Creationsim

[xcept68]

I don't use "What if?" at every sentence.


Here is an article talking about a mutation in the myostatin gene and allowing more muscle growth.
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030079

Here is a baby born with the myostatin mutation, scientists think it could lead to a cure for muscular dystrophy.
http://www.cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2004/06/24/512617.html

Dexter Jackson also has the mutation he doesn't seem to be doing too badly.
http://images.google.com/url?q=http://www.europasports.com/flextime/images/shows/jackson.jpg&usg=AFQjCNG67F0VW__m3IaawkdOUrXWQl7T5A

So much for all mutations being bad...

uh, huh... you don't know too much about this right? Wait until he's about 40. I had a friend that knew a very large guy that allowed this type of thing to happen and he died at a very young age from it. However,,,,,,(comma) Look at all the people in the Bible that God used, such as .. continued.

[xcept68]

That was some of my best work and all done in a period of about 3 min!!!

I'm almost as awesome as the other noobs in this place nowadays!!

[blevunly]

uh, huh... you don't know too much about this right? Wait until he's about 40. I had a friend that knew a very large guy that allowed this type of thing to happen and he died at a very young age from it. However,,,,,,(comma) Look at all the people in the Bible that God used, such as .. continued.

I like how you assume your friends friend(lol) had this mutation and then tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

So far this mutation has shown no negative effects. So it's a positive mutation. Scientist also believe this mutation to be in several athletes. It was present in more bodybuilders they tested, but one example should suffice.

[deegs]

don't assume that all genetic mutations have to be as extreme as lacking the myostatin gene.

small things that would help a population survive and even thrive in an extreme environment are much more common.

take the physique of an eskimo. they are fully adapted to living in extremely cold and deserted locations. a short stature with compact limbs that are easier to keep warm than lanky ones. higher degree of body fat on average for added warmth. they have been there for much less than the 10,000-12,000 years the natives to the south have. more like 5000. they are said to have come from siberia and share a common ancestor with mongols and some say koreans. they sure look different though, don't they? you can thank adaptations made possible by natural selection and random mutations along the way.

anyway, if the original migrants were built like bantus, chances are they would not have survived for many generations.

genetic mutations are NOT a bad thing, xcept, and you exist and are able to think(somewhat) thanks to them.

[xcept68]

Gene Mutation Makes Tot Stronger
by Frank Sherwin, M.A.
Because mutations are random relative to need and because organisms generally fit well into their environments, mutations normally are either neutral or harmful; only very rarely are they helpful—just as a random change made by poking a screwdriver into the guts of your computer will rarely improve its performance. 1

This is a rather graphic description of the alleged beneficial work genetic mistakes perform. Therefore, whenever reports surface of a favorable mutation, it is followed with keen interest.

Almost five years ago a baby was born in Berlin with bulging thighs and biceps that were credited to a unique beneficial genetic event (the story may be read in the New England Journal of Medicine vol. 350:2642-44, June 24, 2004 "Powerful genes—myostatin regulation of human muscle mass," E.M. McNally, M.D., Ph.D.). But just how "beneficial" is this mutation? It seems to be advantageous in the short run with the child able to lift seven-pound dumbbells with arms extended—but who knows what will transpire in the ensuing years? Dr. McNally was quoted as saying "the boy is still very young and that problems could occur later in his life." 2 Scientists knowledgeable with mutations and diseases caused by them are cautious, expressing hope that as time goes on the child will be fine. But would any geneticist on this planet—given the choice—say yes to this particular mutation for their next child?

It was discovered the child has a mutation in the gene that produces a protein called myostatin. Some researchers are concerned that the child's heart muscle could be damaged by an abnormal amount of this protein, although his cardiovascular system appears to be normal at present. Such apprehension is hardly what we should expect from a "beneficial" mutation.

How does this event relate to evolutionary theory? Let's extrapolate. Is there any reason to think that after many generations, the progeny of this muscular child will produce a "new species" of person? No. His children (if he lives to bear any) may be more muscular—but then again, maybe not. With research experience biologists have had with mutations, there could be unseen genetic problems lurking within this child. Indeed, geneticists have found that people have much fewer—not more—genes than was suggested a decade ago. This means that single genes may have multiple functions or may interact with numerous other genes within the individual. Such a condition is called pleiotropy—a single mutated gene causing multiple phenotypic (physical) changes. Even if mutations could have beneficial outcomes, this "pleiotropic effect" would remove the advantage by damaging other organs and systems.

