DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution i...
First Prev
of 13
Next Last

“Transitional Molecular Fossils”

Since: Dec 06

Somewhere in Penn's Woods

#243 Jan 10, 2013
The Dude wrote:
I can just hear that cat saying "Oh yeah just can't get enough of this winter baby" (read in Barry White type voice) that just about sums it up.

Shoot, previous post should also have referenced Barry, not Lou.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#244 Jan 11, 2013
Katydid wrote:
<quoted text>
Scoundrel...rub it in. We had three different storms during Christmas week. During one of them I sat on the turnpike for literally hours in the mountains. Shut the car off, popped the trunk, grabbed books and Christmas cookies and just sat there, reading, eating and watching people scurry over the hill to use the "facilities".
So my family has been telling me. Been there. That's why I'm here.

Nothing like sitting in traffic on the Sure-kill Expressway in an unheated VW bus during a snow storm.
Evolution Smasher

Stigler, OK

#245 Mar 24, 2013
Kong,he has a point. Because of the tides. The Moon would have all the water following it because of it's gravitational pull and wipe everything out. not to mention the Moon itself

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#246 Mar 24, 2013
Evolution Smasher wrote:
Kong,he has a point. Because of the tides. The Moon would have all the water following it because of it's gravitational pull and wipe everything out. not to mention the Moon itself
Which post of mine are you referring to?
wayne

Belton, TX

#247 Nov 27, 2013
It seems to me most of these comments are bogus; stating that errors occur in DNA means nothing and proves nothing.

1) a DNA "mutation" that are neutral (cause no change in the amino acid coded for)are incapable of evolving anything. Period. These "errors" account for the vast majority of the changes seen in DNA because significant changes in polypeptide chains change the protein's shape.(changing a protein's shape = useless protein = bad)

2) a DNA mutation which changes an amino acid WITHOUT changing the shape of the protein is again incapable of evolving anything. Period.

3) DNA mutations which change the shape of the protein created by the polypeptide chain of amino acids would be evolution; however, protein function is ENTIRELY based on shape, thus, the protein is now useless. How do useless proteins further evolution? anyone?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#248 Nov 27, 2013
This is where you really wanna post if you've falsified evolution:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed&#8206 ;
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#249 Nov 27, 2013
wayne wrote:
It seems to me most of these comments are bogus; stating that errors occur in DNA means nothing and proves nothing.
1) a DNA "mutation" that are neutral (cause no change in the amino acid coded for)are incapable of evolving anything. Period. These "errors" account for the vast majority of the changes seen in DNA because significant changes in polypeptide chains change the protein's shape.(changing a protein's shape = useless protein = bad)
2) a DNA mutation which changes an amino acid WITHOUT changing the shape of the protein is again incapable of evolving anything. Period.
3) DNA mutations which change the shape of the protein created by the polypeptide chain of amino acids would be evolution; however, protein function is ENTIRELY based on shape, thus, the protein is now useless. How do useless proteins further evolution? anyone?
I suspect you've posted a bunch of erroneous nonsense (deliberately or or not) and then asked us to refute it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#250 Nov 27, 2013
wayne wrote:
It seems to me most of these comments are bogus; stating that errors occur in DNA means nothing and proves nothing.
1) a DNA "mutation" that are neutral (cause no change in the amino acid coded for)are incapable of evolving anything. Period. These "errors" account for the vast majority of the changes seen in DNA because significant changes in polypeptide chains change the protein's shape.(changing a protein's shape = useless protein = bad)
2) a DNA mutation which changes an amino acid WITHOUT changing the shape of the protein is again incapable of evolving anything. Period.
3) DNA mutations which change the shape of the protein created by the polypeptide chain of amino acids would be evolution; however, protein function is ENTIRELY based on shape, thus, the protein is now useless. How do useless proteins further evolution? anyone?
Slight changes in the protein can mean slight changes in function.

Biologists have identified whole families of proteins such as the globins where such small changes result in slightly different function (eg myoglobin, hemoglobin). So how do you change a function without wrecking the old, presumably necessary one? By gene duplication.

Humans have between 3 and 7 copies of the amylase gene which allows us to digest starches.(Chimps have the same gene but fewer copies). If one of those copies is slightly altered we can still digest the starches but that slight alteration might increase the range of starches we can digest or the enzyme might have an new function entirely.

