"Mutations" and "Natural Selection"

[Immortal4life]

"Mutations" are retained through "Natural Selection"

 

Video Clip- interviews, Molecular Biologists and Geneticists explaining why the theory of evolution through mutations is genetically impossible

http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2098198/i/biochem.mov

 

Or Youtube format, Molecular Biologist Professor Sermonti-

 

Youtube, Geneticist Dr. Gertych-

 

Fruit Flies and Morphology

 

Homology and Genetics-

 

Over 20 years ago clusters of genes, called Hox genes, were discovered. In fact, every species on earth is constructed with the same clusters of genes. The problem is, that these universal gene clusters manifest in different ways in different species, and are guiding different areas of the body in different species.

For example, the same gene that’s responsible for the tail of the mouse, as well is responsible for the rear extremities of the grasshopper. Sermonti

 

 

So why is a Fly not a Horse? Why is one animal different from another? The reality is, no one knows. What we can say, is that DNA does not play the exact role that scientists once thought. The role of the dictator and programmer of all life and behaviour.

It is not the genes that elicit nascent form, but the nascent form that selects the genes and recruits them for its program. Sermonti

 

 

Lol, an arm can never be a leg. Life was complex from the very beginning and different species are original. No evolution. Sorry, too bad so sad. This is because of the Universal Order of things and Law of Constitution, that everything is assigned it's proper place in the universe in perfect balance. Much in the same way that the number 2 is always the number 2, and can never lapse into the number 3, an antenna can never become a leg.

It is tempting to extrapolate that gain of hox genes in a cluster increases the complexity of an organism by allowing additional segments to be specified. Initially these would be just like adjacent segments, but there would be opportunity to evolve into more specialized functions. For example, if there are three sets of legs in insects, could another set of legs be added just by duplicating a hox gene that specified a leg segment of the body? What do the hox gene clusters of spiders, centipedes and millipedes look like? Are there dozens of duplicated hox genes that specify many identical segments? This provides the possibility of macroevolution. Duplication of hox genes, or whole hox gene clusters, followed by deletion and mutation might alter a species very dramatically in a short time period.

 

The notion that additional body segments might arise from duplicated hox genes was disproven by analyzing the hox gene clusters of centipedes and onychophorans. The International Society of Developmental Biologists and the Society for Developmental Biology met in July 1997 at Alta, Utah. Researchers reported that centipedes and onychophorans, primitive, wormlike creatures believed to be the closest living relatives of the organisms that gave rise to the arthropods, including insects, have the same eight homeobox (Hox) genes as insects themselves. This indicates that the diverse body segments of insects did not evolve as a result of Hox gene duplication as previously thought. (Science 277, 639 1997).

 

It still appears organisms were complex from the beginning

Mutations in the 8 genes of the HOM complex cause large scale mutations in flies. A mutation in bithorax causes a fly to have an extra set of wings. Mutation in antennapedia causes a leg to grow where an antenna should be. These genes are not master switches for making wings or legs, but they specify position in the fly's body. The order of the genes on the chromosome is the same as the order of segments in the fly's body where they are expressed. The left most gene is expressed in the head, the right most gene is expressed in the abdomen. When a gene is deleted or mutated, the segment where it is normally expressed cannot tell where it is because its position clue is gone, so it behaves like the closest segment to it. That is why a bithorax mutation causes an extra set of wings. The segments adjacent to the bithorax segment dictated what should be made.

 

lol @ how evolutionists believe humans "evolved" from animals, interbreeding with the so called "common ancestor" or "missing link" of chimpanzees for 10,000 years straight-

 

 

So now the obvious thing people are going to say is, what is your belief? If not evolution by natural selection, then what?

