Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Problems for evolution — squid recodes its own RNA

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
    And before that it was trying to get these creationists to say what "genetic information" is and how they're measuring it.

    And before that it was trying to get Stripe to explain how "squid can recode their RNA" = "everything is designed".

    You seriously can't expect creationists to stay on topic. Their methodology is pretty obvious....make absurd claims, get called on them, dodge and avoid until there's a new page, then change subjects on the new page.

    I understand that from creationists; such dishonesty is what they do. But what bugs me is when the science folks just follow along and don't hold the creationists to task.
    IF you get bored of talking genetics with Stripe, get him started on the speed of light. Equally entertaining.
    Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

    What are my fruits today?

    Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

    "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by User Name View Post
      The point of my post was that most of the changes to plant genomes done through mutation breeding are either neutral or not good, but some are beneficial. According to one source I read, out of 2000 plants produced through mutagenesis, only one or two dozen may be found to have advantageous mutations. Mutation breeding is clumsy and the results are unpredictable, but this process is still far cheaper than genetic engineering techniques.

      Mutation breeding is also largely unregulated, unlike the GMO industry. People freak out at the thought of eating "frankenfood" without even realizing that most of the crops they consume have been modified via mutation breeding.
      I notice you're willing to take on the evolutionary worldview without question, but are unwilling to consider the consequences of being wrong.

      Why is that?
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      E≈mc2
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
      -Bob B.

      Comment


      • That's hilarious.

        User Name describes a paper he read and how it shows Stripe's arguments are wrong. Stripe's response? "Why do you believe evolutionists without question?"

        "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
          I notice you're willing to take on the evolutionary worldview without question, but are unwilling to consider the consequences of being wrong.

          Why is that?
          I question your assumption that I am willing to take on the evolutionary worldview without question. Science is nothing if not inquisitive. As for being wrong, hypotheses are frequently put forward that are subsequently found to be wrong, or at least in need of modification, through scientific investigation.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by User Name View Post
            I question your assumption that I am willing to take on the evolutionary worldview without question. Science is nothing if not inquisitive. As for being wrong, hypotheses are frequently put forward that are subsequently found to be wrong, or at least in need of modification, through scientific investigation.
            Your post was made with evolution assumed and you ignored my warnings. No assumption made on my part.
            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
            E≈mc2
            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
            -Bob B.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by User Name View Post
              I question your assumption that I am willing to take on the evolutionary worldview without question. Science is nothing if not inquisitive. As for being wrong, hypotheses are frequently put forward that are subsequently found to be wrong, or at least in need of modification, through scientific investigation.
              You don't understand. In Stripe's world, anything from an "evolutionist" is automatically wrong, period. You don't need to read it, think about it, or do anything else with it except wave it away.

              That's truly how creationists operate, as evidenced by this thread.
              "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                Your post was made with evolution assumed and you ignored my warnings. No assumption made on my part.
                Would you care to enumerate your warnings in a single post and provide sound scientific bases for them?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by User Name View Post
                  Would you care to enumerate your warnings in a single post and provide sound scientific bases for them?
                  Already done.
                  Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                  E≈mc2
                  "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                  "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                  -Bob B.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                    Already done.
                    Thank you.

                    You are apparently referring to your post #196 of this thread, in which you state that "random changes" to a genome are "dangerous in the face of reality."

                    To be sure, the results of mutagenesis (mutating an organism by bombarding it with radiation or chemicals) are unpredictable, and mutations can be harmful (e.g., cause allergic reactions, etc). Consequently, the National Academy of Sciences has warned that “regulating genetically modified crops while giving a pass to mutant products isn’t scientifically justified” because mutagenesis is much less precise and the risk of unintended health effects is increased.

                    An article published by Bloomberg further states:
                    Reports from the National Academy of Sciences, representing the consensus of experts in the field, say the risk of creating unintended health effects is greater from mutagenesis than any other technique, including genetic modification. Mutagenesis deletes and rearranges hundreds or thousands of genes randomly, spawning mutations that are less precise than GMOs. The academy has warned that regulating genetically modified crops while giving a pass to mutant products isn’t scientifically justified.

