People reject evolution

I missed the abortion thread... dammit.

Don't worry. It's rather like a bus. There will be another along any minute now.

This thread makes me sad. Why have you rejected me?

bwahahahahahahahahaha. 2 years of forum posting --THIS is my favorite ever.

You can't conceive of a plain where creatures exist beyond the realm we occupy.

I thought I was your favorite

Oh, give me a home where the buffalo roam
Where the deer and the antelope play
Where seldom is heard a discouraging word
And the skies are not cloudy all day
Home, home on the range
Where the deer and the antelope play
Where seldom is heard a discouraging word
And the skies are not cloudy all day

You were, but I evolved.

When DNA mutates, it generally loses information. The mutation that makes Strep pneumo resistant to penicillins is the loss of a protein (called, in the usual utilitarian manner, penicillin-binding-protein).

Point Mutation
A point mutation is a simple change in one base of the gene sequence. This is equivalent to changing one letter in a sentence, such as this example, where we change the 'c' in cat to an 'h':
Original

[left]The fat cat ate the wee rat.[/left]


Point MutationThe fat hat ate the wee rat.



Frame-shift mutation
Frame-shift mutations. In a frame shift mutation, one or more bases are inserted or deleted, the equivalent of adding or removing letters in a sentence. But because our cells read DNA in three letter "words", adding or removing one letter changes each subsequent word. This type of mutation can make the DNA meaningless and often results in a shortened protein. An example of a frame-shift mutation using our sample sentence is when the 't' from cat is removed, but we keep the original letter spacing:






Deletion
Mutations that result in missing DNA are called deletions. These can be small, such as the removal of just one "word," or longer deletions that affect a large number of genes on the chromosome. Deletions can also cause frameshift mutations. In this example, the deletion eliminated the word cat.






[left]The fat cat ate the wee rat.



DeletionThe fat ate the wee rat.
[/left]


Insertion
Mutations that result in the addition of extra DNA are called insertions. Insertions can also cause frameshift mutations, and general result in a nonfunctional protein.






[left]The fat cat ate the wee rat.



InsertionThe fat cat xlw ate the wee rat.
[/left]


Inversion
In an inversion mutation, an entire section of DNA is reversed. A small inversion may involve only a few bases within a gene, while longer inversions involve large regions of a chromosome containing several genes.






[left]The fat cat ate the wee rat.



InsertionThe fat tar eew eht eta tac.
[/left]




DNA expression mutation
There are many types of mutations that change not the protein itself but where and how much of a protein is made. These types of changes in DNA can result in proteins being made at the wrong time or in the wrong cell type. Changes can also occur that result in too much or too little of the protein being made.

Most people reject evolution. When I say evolution I mean the kind that starts with a single celled creature and over time transforms into a fish, then a frog, then a bird or snake etc etc.

I think most people agree with adaptation. We can see it happening. There is loads of evidence for it. But there is no evidence to support the notion life as we know it arose from lowly single cell creatures.

If life did arise without a creator, it would need to come into existence with the ability to eat, remove waste, process food, grow, and reproduce. That would be a much bigger miracle than having a creator make it.

The next step is how life began from non-living matter when biogenesis (scientific fact) says all life comes from existing life.

We all know the theory of abiogenesis (the unsupported theory that life came from non-living material) strikes in the face of science, yet people who reject the notion of a creator must assume this is how life began.

Their beliefs cause them to close their eyes to science when it shows their beliefs to be wrong. So in a way, one could say people on both sides of the issue depend on their beliefs to guide them through science.

Then we are discussing the same thing, kinda. You are adding Kevn by name. I am just stating the flaws in the tactics

Then I disagree. The creationist agenda would be better served by acting stealthily. Whenever their position is exposed to the light of reason and logic it crumbles away. I think most people never give much thought to the issue (which I think explains the poll results) and it's only when the topic rises above the radar that people even become aware of the creationist position. Rather than polarizing I think it makes people aware of the non-scientific nature of the crationist position.

that is true, to a point. The problem arises when the discussion gets carried too far, IE Ulrika's post.

Ulrika doesn't exist.

Kevn, sometimes I wonder if you can post anything factual on the subject of evolution. To date you haven't, and this is just the latest of your out-of-context misinformation.
<factual data goes here>

It's seems to be a bigger miracle because you start halfway through the story. If life arose with a creator, that creator would have had to have arisen from nothing, become all knowing and all powerful before there was anything to know or have power over, and then have created the entire universe from nothing. And then he or she or it or them moved on to create life. Start at the beginning of your story and it gets a lot more complicated.

The error in that statement is that is is based upon life as WE know it as humans. We are born, live then die. Can we say that this is the pattern for EVERY intelligent being? What about the possability that a creator NEVER had a start? Was ALWAYS there?

The error in that statement is that is is based upon life as WE know it as humans. We are born, live then die. Can we say that this is the pattern for EVERY intelligent being? What about the possability that a creator NEVER had a start? Was ALWAYS there?

I know thats a very difficult thing to even comprehend - and I cant pretend that I can completely take that idea it - its just outside of our ability to really comprehend - just like explaining the colour red to someone who has been blind since birth - they just CANNOT understand what colours are let alone a particular one.

So IF you accept that there may be an all powerful creator who is obviously not human then what is the problem with the idea that they would always have been there? Even since before the universe existed.

So IF you accept that there may be an all powerful creator who is obviously not human then what is the problem with the idea that they would always have been there? Even since before the universe existed.

And why do we need our 4,826th evolution thread?

Kevn thought he had a point at the beginning of this because his link indicates 51% of Americans believe in Creationism.


Then again, 51% of Americans voted for John Kerry. And nothing of value came of it.

The catch is that the NCSE tied an arm and two legs behind its back by making an arbitrary requirement that the scientists be named "Steve," "Stephanie," "Stefan," or some other form of "Stephen."

Since discovering it, I've always been fond of: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/



On the serious side, it's also helpful to be taking opinion polls from someone who isn't sitting around in their underwear drinking Pabst and responding to broadcast-TV 'studies'.

....On the serious side, it's also helpful to be taking opinion polls from someone who isn't sitting around in their underwear drinking Pabst and responding to broadcast-TV 'studies'.