JQ: ---100 years ago mutation and natural selection were very big words.
Now
we know that theres more to mutation and natural selection than they knew
about. For instance, DNA, RNA, mRNA and etc. A DNA molecule not only has
We know more of the details about inheritance, that's true and we know
more about mutation and natural selection, that's true as well.
JQ: to be mistakenly modified at hundreds of locations(subject of it's
own),
but the body(a host of other mechanisms) has to selectively unfold the DNA
to expose this new DNA for it's conversion into RNA. That's great but
there has to be specific DNA mutations that form a mechanism or need for
this newly mutated DNA to be dealt with in this mannor. In addition, the
I am not sure what you are trying to say here ? That a single mutation
cannot have a benificial effect or that there has a need for the mutation ?
JQ: cell has to be able to do something with this new information. Let's
say
Again a confusing use of semantics. The cell has to be able to do
something with this new information ?
JQ: it's a code for a new type of protein for the cell wall. Okay then,
the
cell has to not only open up the dna make rna and produce this protein but
also transport this protein to a specific location to be used. How does it
You are assuming that the cell knows what to do with it but that is not
the case.
JQ: know what to do with the protein? This type of Knowing is also
genetic in
It doesn't and this is not required either.
JQ: nature. So there are also other mechanisms that have to evolve through
'mutations' for the simplest of structures to made. In addition , the
Are there ?
JQ: What am I saying? Just giving the answer "mutation followed by
"natural
selection" isn't scientific anymore. I think it's well known that
You asked about the mechanisms behind evolution. These are still the
mechanisms which are thought to be behind evolution. So what made it
suddenly not scientific anymore ?
JQ: mutations are very hard to come by and have never been known to produce
anything remotely usefull. Mutations translate to cancer. Skin cancer is
Wrong and wrong. Mutations are hardly that hard to come by and indeed
there are known mutations which do useful things.
JQ: a result of DNA modification. A host of other diseases are results of
mutations. The formation of cancers is a far cry from the formation of new
organs and organ systems.
But noone has claimed that mutation itself is evolution. Mutations which
result in cancer will unlikely be of evolutionary value.
JQ: Most people still think that natural selection explains how a giraffes
neck got longer. Like there is some kind of pressure that causes us to
No, natural selection explains how animals with longer necks could have
had a higher chance of survival as they were able to reach food other
animals could not reach. How the neck got longer is not explained by
natural selection.
JQ: evolve. I do know what you are saying when refering to natural
selection.
It requires that there be these mutations that are in my opinion are not
founded.
Are you suggesting that there are no mutations ?
>On the contrary Jesus has to be accepted as the son of god without any
>physical evidence. Darwin however is a mere interpretator of observations
>and even if Darwin's ideas are found to be erroneous, the fact of
>evolution remains.
>But contrary to religious beliefs, Darwin's ideas can be tested,
>falsified, repeated and observed.
JQ: ---It seems like this comment is similar to a subject we discussed
before.
Somehow evolution is a FACT. "Okay now that that is established lets talk
about our theories".
Indeed, evolution is both a fact and a theory. Like gravity being a fact
and a theory.
JQ: This bothers me. I refuse to call something that I have never seen,
read
about in a history book or read about a fact. Evolution(cell, tissue,
That's your problem yet evolution is for all to observe.
JQ: organ formation and etc) is not something that we experience or anyone
has
ever experienced. Why call it a fact? It is not a fact.
Why are you suggesting that organ formation is the only evidence of
evolution ?
JQ: I want to look at the heart of evolution. What would of had to happen
if
it did happen. This requires detail. My readings into molecular biology
and chemistry show fundamental problems with evolution.
Ah, you require details. Well that's where science comes into play. But
perhaps could you share what you consider 'fundamental problems with
evolution (theory)' ?