Geographic studied the Y chromosome from humans all around the world and has built extensive maps of migration from this by tracking changes. Interesting that the DNA changes of a few bp per generation fit the fossil maps and time frame of migration archaeologists have constructed. I could goon for hours. The science behind this is very sound, the evidence is there. I know DNA is incredibly complex, we are amazing chemical factories, but we are also full of mistakes and errors that limit our life, that lead to cancer, heart attacks and various inherited diseases, not counting our disposition to greed, selfishness, hate murder. This to me fits the model of random mutations with survival of the fittest much better than an intelligent design. I think before you take this subject very far you really should do a bit of study into genetics. Oh and take the blinkers off first. Colin
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
Look at the wording of the bet before you start bitching. The bet calls for me to post at most 5 new threads per week. This is the estimated number of off-topic threads Jed starts in a week. I have only posted 2 threads this week. I have to make up for it by posting 8 threads next week. So NO, I have not violated the agreement of the bet. Terry would be the first person to jump on my case if I did. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 10:45 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution Jojo, haven't you said that you'd post an off topic thread for every thread Jed posted? I think you are going beyond your promise. You cannot win the bet without following the rules you established yourself. 2012/8/3 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com Hello gang, In this post I will define the difference between Microevolution vs. Macroevolution. Yes, I believe evolution happens, I believe Microevolution happens, not Macroevolution. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
What do you mean? Do you mean to double our bet to $200? Sure, deal!!! Keep this up and pretty soon I'll have somebody to buy all the reactor parts I can not source here. Jojo - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 10:39 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: PS. Absolutely, this is off-topic, but this is part of a bet. I am betting that a person who expresses a belief different from Darwinian dogma will be treated differently. I am not doing anything more than what Jed is doing is his amount of off-topic posts, but I will be treated differently and is now hanging on the verge of being banned. Double down? T
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
I noticed that you have not actually said anything to counter what I posted. No fact to rebut my post or the facts in my posts. Instead, your strategy is one of obfuscation. That is, supply a bunch of irrelevant facts to obfuscate the real debate. In doing this, you have indeed adapted a strategy being successfully employed by Richard Dawkins when he does not have an answer. He obfuscates and rattles out a bunch of irrelevant and unrelated facts hoping that his opponent would be so overwhelmed by his apparent knowledge and capitulate. Good luck using that strategy with me. Jojo - Original Message - From: Colin Hercus To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 9:01 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution Hi Jojo, I work as a bioinformatician and study DNA and mutations in DNA every day. I develop software for this that is used in 100's of Universities and we have over 200 citations on Google scholar. Darwin had a view of evolution that we now know was rather simple. A few things about DNA that I think are of interest: 1. We have about 3billion nucleotides in our DNA 2. Typically from one human to next there are about 1 million differences, most are small single nucleotide difference but there are also large differences where there will be bits missing (1000 nucleotides or so in one person relative to the other, around 600 occurrences) 3. Overall documented differences in DNA at single base level are about 3 million nucleotides though this keeps going up as we sequence more genomes 4. Each person born will have about 35 new single base changes (i.e. a very few but definitely some) 5. Some mutations result in eggs that fail to grow, some in miscarriages, some in early death, some have minimal or no effect. 6. The difference in DNA between a chimp and a human is about 1% or 30M nucleotides, only about 10 times what exists between all humans. 7. Sometimes there are large DNA changes, Viruses insert there DNA into ours, bits going missing during cell division, or bits get duplicated. Once a gene is duplicated one copy may evolve to take up a different function These changes can all be tracked between species and over time by studying the differences in DNA between different species. They sequenced DNA of Neanderthals (from fossils, DNA left in teeth and Bones.) Interestingly about 5% of DNA in Europeans is from Neanderthals rather than early descendant from Africa. National Geographic studied the Y chromosome from humans all around the world and has built extensive maps of migration from this by tracking changes. Interesting that the DNA changes of a few bp per generation fit the fossil maps and time frame of migration archaeologists have constructed. I could goon for hours. The science behind this is very sound, the evidence is there. I know DNA is incredibly complex, we are amazing chemical factories, but we are also full of mistakes and errors that limit our life, that lead to cancer, heart attacks and various inherited diseases, not counting our disposition to greed, selfishness, hate murder. This to me fits the model of random mutations with survival of the fittest much better than an intelligent design. I think before you take this subject very far you really should do a bit of study into genetics. Oh and take the blinkers off first. Colin PS I think this is totally off topic for Vortex On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Hello gang, In this post I will define the difference between Microevolution vs. Macroevolution. Yes, I believe evolution happens, I believe Microevolution happens, not Macroevolution. First, micro vs macro has nothing to do with the amount or number of changes. That is, numerous micro evolutions does not equate to a macro evolution. The main difference is the source of the changes. Microevolution or Adaptation is a process whereby an individual expresses certain traits that enable it to adapt more successfully to its new environment. The source of the changes is the information already encoded in its DNA. Upon the appearance of an environmental stress, certain genes could express itself resulting in a new macro trait that would enable it to adapt to its new environment. The information needed to create a new trait is already fully encoded in its DNA. Only the activation is done. This form of evolution is called Microevolution. The species evolve within its own DNA boundaries and changes occur within the species itself. Since microevolution is simply an activation of a dormat trait, the new trait created is not permanent. It is possible for the new trait to dissappear and lay dormant again once the stress is removed. And since changes are encoded in the DNA, microevolutionary changes are not additive. That is it does
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
What is your criteria to rule out all other creation myths except for the biblical one? 2012/8/4 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com ** I noticed that you have not actually said anything to counter what I posted. No fact to rebut my post or the facts in my posts. Instead, your strategy is one of obfuscation. That is, supply a bunch of irrelevant facts to obfuscate the real debate. Jojo -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
What other creation myth are you specifically referring to? Other than the Darwinian Evolution Myth and the God created it myth, I know of no other myth of consequence. But if the explanation fits the observed facts, I do not rule it out. That is the essence of science and I would like to believe that I am a man of science. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution What is your criteria to rule out all other creation myths except for the biblical one? 2012/8/4 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com I noticed that you have not actually said anything to counter what I posted. No fact to rebut my post or the facts in my posts. Instead, your strategy is one of obfuscation. That is, supply a bunch of irrelevant facts to obfuscate the real debate. Jojo -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths 2012/8/4 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com You can refer to all of these. 2012/8/4 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com ** What other creation myth are you specifically referring to? Other than the Darwinian Evolution Myth and the God created it myth, I know of no other myth of consequence. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
You can refer to all of these. 2012/8/4 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com ** What other creation myth are you specifically referring to? Other than the Darwinian Evolution Myth and the God created it myth, I know of no other myth of consequence. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