This brings us to a larger question: Is the evolutionary idea that "beneficial mutations" could somehow work their way in transforming one kind of animal, plant, or person into another, scientifically valid?

_____________________________

[deegs]

i simply disproved your blanket remark about all mutations being bad.

also, just because a gene MAY have multiple purposes (they don't really know), does not mean that a mutation will affect the systems of the body negatively.

it seems like somebody just pulled out a "jump to conclusions" mat and went to town.

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m142/deegsitis/70384439_ba1fd5b9de.jpg

[deegs]

This brings us to a larger question: Is the evolutionary idea that "beneficial mutations" could somehow work their way in transforming one kind of animal, plant, or person into another, scientifically valid?


i fail to see how this disproves microevolution. it is random and usually only observed when it is beneficial to survival. if a mutation was not beneficial to survival, the number of mating partners and opportunities provided to the individual of the species would be almost non-existant. thus, the gene would likely not be passed on.

[blevunly]

Gene Mutation Makes Tot Stronger
by Frank Sherwin, M.A.
Because mutations are random relative to need and because organisms generally fit well into their environments, mutations normally are either neutral or harmful; only very rarely are they helpful—just as a random change made by poking a screwdriver into the guts of your computer will rarely improve its performance. 1

This is a rather graphic description of the alleged beneficial work genetic mistakes perform. Therefore, whenever reports surface of a favorable mutation, it is followed with keen interest.

Almost five years ago a baby was born in Berlin with bulging thighs and biceps that were credited to a unique beneficial genetic event (the story may be read in the New England Journal of Medicine vol. 350:2642-44, June 24, 2004 "Powerful genes—myostatin regulation of human muscle mass," E.M. McNally, M.D., Ph.D.). But just how "beneficial" is this mutation? It seems to be advantageous in the short run with the child able to lift seven-pound dumbbells with arms extended—but who knows what will transpire in the ensuing years? Dr. McNally was quoted as saying "the boy is still very young and that problems could occur later in his life." 2 Scientists knowledgeable with mutations and diseases caused by them are cautious, expressing hope that as time goes on the child will be fine. But would any geneticist on this planet—given the choice—say yes to this particular mutation for their next child?

It was discovered the child has a mutation in the gene that produces a protein called myostatin. Some researchers are concerned that the child's heart muscle could be damaged by an abnormal amount of this protein, although his cardiovascular system appears to be normal at present. Such apprehension is hardly what we should expect from a "beneficial" mutation.

How does this event relate to evolutionary theory? Let's extrapolate. Is there any reason to think that after many generations, the progeny of this muscular child will produce a "new species" of person? No. His children (if he lives to bear any) may be more muscular—but then again, maybe not. With research experience biologists have had with mutations, there could be unseen genetic problems lurking within this child. Indeed, geneticists have found that people have much fewer—not more—genes than was suggested a decade ago. This means that single genes may have multiple functions or may interact with numerous other genes within the individual. Such a condition is called pleiotropy—a single mutated gene causing multiple phenotypic (physical) changes. Even if mutations could have beneficial outcomes, this "pleiotropic effect" would remove the advantage by damaging other organs and systems.

This brings us to a larger question: Is the evolutionary idea that "beneficial mutations" could somehow work their way in transforming one kind of animal, plant, or person into another, scientifically valid?

_____________________________

So it "could" be bad I am aware of that, fact is it hasn't shown any negative effects yet. All mutations are not bad which is what you claimed the article even agrees with me.


As for mutations damaging organs or systems. It's a little niave to think that the hman body is as good as a body can be.

BTW cite your sources.

[xcept68]

yes, and the article states that no child of anyone with this type of mutation would be born with the same type thing and be passed up through their generations. Meaning it isn't going to be a good mutation that will stick in any way. So there is no evolutionary link for this type of thing. That's the real point of the article.

A mutation is a LOSS of information, not a gain of it, unlike what evolution claims as needed for a species to continue to improve they need a gain of information.

[blevunly]

yes, and the article states that no child of anyone with this type of mutation would be born with the same type thing and be passed up through their generations. Meaning it isn't going to be a good mutation that will stick in any way. So there is no evolutionary link for this type of thing. That's the real point of the article.