 

Here is just an absolutely great explanation of a theory I sense has a lot of truth-

http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about7594.html?hilit=Formations

Edited May 9, 2011 by Immortal4life

[ralis]

"Mutations" are retained through "Natural Selection"

 

Video Clip- interviews, molecular biologists and geneticists explaining why the theory of evolution is impossible

http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2098198/i/biochem.mov

 

Youtube format-

 

Fruit Flies and Morphology

 

Over 20 years ago clusters of genes, called Hox genes, were discovered. In fact, every species on earth is constructed with the same clusters of genes. The problem is, that these universal gene clusters manifest in different ways in different species, and are guiding different areas of the body in different species.

 

 

 

So why is Fly not a Horse? Why is one animal different from another? The reality is, no one knows. What we can say, is that DNA does not play the exact role that scientists once thought. The role of the dictator and programmer of all life and behaviour.

 

 

 

Lol, an arm can never be a leg. Life was complex from the very beginning and different species are original. No evolution. Sorry, too bad so sad. This is because of the universal order and Law of Constitution, that everything is assigned it's proper place in the universe in perfect balance. Much in the same way that the number 2 is always the number 2, and can never lapse into the number 3, an antenna can never become a leg.

 

 

It still appears organisms were complex from the beginning

 

 

lol @ how evolutionists believe humans "evolved" from animals, interbreeding with the so called "common ancestor" or "missing link" of chimpanzees for 10,000 years straight-

 

 

What are you trying to prove? Your arguments are for intelligent design, which is not a theory and further, is not science! What you advocate here is creationism.

Edited April 18, 2011 by ralis

[Immortal4life]

So the obvious thing people are going to say is, what is your belief? If not evolution by natural selection, then what?

 

Here is an absolutely great explanation of a theory I sense makes a lot of sense-

http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about7594.html?hilit=Formations

Edited April 18, 2011 by Immortal4life

[ralis]

The clips you posted offer no credibility, whatsoever. In fact it is impossible to even know who these so called highly qualified scientists are. Professor Simonte? Who is that? The unknown scientist supposedly refuting dating of volcanic ash knows nothing and his argument is completely bogus. Who conducted these tests and where are the journals with the data from these tests? No scientist in their right mind will obtain samples that may have deteriorated from ocean water. Dry land would be the most obvious choice.

Edited April 18, 2011 by ralis

[Immortal4life]

There are Molecular Biologists, and Geneticists, explaining why according to data they have examined in their particular fields, one species can not turn into another species.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Immortal4life

[ralis]

There are Molecular Biologists, and Geneticists, explaining why according to data they have examined in their particular fields, one species can not turn into another species.

 

Exactly, what are their names? Published papers in reputable scientific journals? You are unable to even defend your own arguments.

 

BTW, I have a B.S. in Horticultural science with a good background in science and 50 hrs. math. I obviously require more than the pseudo science rant you are so invested in.

Edited April 18, 2011 by ralis

[Immortal4life]

Here's a fact for you that I did site already in the OP, from the journal Science. The fact that when scientists discovered Hox genes, they immediately began trying to fit them with the theory of evolution. They still try to do this to this day. They theorized that Hox gene duplication could provide the long missing genetic mechanism to allow one species to turn into another species. In 1997 however, that evolutionary theory was proven wrong.

 

The so-called "mutations", or "disease resistance", or "adaptations", do not in and of themsleves provide an adequate genetic mechanism for a bacteria to evolve into a man.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Immortal4life

[ralis]

Here's a fact for you that I did cite already in the OP, from the journal Science. The fact that when scientists discovered Hox genes, they immediately began trying to fit them with the theory of evolution. They still try to do this to this day. They theorized that Hox gene duplication could provide the long missing genetic mechanism to allow one species to turn into another species. In 1997 however, that evolutionary theory was proven wrong.

 

The so-called "mutations", or "disease resistance", or "adaptations", do not in and of thmesleves provide an adequate genetic mechanism for a bacteria to evolve into a man.

 

 

Please site the references to the journal Science. Obviously, your understanding of genetics is limited at best. I have enough of a science background to know when arguments don't make sense and are re-framed to reflect a certain bias as your arguments are.

