Hi Jojo, I'm not going to argue with you, there's no point, you will never accept the evidence. There's two positions, God created the world, or the universe just is. If you believe God created it that's fine. I believe enough of science, astronomy, formation of planets, chemistry physics, evolution from simple to complicated life forms that I believe in the science and not in an almighty God. I don't know how the universe came into existence just as you don't know how God happened to be. We each accept one explanation and I happen to accept the one that doesn't require an almighty being and that fits with science. To me Heaven and Hell are here on earth and I like my little bit of heaven. I don't like arguing.
Colin On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > 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 <[email protected]> > *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 >> >> >> > >
