Re: Genetic link between Reptile and Human hearts

On Sep 8, 4:37 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 8, 1:46 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Sep 7, 4:23 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 7, 2:29 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 7, 6:29 am, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 6, 6:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 6, 9:16 am, TheBicyclingGuitarist

<Ch...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
MORE evidence of common ancestry. Those who deny the fact that
evolution happened and is happening are delusional.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902133629.htm

Your credulity is shocking.

Your inability to come up with an intelligent comment is not
shocking.  Come on, Ray.  If you are going to "overthrow" the ToE in
your so-far invisible masterpiece, don't you think you will have to
come up with an alternative equally reasonable and validated in
empirical evidence to this sort of support for evolution?  What is it
that you object to in this data?  That a simple genetic system
determines the placement and/or existence of a septum to separate the
ventricle?  That relatively small quantitative changes in timing or
amounts of this particular gene can affect the amount or presence of a
septum?  Or did you not even read the article and just are proclaiming
the TruthTM by barking it out of your nethermost gastric tube opening?

Ray- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is a scientific fact that the brains of persons who accept
evolutionary theory are damaged.

Really?  Where is this scientific evidence published? What methodology
did the scientists use?

To believe or accept that life is the
result of genetic malfunction (= accidents) is deranged.

I accept the scientific fact that life's form and function *changes*
over time due to the interaction of genetic *variants* (ultimately
produced by mutation, which only means change and not malfunction) and
the local environment.  

False.

No. Far more accurate than your sentence, which *assumes* that change,
*any* change, in a genome is necessarily a "malfunction".  Look it up
in any biology or genetics dictionary or the glossary of any biology
text.  Mutation means *change*.  It does not mean malfunction.  If
anyone were stupid enough to accept a definition of mutation as
meaning "malfunction" or "deleterious change", that would preclude
known mutations which (in specific environments) are *known* to be
"beneficial".


Howard: what does evolutionary literature mean when it uses the term
"accident." I find said literature filled with this term in the
context of genetic mutation.

Ray

Evolutionary theory claims that life is a result of continuous genetic
malfunction, replication error, accidents. Your comments correspond to
euphemistic damage control, which is a recognition of the deranged
claims of evolutionary theory.

All I am saying is that it is not true that all change in a genome is
detrimental by definition.



Life is, fundamentally, a set of chemical
reactions which has been continuously occurring and changing ever
since the first "life-set" came into being.  

Yeah, ever since that first biological vehicle containing a
replication mechanism suddenly materialized from nothing

First biological vehicle containing a replication mechanism suddenly
being materialized from nothing is *your* explanation, not mine.  The
template-copy mechanism of replication is inherent in the chemistry
and non-chemical interactions of nucleotide polymers and some other
chemicals.  Chemicals cannot in any way be described as "nothing".

or previously
existing material (one-off gargantuan macromutation). Richard Dawkins,
honest Darwinist that he is, plainly admits that it was a pure stroke
of luck.

Or perhaps it was, in particular pre-biotic environments, practically
inevitable given sufficient time.

Imagine that; so called "rational" men accepting the main
conceptual claim of Creationism to jump start their theory (just like
Darwin did)!

Darwin may have speculated about life starting in a warm pond, but
that is not what his work concentrates on.  Life as we know it is a
working assumption of biological evolution.



Darwinists are unable to see that their claims and ideas are deranged,
egregiously contradictory, senseless and illogical (= evidence of
brain damage).

Still haven't presented any evidence or references to support this
assertion.  After all, I am not the one who is claiming that not just
the first living organism, but every single species that ever existed
was magically poofed out of nothing (or dirt).

That first "life-set"
event was certainly chemical in nature and would be even if it had
been designed by an outside agent.

The outcomes of species and human beings, that is, Paley's watches,
dictates that mutation is designed, having purpose.

And your evidence for this claim is....?  

Like I said: the outcomes of species and human beings, Paley's
watches.

What specific "outcome of species and human beings" are you thinking
of?

Mutation has been studied
for quite some time, and no evidence of design wrt the direction of
mutation has ever been discovered.  That is, there is no scientific
evidence that mutation occurs wrt need.  It merely produces variation,
but  NOT MALFUNCTION.  You are making the classic creationist mistake
of *defining* mutation as necessarily and inherently being
deleterious.  

I said no such thing. I said genetic malfunction or accident or error
is the evolutionary biological production mechanism.

Change due to mutation is the ultimate source of all known biological
variation.  Mutations occur because genome replication and stability
are based in chemical reactions and not God's perfect love.  The cost
of too perfect replication would be genomic stagnation and organisms
that would be unable to respond genetically to changed conditions or
new opportunities.  Mutation is rarer than correct replication; but it
is as inevitable as replication, because *both* are chemical
processes.  But the rate of mutation is a balancing between the cost
of preventing mutation and, typically, more rapid replication. That
certainly is true.

Although variation is requisite for evolution, for change to lead to
evolution, one must consider the value of each change in specific
environments wrt their effect on relative reproductive success.
Deleterious changes *usually* cannot go to fixation precisely because
they are deleterious wrt relative reproductive success (the only way
to measure 'benefit').  Neutral changes can occur by fixation via the
drunkard's walk.  Beneficial changes can go to fixation much more
rapidly than neutral changes.

Now you have resorted to deliberate misrepresentation for the same
reason: sudden recognition that the claims of evolutionary theory
appear deranged.

In other words, your replies are ad hoc.

Hardly ad hoc.  My statements are based on evidence that has been
accumulating and has been consistent wrt to what it shows, as I
pointed out, for more than a half century.  All you have done is
repeat an unevidenced assertion that wasn't any more intelligent the
first time you did so.



Ray

The benefit or neutrality or deleteriousness of any
mutation can only be determined separately from (and only
conditionally for a given environment) the existence of the specific
mutation.  Those adjectives (deleterious, neutral, beneficial) are NOT
inherent properties of mutations.  They can only be applied after
analysis.

Have you somehow found evidence against the interpretations (first
presented more than a half-century ago by Luria and Delbruck) of
hundreds of scientists who have actually studied mutation and its
effects?

What?  No comment to these two paragraphs!  They are the crux of my
comments that you are full of *** when you claim that *all* change is
deleterious (or, in your odd terminology, a malfunction).





Ray- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Loading