 

Scientific theory is based on fact. Your pseudoscience is not based on fact.

Edited April 18, 2011 by ralis

[Immortal4life]

Please site the references to the journal Science.

 

A Developmental Biology Summit in the High Country-

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/277/5326/639.summary

[ralis]

A Developmental Biology Summit in the High Country-

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/277/5326/639.summary

 

I would need to go to the library and look that up. However, what you fail to realize, is that science is not perfect and will never state findings in terms of absolutes. Science is an ongoing process. To pick out continuing research as you are doing, in an attempt to debunk ongoing processes indicates to me, that you may not have an education in basic science and how to think about it. Am I correct? Have you had any courses in basic science and math? Advanced college courses?

[ralis]

I can't accept as fact these YouTube clips as reasonable arguments against established science. I seriously doubt any of the interviewed scientists have published their findings in any peer reviewed journals.

[Immortal4life]

However, what you fail to realize, is that science is not perfect and will never state findings in terms of absolutes. Science is an ongoing process.

 

Yes, I am sure we have all heard before the statements like "science isn't perfect", or "science can be wrong, but religion can't admit to being wrong". That's all great. Of course science can be a useful tool.

 

However, many people believe in it too much, and do in fact believe it is always right. I think it is always important to remember how often scientists get things wrong.

 

Now within evolutionary theory and in these particular cases, it seems obvious what is happening here is that evolution is assumed to be true and is taken as the starting point, while the data is being made to fit the theory. That's backwards. All data should stand on it's own, but many scientists always try to make the evidence fit with evolution any way they can.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Immortal4life]

I can't accept as fact these YouTube clips as reasonable arguments against established science. I seriously doubt any of the interviewed scientists have published their findings in any peer reviewed journals.

 

Dr. Sermonti became professor of genetics at the University of Camerino, then at the University of Palermo in 1965, and finally moved to the University of Perugia in 1970, where he is presently emeritus professor and where he manages the Genetics Institute of the University from 1974.

 

Since 1979, Dr. Sermonti has been Chief Editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum, one of the oldest extant biology journals in the world, founded in 1919.

 

He is the discoverer of the genetic parasexual recombination in antibiotic-producing Penicillium and Streptomyces.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Immortal4life

[ralis]

 

Now within evolutionary theory and in these particular cases, it seems obvious what is happening here is that evolution is assumed to be true and is taken as the starting point, while the data is being made to fit the theory. That's backwards. All data should stand on it's own, but many scientists always try to make the evidence fit with evolution any way they can.

 

 

The scientific method will not allow just any hypothesis to be made to fit as you believe. That is the purpose of research, debate and peer review. Evolutionary theory is a set of proven hypotheses and nothing is being made to fit as you so erroneously believe.

 

 

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

[ralis]

Dr. Sermonti became professor of genetics at the University of Camerino, then at the University of Palermo in 1965, and finally moved to the University of Perugia in 1970, where he is presently emeritus professor and where he manages the Genetics Institute of the University from 1974.

 

Since 1979, Dr. Sermonti has been Chief Editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum, one of the oldest extant biology journals in the world, founded in 1919.

 

He is the discoverer of the genetic parasexual recombination in antibiotic-producing Penicillium and Streptomyces.

 

 

The only people that cite his work are creationists on the creationwiki site.

[ralis]

Dr. Sermonti became professor of genetics at the University of Camerino, then at the University of Palermo in 1965, and finally moved to the University of Perugia in 1970, where he is presently emeritus professor and where he manages the Genetics Institute of the University from 1974.

 

Since 1979, Dr. Sermonti has been Chief Editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum, one of the oldest extant biology journals in the world, founded in 1919.

 

He is the discoverer of the genetic parasexual recombination in antibiotic-producing Penicillium and Streptomyces.

 

 

The only people that cite his work are creationists on the creationwiki site.

