john w queen ii
>>
>At 05:19 PM 6/10/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>At 06:23 PM 6/9/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>JQ: What are the mechanisms behind the evolution of man from primates?
>>>
>>>Hmm, I wonder if this is a correct way of phrasing it. Unless our common
>>>ancestor was considered a primate. I do not believe that evolution
>>>requires different mechanism for the different species. So in short,
>>>mutation and natural selection.
>>
>>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)' ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>