Don't dictate beliefs

Sep 5, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Star Press

No one else can say otherwise? That is basically saying those who do "believe in God" are better? Hardly.

Comments
10,841 - 10,860 of 11,175 Comments Last updated Jan 18, 2014
KJV

Chicago Ridge, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11432
Jan 16, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>And another type of 'micro-evolution' is where genes duplicate. This *does* produce 'new DNA'. And yet another type of 'micro-evolution' is when the genes change at a single spot. This can change the nature of the protein encoded by the DNA.
I have not been able to find any documentation on new DNA found anywhere accept for that synthetic DNA made in a test tube. Do you know of any new DNA found in nature?
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11433
Jan 16, 2013
 
Bollocks.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Micro evolution is the mere turning on or off genes that already exist. Note the Russian Silver Fox on going 50+ year old study.
http://m.genome.cshlp.org/content/17/3/259.fu...
"The Farm-Fox Experiment, as it has become known, is, in essence, a fast-forwarded reconstruction of man’s first exercise in domestication"
So you believe you're better educated on the subject of evolution then
Berkeley's evolution team?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...
"Evolution at different scales: micro to macro
by the Understanding Evolution team
Evolution encompasses changes of vastly different scales — from something as insignificant as an increase in the frequency of thegene for dark wings in beetles from one generation to the next, to something as grand as the evolution and radiation of the dinosaurlineage. These two extremes represent classic examples of micro- and macroevolution.
Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:"
KJV

Chicago Ridge, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11434
Jan 16, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>It seems that you, like many creationists, have the idea that evolution means that a cat will give birth to a dog. That is not what it means, nor was it ever what it means.
Macro evolution is the evolution of one kind to a whole new kind. I'm aware it takes along time, but at some point there has to be a line in the sand where the old kind ends and the new kind starts.
Again the only data on evolution that's been documented that I have seen has been the simple turning on or off genes. In lab creation of new genes ( not in nature ) and a test tube new DNA (again not in nature).
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11436
Jan 16, 2013
 
You're dumb.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Macro evolution is the evolution of one kind to a whole new kind. I'm aware it takes along time, but at some point there has to be a line in the sand where the old kind ends and the new kind starts.
Again the only data on evolution that's been documented that I have seen has been the simple turning on or off genes. In lab creation of new genes ( not in nature ) and a test tube new DNA (again not in nature).
KJV

Chicago Ridge, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11437
Jan 16, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>Bollocks.
No, Berkeley's evolution team!
I don't make this stuff up. Your science has labeled the difference. So eat a few more of your goat bollocks.
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11438
Jan 16, 2013
 
I don't eat bollocks because I don't believe in your god.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Berkeley's evolution team!
I don't make this stuff up. Your science has labeled the difference. So eat a few more of your goat bollocks.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11439
Jan 16, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Macro evolution is the evolution of one kind to a whole new kind. I'm aware it takes along time, but at some point there has to be a line in the sand where the old kind ends and the new kind starts.
Again the only data on evolution that's been documented that I have seen has been the simple turning on or off genes. In lab creation of new genes ( not in nature ) and a test tube new DNA (again not in nature).
Not true at all. Have you ever seen a color wheel? At what point exactly, does green become blue?
http://www.webdesign.org/img_articles/15053/C...

That's how evolution works. The difference between each element and its predecessor is minute. But over many generations, blue could become red.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11441
Jan 16, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Micro evolution is the mere turning on or off genes that already exist. Note the Russian Silver Fox on going 50+ year old study.
http://m.genome.cshlp.org/content/17/3/259.fu...
"The Farm-Fox Experiment, as it has become known, is, in essence, a fast-forwarded reconstruction of man’s first exercise in domestication"
So you believe you're better educated on the subject of evolution then
Berkeley's evolution team?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...
"Evolution at different scales: micro to macro
by the Understanding Evolution team
Evolution encompasses changes of vastly different scales — from something as insignificant as an increase in the frequency of thegene for dark wings in beetles from one generation to the next, to something as grand as the evolution and radiation of the dinosaurlineage. These two extremes represent classic examples of micro- and macroevolution.
Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:"
You know less about evolution than even I gave you credit for.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11440
Jan 16, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Macro evolution is the evolution of one kind to a whole new kind. I'm aware it takes along time, but at some point there has to be a line in the sand where the old kind ends and the new kind starts.
And this is where your reasoning goes wrong. Look at my penny analogy. What is the 'line in the sand' where the amount of money in the pile goes from 'not a lot' to 'a lot'? The point is that there *isn't* such a line. The transition is gradual. In exactly the same way, each generation to the next would be 'micro-evolution'. There is no 'Big Jump' between any two generations. Where we draw the line is *our* choice for ease of language and not a part of the actual process.
Again the only data on evolution that's been documented that I have seen has been the simple turning on or off genes. In lab creation of new genes ( not in nature ) and a test tube new DNA (again not in nature).
Gene duplication is quite common. We have seen it in action in plants and seen the effects in animals (the globin family of proteins, for example).