A mutation is a LOSS of information, not a gain of it, unlike what evolution claims as needed for a species to continue to improve they need a gain of information.

The article doesn't say that it says

"His children (if he lives to bear any) may be more muscular—but then again, maybe not."

Which is true as it may or may not be passed on it's just like punent squares. If the kid were to breed with someone with the same mutation it would increase the likelyhood of the mutation appearing in the offspring and if it doesn't appear in the offspring it could possibly appear in the offspirngs offspring or in that offsprings offspring.

How is it a mutation a loss of information?

Again please cite your source.

[xcept68]

woulda coulda, shoulda. Just show me something that says that's what could happen or even something that shows that it has happened. That's all I can comment on this at this time. Until you present proof of your statements then we can go no further.

[deegs]

at least acknowledge my statements, xcept. you pick and choose what to respond to only if you can find a way to change it's meaning and spin around the original point.

[Lord Krishna]

yes, and the article states that no child of anyone with this type of mutation would be born with the same type thing and be passed up through their generations. Meaning it isn't going to be a good mutation that will stick in any way. So there is no evolutionary link for this type of thing. That's the real point of the article.

A mutation is a LOSS of information, not a gain of it, unlike what evolution claims as needed for a species to continue to improve they need a gain of information.

making stuff up as usual


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mutation

[blevunly]

woulda coulda, shoulda. Just show me something that says that's what could happen or even something that shows that it has happened. That's all I can comment on this at this time. Until you present proof of your statements then we can go no further.

Behold the childlike explanation of punnet squares. Now you too can understand how genes are passed on from generation to generation.

http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/courses/builders/lessons/less/les4/casino/cas1ck.html

Note that I cite my source.

[deegs]

woulda coulda, shoulda. Just show me something that says that's what could happen or even something that shows that it has happened. That's all I can comment on this at this time. Until you present proof of your statements then we can go no further.


basic genetics.

blue eyes are a genetic mutation. why it came to be i don't know. it's also a recessive gene.

a blue eye parent and a brown eyed parent would likely have a brown eyed kid. unless the brown eyed parent has the blue eyed recessive gene. then they would both have to contribute the blue eyed gene and the kid would have blue eyes.

same thing can happen if both parents have brown eyes, but both also possess the blue eyed recessive gene.

i don't see how that trait can 100% fail to be passed on. it may or it may not be. you're either spreading lies or have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. both are equally bad.

[deegs]

Gene Mutation Makes Tot Stronger
by Frank Sherwin, M.A.
Because mutations are random relative to need and because organisms generally fit well into their environments, mutations normally are either neutral or harmful; only very rarely are they helpful—just as a random change made by poking a screwdriver into the guts of your computer will rarely improve its performance. 1

This is a rather graphic description of the alleged beneficial work genetic mistakes perform. Therefore, whenever reports surface of a favorable mutation, it is followed with keen interest.

Almost five years ago a baby was born in Berlin with bulging thighs and biceps that were credited to a unique beneficial genetic event (the story may be read in the New England Journal of Medicine vol. 350:2642-44, June 24, 2004 "Powerful genes—myostatin regulation of human muscle mass," E.M. McNally, M.D., Ph.D.). But just how "beneficial" is this mutation? It seems to be advantageous in the short run with the child able to lift seven-pound dumbbells with arms extended—but who knows what will transpire in the ensuing years? Dr. McNally was quoted as saying "the boy is still very young and that problems could occur later in his life." 2 Scientists knowledgeable with mutations and diseases caused by them are cautious, expressing hope that as time goes on the child will be fine. But would any geneticist on this planet—given the choice—say yes to this particular mutation for their next child?

It was discovered the child has a mutation in the gene that produces a protein called myostatin. Some researchers are concerned that the child's heart muscle could be damaged by an abnormal amount of this protein, although his cardiovascular system appears to be normal at present. Such apprehension is hardly what we should expect from a "beneficial" mutation.

How does this event relate to evolutionary theory? Let's extrapolate. Is there any reason to think that after many generations, the progeny of this muscular child will produce a "new species" of person? No. His children (if he lives to bear any) may be more muscular—but then again, maybe not. With research experience biologists have had with mutations, there could be unseen genetic problems lurking within this child. Indeed, geneticists have found that people have much fewer—not more—genes than was suggested a decade ago. This means that single genes may have multiple functions or may interact with numerous other genes within the individual. Such a condition is called pleiotropy—a single mutated gene causing multiple phenotypic (physical) changes. Even if mutations could have beneficial outcomes, this "pleiotropic effect" would remove the advantage by damaging other organs and systems.