Gene duplication is observed.
Novel changes resulting in new and useful functionality are observed.

So none of this is controversial and all of it is part of the evolutionary process.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#251 Nov 27, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Slight changes in the protein can mean slight changes in function.
Biologists have identified whole families of proteins such as the globins where such small changes result in slightly different function (eg myoglobin, hemoglobin). So how do you change a function without wrecking the old, presumably necessary one? By gene duplication.
Humans have between 3 and 7 copies of the amylase gene which allows us to digest starches.(Chimps have the same gene but fewer copies). If one of those copies is slightly altered we can still digest the starches but that slight alteration might increase the range of starches we can digest or the enzyme might have an new function entirely.
Gene duplication is observed.
Novel changes resulting in new and useful functionality are observed.
So none of this is controversial and all of it is part of the evolutionary process.
We have even inadvertently selected for multiple copies of the amylase gene in dogs so their diets are more like our own. I would have to look it up, but I recall that it was up to 15 copies in dogs compared to a single copy in wolves. Plenty of fodder for evolution to work with.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#252 Nov 27, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>We have even inadvertently selected for multiple copies of the amylase gene in dogs so their diets are more like our own. I would have to look it up, but I recall that it was up to 15 copies in dogs compared to a single copy in wolves. Plenty of fodder for evolution to work with.
Lets wait for the inevitable "but they are still dogs!" goal post shifting maneuver from some fundie...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#253 Nov 27, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets wait for the inevitable "but they are still dogs!" goal post shifting maneuver from some fundie...
Yeah??? Then why are there still wolves?
muffy

Glasgow, UK

#254 Dec 4, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Slight changes in the protein can mean slight changes in function.
Biologists have identified whole families of proteins such as the globins where such small changes result in slightly different function (eg myoglobin, hemoglobin). So how do you change a function without wrecking the old, presumably necessary one? By gene duplication.
Humans have between 3 and 7 copies of the amylase gene which allows us to digest starches.(Chimps have the same gene but fewer copies). If one of those copies is slightly altered we can still digest the starches but that slight alteration might increase the range of starches we can digest or the enzyme might have an new function entirely.
Gene duplication is observed.
Novel changes resulting in new and useful functionality are observed.
So none of this is controversial and all of it is part of the evolutionary process.
Does this mean that newer species tend to have more duplicate genes than older species? How does this fit with observed genome sizes?
Dave M

Wrexham, UK

#255 Dec 5, 2013
JRS wrote:
DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong
The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.
The fact that the process is imperfect and some changes still happen shows that evolution is inevitable.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#256 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
Does this mean that newer species tend to have more duplicate genes than older species? How does this fit with observed genome sizes?
What's an older species?

After all the lineage of *everything* alive on Earth goes back 3.5 billion years, so your question doesn't even make sense.
muffy

Glasgow, UK

#257 Dec 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
What's an older species?
After all the lineage of *everything* alive on Earth goes back 3.5 billion years, so your question doesn't even make sense.
A dinosaur species?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#258 Dec 5, 2013
Yes, anything not extinct will tend to have more genes than something which is extinct as a general rule.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#259 Dec 6, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You should because it testifies against you and the consequences of ignoring truth are devastating and eternal.
-100 points for premature deployment of Pascal's Wager.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#260 Dec 6, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I graduated summa cum laude with a degree in the highest science (mathematics) from one of the top ten most prestigious universities in mathematics in the United States. The only slam against me is that I’m wasting my time with a bunch of ignoramuses that have been schooled in anti-science. The proof of their indoctrination in anti-science is that they all agree on believing the delusion that David Hilbert didn’t do any science by instructing Albert Einstein on how to derive the equations of general relativity. Their unanimous agreement is just one more symphony of stupid.
No, you didn't.

You got a thesaurus for Xmas, and a Concordance, and can't tell them apart.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 13
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min One way or another 40,531
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 32 min It aint necessari... 16,014
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 42 min Joncy David 127
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr THE LONE WORKER 201,243
LUCA and more REAL science 3 hr MIDutch 1
Dinosaurs and the Catholic Church 3 hr MIDutch 1
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... 3 hr MIDutch 12
More from around the web