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11442
Jan 16, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Macro evolution is the evolution of one kind to a whole new kind. I'm aware it takes along time, but at some point there has to be a line in the sand where the old kind ends and the new kind starts.
Again the only data on evolution that's been documented that I have seen has been the simple turning on or off genes. In lab creation of new genes ( not in nature ) and a test tube new DNA (again not in nature).
read and learn:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar...
KJV

Chicago Ridge, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11444
Jan 16, 2013
 
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>Not true at all. Have you ever seen a color wheel? At what point exactly, does green become blue?
http://www.webdesign.org/img_articles/15053/C...

That's how evolution works. The difference between each element and its predecessor is minute. But over many generations, blue could become red.
There is a point where the shade of blue stops and the shade of green starts.

Say you are ten feet from a brick wall and every second to move half way to the wall. When do to touch the wall?
KJV

Chicago Ridge, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11445
Jan 16, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>You know less about evolution than even I gave you credit for.
Tell it to Berkeley's evolution team.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...

Or the Russians working on the silver fox experiment longer then you've been alive.
KJV

Chicago Ridge, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11446
Jan 16, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>And this is where your reasoning goes wrong. Look at my penny analogy. What is the 'line in the sand' where the amount of money in the pile goes from 'not a lot' to 'a lot'? The point is that there *isn't* such a line. The transition is gradual. In exactly the same way, each generation to the next would be 'micro-evolution'. There is no 'Big Jump' between any two generations. Where we draw the line is *our* choice for ease of language and not a part of the actual process.

[QUOTE]Again the only data on evolution that's been documented that I have seen has been the simple turning on or off genes. In lab creation of new genes ( not in nature ) and a test tube new DNA (again not in nature).
"

Gene duplication is quite common. We have seen it in action in plants and seen the effects in animals (the globin family of proteins, for example).
Yes but show me and the world the new DNA created in nature.( there is none documented to date )
KJV

Chicago Ridge, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11447
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>read and learn:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar...
I've read that, now where is the new DNA created in nature? Still none.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11448
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes turning on and off genes that are all ready there is micro evolution and yes that does take place. No new DNA created. No changing from one kind of animal to another.
Here is some fun stuff for ya.
http://cleverbot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/playlist...
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11449
Jan 17, 2013
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Basically if you grovel before their deity enough then he won't punish you with eternal torment, and they call this "salvation."
It's a psychotic mythology.
Nicely put. Its an amoral. No one with any principles who has thought it through, could accept such an absurd propisition as heaven and hell.
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11450
Jan 17, 2013
 
That's because bollocks exist whilst your god does not.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
One has nothing to do with the other.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11451
Jan 17, 2013
 
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
Nicely put. Its an amoral. No one with any principles who has thought it through, could accept such an absurd propisition as heaven and hell.
No, it's immoral. Science is amoral.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11452
Jan 17, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I've read that, now where is the new DNA created in nature? Still none.
Several of those papers showed exactly that. It is common in plants and less common in animals.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11453
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell it to Berkeley's evolution team.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...
Or the Russians working on the silver fox experiment longer then you've been alive.
It's called an arbitrary label, since very few people can ever determine any real defining line between species, when a species becomes a completely different one is often just considered when they can no longer breed with the one referenced. The more we fill in the taxonomic tree, using the fossil record and genetics, the blurrier the lines between species get. The human line is so difficult to tell where one species ends and the next begins that they are having a hard time figuring out the specific order without utilizing genetics.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••