This brings us to a larger question: Is the evolutionary idea that "beneficial mutations" could somehow work their way in transforming one kind of animal, plant, or person into another, scientifically valid?





also, the author of this article seems to be just a teeny bit biased.

http://creationwiki.org/Frank_Sherwin

while spreading propaganda for

http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Institute_for_Creation_Research

[blevunly]

also, the author of this article seems to be just a teeny bit biased.

http://creationwiki.org/Frank_Sherwin

LOL no wonder he wouldn't post a source.

[xcept68]

What do you mean I wouldn't post a source? The author of the article was right in the first line?

That was the source.

[blevunly]

What do you mean I wouldn't post a source? The author of the article was right in the first line?

That was the source.

I just meant you wouldn't link it.

[xcept68]

I can get you more information on his article if you would like. I know him personally. Maybe I will ask him some things about what you would like to know while having lunch with Frank. Just let me know what you would like me to ask from him.

[deegs]

what say you now about genetic mutations?

i'll sum up your points

1. they are all bad - ask the galapagos islands finches.
2. the can never be passed down - they are too big to fit through the urethra?
3. the possibility of a mutation being bad (it is random afterall), disproves the concept of evolution somehow.

and these are just within the last page! LOL you are a goldmine, my friend.

[deegs]

I can get you more information on his article if you would like. I know him personally. Maybe I will ask him some things about what you would like to know while having lunch with Frank. Just let me know what you would like me to ask from him.

i wanna know what toy he gets with is happy meal.

[lancaster]

I know him personally. Maybe I will ask him some things about what you would like to know while having lunch with Frank. Just let me know what you would like me to ask from him.

Question 1: Would he kill his children if god asked him to?
Question 2: What is his criterion for establishing if god is talking to him?

[xcept68]

Question 1: Would he kill his children if god asked him to?
Question 2: What is his criterion for establishing if god is talking to him?

Ha ha... good ones, but those aren't really biologist related questions, they are questions that any garden variety atheist would ask of any Christian.

They aren't hard questions, just that you wrote them a bit to general, you don't have any criteria attached to them.

Would the Christian kill his children if God asked him to: This question is directly related to question 2.

If God was speaking directly to the person, then the answer would be yes.

Now, if you had to clarify your questions a bit more, then we can get some better answers.

Firstly, God does not speak to us as a people directly. We are manifest with the Holy Spirit within us. Also Christ came and gave us the example, along with speaking about us not believing false prophets or false Gods. The Bible gives us the truth about when God spoke to people directly, and when God stopped speaking to people as well as stopped communicating through prophets. After Christ came and died for us, then we are manifest with the Holy Spirit. The fact is that Christ works in our lives through this Holy Spirit, which is co-equal and co-eternal to God the father and God the son. So if you just asked me, what would I do if I was Abraham, then I would say, hopefully I would have done exactly what Abraham did.

God is always working in our lives, even the non-believers, because He loves you even when you do not love him.

So I hope that clarifies your questions.

[deegs]

i wanna know what toy he gets with is happy meal.



well?


i asked my question first.


also, you're a semi-professional bullshitter, who's adept at lying, aversion, rhetoric, and dismissing facts. that's right, you're a christian.

[xcept68]

well?


i asked my question first.


also, you're a semi-professional bullshitter, who's adept at lying, aversion, rhetoric, and dismissing facts. that's right, you're a christian.

so... what you up to this weekend? Gonna watch the EXC fights? Yeah I love the fact that I'm Christian. Wish you were here!

[deegs]

don't spit on me from heaven

[lancaster]

Ha ha... good ones, but those aren't really biologist related questions, they are questions that any garden variety atheist would ask of any Christian.

The subtext of course being that I don't believe that your friend has anything of worth to say on biology.

Btw, you answered one of my questions clearly and unambiguously. I'm impressed.

[xcept68]

The subtext of course being that I don't believe that your friend has anything of worth to say on biology.

Btw, you answered one of my questions clearly and unambiguously. I'm impressed.

Alright. Fair enough. Well anytime he goes to speak in a debate in front of people that involves an atheist being there to debate him, the atheist is usually a no show. So he basically gets to just talk with the audience without any interruption from a confused counterpart.