                    So there is definitely just cause for concern. That said, it is also true that for upwards of the past century, mutation breeding has been used successfully in a wide variety of crops, for example:
                    [R]adiation breeding has produced thousands of useful mutants and a sizable fraction of the world’s crops...including varieties of rice, wheat, barley, pears, peas, cotton, peppermint, sunflowers, peanuts, grapefruit, sesame, bananas, cassava and sorghum...The mutations can improve yield, quality, taste, size and resistance to disease and can help plants adapt to diverse climates and conditions...Peanuts got tougher hulls. Barley, oats and wheat got better yields...In 1929, farmers stumbled on the Ruby Red grapefruit, a natural mutant. Its flesh eventually faded to pink, however, and scientists fired radiation to produce mutants of deeper color — Star Ruby, released in 1971, and Rio Red, released in 1985. The mutant offspring now account for about 75 percent of all grapefruit grown in Texas.

                    Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/sc...anted=all&_r=0

                    So I think we should be cautious in our use of these techniques, but optimistically so in light of the successes that have been demonstrated both in previous decades and in our present day, for example:
                    Organic farming systems permit food from mutated varieties to be sold as organic. In the United States many varieties have been developed using induced mutagenesis, such as lettuce, beans, grapefruit, rice, oats, and wheat. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/ International Atomic Energy Agency Mutant Cultivar Database (FAO/IAEA, 2001) lists more than 2,200 varieties of various species worldwide that have been developed using induced mutagenesis agents, including ionizing irradiation and ethyl methane sulfonate.

                    The NAS further states that "there do not appear to be outstanding examples of mutant varieties with documented unexpected effects beyond what the mutant was selected for, despite the expectation that mutant varieties may possess and generate more unexpected outcomes than ordinary crosses because of the unpredictable and uncontrollable nature of nontargeted mutations. Furthermore, there do not appear to be any examples in which mutant varieties were removed from the market due to unintended or unexpected adverse incidents." (Source: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10977&page=45 )

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by 6days View Post
                      That's false. For decades it was thought that mutating plants and then using artificial selection would improve variety. Millions of plants were mutated...resulting in billions of weak deformed plants. Most geneticists no longer use this method of 'evolution on steroids' since it doesn't work.
                      Do you know how corn plants came about?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                        I notice you're willing to take on the evolutionary worldview without question, but are unwilling to consider the consequences of being wrong.

                        Why is that?
                        If you had any inkling of what evolution was or how it worked you'd see that his post fit into the worldview perfectly.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
                          IF you get bored of talking genetics with Stripe, get him started on the speed of light. Equally entertaining.
                          Stripe is oblivious to reality, and a hero to all those who prefer deception over an accurate view of reality. In the end they only hurt themselves, as reasonable people sift through their non-sense and throw out much of what Stripe and his crew of jokers claim. When people keep themselves stuck in the dark ages, they are simply left in the dust in the contemporary world. Hence their claim that "tradition should trump reason", and all they can do is kick and scream like babies, perhaps banning a few of their opponents from time to time, in a futile attempt to fight the tide of reality.

                          I do not fear them at all. In fact I pity them and the people they come in contact with in real life. Because their lives are most likely a mess. Though they probably remain oblivious to that as well.
                          Militant Moderate

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
                            That's hilarious.

                            User Name describes a paper he read and how it shows Stripe's arguments are wrong. Stripe's response? "Why do you believe evolutionists without question?"

                            You should believe Stripe without question, simply because he claims to be a Christian.

                            Militant Moderate

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Daedalean's_Sun View Post
                              Many individual plants are going to have reduced fitness, the few that have increased fitness are selectively bred.
                              Crop seed mutation breeding increasing
                              Wow... that article almost says the opposite of what I said, doesn't it?

                              Although the journalist is doing some fear mongering, it essentially backs what I said. (Other than he says there is an increase of this method ...of which some of that is irradiation is for other purposes). Plant geneticists have found it far more effective to do plant breeding using techniques such as the gene gun. Plant geneticists who failed using mutagenesis later found success by using the pre-existing information in the genome. *There are some success stories using 'beneficial mutations' ... but the success stories back the creationist model...loss of oversll fitness. *For example, Monsanta has developed canola with very high yields, but the seeds produced are sterile. (You need buy more next year from Monsanto). This type of breeding provides a benefit to humans...not to the plant or animal.*
                              Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
                                IF you get bored of talking genetics with Stripe, get him started on the speed of light. Equally entertaining.
                                Entertain us then by explaining how you measure the one way only speed if light
                                Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X