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: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> 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 postulates. To illustrate, there was a study a few decades back wherein microbiologists subjected E. coli to streptomycin antibiotics. As expected, the some E. Coli survived streptomycin, and reproduced and eventually became streptomycin resistant. Hurray, positive proof that Darwinian Evolution occurs!!!, right? Hold on a second. This is NOT proof of Darwinian Evolution but rather this is proof of microevolution is action. Upon closer examination of the resistant E.Coli colonies, they found out the streptomycin resistance was conferred by a single protein on the cell wall. The new protein prevented streptomycin from latching onto the cell wall thus preventing it from denaturing the cell wall and breaking it open. And upon even closer examination, they found out the this new protein was a result of an expression of a single gene that normally lay dormant in the E.Coli. Hence, it became clear the the ability of E. Coli to develop streptomycin resistance was conferred by "genetic coding" already existing within its DNA. All that was required was for that gene to be expressed. No random mutation of DNA occured. No natural selection, just an expression of what God already gave it. Furthermore, E.Coli did not eventually evolve into a different species. It is still E.Coli after the equivalent of Billions of years of evolution. Furthermore, the streptomycin resistance dissappeared from the general population after streptomycin was removed for a couple of generations. The genes once again laid dormant and the general population was once again susceptible to streptomycin. This my friends is why there is so much confusion in the debate, because these scientists are so dishonest, so blinded by religious adherence to Darwinian Dogma that they deliberately lie about these things. I bet none of you in this forum heard about this. All you heard was that the bacteria developed streptomycin resistance providing irrefutable proof of Darwinian Evolution, right? None of you heard the other details that would question Darwinian Dogma, right? Jojo