[Immortal4life]

Evolutionists get tunnel vision. They can't take off their evolution glasses and see anything from any other perspective. In reality their mind's end up becoming closed off and limited.

 

They so often start with the theory, and then interpret the data from that starting point.

[Jetsun]

Evolutionists get tunnel vision. They can't take off their evolution glasses and see anything from any other perspective. In reality their mind's end up becoming closed off and limited.

 

They so often start with the theory, and then interpret the data from that starting point.

 

Inherently each scientist will have their own bias which is why the scientific method involves the peer review process to get through before their work gets published, perhaps you are suggesting that in general there is this tunnel vision towards evolution in all nearly all mainstream science but the fact is that the whole scientific process is designed to remove you and your own opinions from the equation and just deal with the evidence at hand. You can get bias in interpretation but Scientists love to disprove old theories as it makes them famous and rich so there is nothing rooted within the method which creates a bias towards evolutionary theory, so maybe you should examine your own bias and tunnel thinking around this issue.

 

If you mean to suggest that people believe in science too much so it has become a sort of religion that is true with some people, but that is because the old religions have failed and people need a way to try to understand and make sense of the world so they turn to science to provide answers in some areas where it is not qualified to answer, so there is a sort of vacuum in many peoples lives but the answer isn't old religious thinking as that has failed and is no longer relevant for most people.

[Marblehead]

Just thought I would pop in here and make a generalized statement.

 

Evolution is a fact. Creationism is a myth.

 

Believe what you will.

[Seth Ananda]

Just thought I would pop in here and make a generalized statement.

 

Evolution is a fact. Creationism is a myth.

 

Believe what you will.

Marble, I have to argue with you. How can anyone be ABSOLUTLY sure, about a theory that is still being developed, and regularly has revisions and changes?

 

Being that fixed and black and white, will make a Marble head of you good sir.

 

Now I personally believe in evolution, as Its Ideas are far more developed, with millions of scientists around the world working on it and getting results.

 

Also, Christian creationism is as you say, myth, or based on a religious Idea in a book.

Thats as stupid as the Epoch times readers believing that epoch scientists are somehow respected authority's with an objective stance.

 

I want to see evolution declared a Fact, to shut up all the stupid religions and stupid cults like Falun and its epoch times.

But I want to see it declared, not because we are in a hurry to rid the world of Ignorant superstition [which I empathise with], but because we finally have Incontrovertibly proved it.

 

We have not done that yet.

[Marblehead]

Marble, I have to argue with you. How can anyone be ABSOLUTLY sure, about a theory that is still being developed, and regularly has revisions and changes?

 

Hi Seth,

 

True what you have said. I have never suggested that we (science) know everything about evolution. But I suggest that there is enough proof to support the statement of the fact.

 

We know the universe exists but we know relatively little about it. To deny the fact that it exists is to be blinded from the truth. Equally so with evolution. Although there is still so very much to learn about evolution this absence of knowledge does not negate what is known.

 

Science is an ever-evolving process. The more we (science) learn the more questions are raised. Will there ever be a final definative answer? I don't know.

 

I will repeat though, evolution is a fact.

 

I really don't like to try to negate any religious beliefs. (I will talk very harshly about institutionalized religion though.) It is my firm belief that religion plays a very important part in the life of many people. If their religion helps them live a better life then it is my opinion that this religion, whatever it is, is good in the life of that individual.

 

But it is my opinion that to attempt to negate the truth about physical reality for the only purpose of trying to force your (individual) religious belief on others is an error and I will almost always speak to this error.

 

Science and religion can be very compatible if one understands that religion is about spirituality and morality at the individual level. But, to try to force your individual spiritual and moral beliefs on others is another error and I will almost always speak to this as well.

 

If we keep things in perspective we can all agree on almost everything involving living on this planet. But we need to stop trying to force others to believe our myths, illusions and delusions. We need to talk more about what we have in common instead of talking about our individual personal beliefs, how they differ, and trying to get everyone to think as we think.

 

Many years ago Carl Sagan stated "Evolution is a fact." No one has proven him wrong. I have no reason to doubt the truth in what he said.

[Seth Ananda]

Hi Seth,

 

True what you have said. I have never suggested that we (science) know everything about evolution. But I suggest that there is enough proof to support the statement of the fact.

 

We know the universe exists but we know relatively little about it. To deny the fact that it exists is to be blinded from the truth. Equally so with evolution. Although there is still so very much to learn about evolution this absence of knowledge does not negate what is known.

 

Science is an ever-evolving process. The more we (science) learn the more questions are raised. Will there ever be a final definative answer? I don't know.

 

I will repeat though, evolution is a fact.

 

I really don't like to try to negate any religious beliefs. (I will talk very harshly about institutionalized religion though.) It is my firm belief that religion plays a very important part in the life of many people. If their religion helps them live a better life then it is my opinion that this religion, whatever it is, is good in the life of that individual.

 

But it is my opinion that to attempt to negate the truth about physical reality for the only purpose of trying to force your (individual) religious belief on others is an error and I will almost always speak to this error.

 

Science and religion can be very compatible if one understands that religion is about spirituality and morality at the individual level. But, to try to force your individual spiritual and moral beliefs on others is another error and I will almost always speak to this as well.

 

If we keep things in perspective we can all agree on almost everything involving living on this planet. But we need to stop trying to force others to believe our myths, illusions and delusions. We need to talk more about what we have in common instead of talking about our individual personal beliefs, how they differ, and trying to get everyone to think as we think.

 

Many years ago Carl Sagan stated "Evolution is a fact." No one has proven him wrong. I have no reason to doubt the truth in what he said.

As usual, Cool reply

 

I guess I myself am just highly uncomfortable with absolutes.

I feel great about "Evolution is most likely fact" and "evolution seems to be nearly Totally proven" Which is 'far far far far far squared' ahead of any arguments to the counter.

[Jetsun]

From the viewpoint of what has happened evolution can be regarded as fact, the evidence that organisms have evolved is so completely overwhelming that it can be regarded as fact , while how the actual process of evolution works in its precise details is still open to some debate, intelligent design believers like to fill the gaps in the science as evidence of god so they play the age old game of "god of gaps" but every year the gaps get smaller and smaller with each scientific advancement.

[Marblehead]

As usual, Cool reply

 

I guess I myself am just highly uncomfortable with absolutes.

I feel great about "Evolution is most likely fact" and "evolution seems to be nearly Totally proven" Which is 'far far far far far squared' ahead of any arguments to the counter.

 

I know what you are saying and I too generally try to avoid absolutes. But there are times, for example, the existence of this chair I am sitting in, when I openly and knowingly accept something to be an absolute. It keeps me from constantly going back and reestablishing the many realities of my life. Once something has been proven to my satisfaction I no longer have to test this truth unless there comes a time when conflicting information is made available. Then I will retest my truths.

 

Yes, I know, it is said that the Taoist Sage has no opinions of his/her own. I'm not a Sage. I have opinions. Oh well.

[Marblehead]

From the viewpoint of what has happened evolution can be regarded as fact, the evidence that organisms have evolved is so completely overwhelming that it can be regarded as fact , while how the actual process of evolution works in its precise details is still open to some debate, intelligent design believers like to fill the gaps in the science as evidence of god so they play the age old game of "god of gaps" but every year the gaps get smaller and smaller with each scientific advancement.

 

Nice addition to the discussion Jetsun. And I agree, science does not have all the answers yet. It may never have all the answers. I would think that this should not play any role when considering what is known. I don't have a problem with folks filling the gaps with their belief system. But as I said, to try to negate the facts that already exist is, in my opinion, an error.

 

My best friend in real life is a non-denominational Christian. He has no problem with making science compatible with his religion. And he still believes in all the icons of the Christian religion. Yes, he even believes in miracles.