Re: Evolution vs. Creationism Debate (Part 1/3)

[LordYon13]

@ProCreationist As I said earlier there doesn't need to be more beneficial than neutral/harmful mutations as not every individual will get the same detrimental mutation, but it only take 1 (or a few) in a large population to gain a beneficial mutation and this will spread throughout the population in subsequent generations. RE the bit about humans only giving birth to humans, it's like saying trees can't grow branches as they only make new twigs. Check this out tinyurl(dot)com/6387nbx

[LordYon13]

@ProCreationist You don't seem to understand neutral mutations. If I mutate DNA to "read" TTC instead of TTT- I "change" the amino acid in the protein from Phenylalanine to...Phenylalanine- the "mutated" protein is identical. These are very common forms of "mutation", a second "failsafe" is that many mutations lead to biochemically similar amino acids- GCT to GGT or GCC to GGC is a change from alanine to glycine, both of which behave very, very similarly and so won't impact the final protein.

[J242]

@LordYon13: "You don't seem to understand neutral mutations. If I mutate DNA to "read" TTC instead of TTT- I "change" the amino acid in the protein from Phenylalanine to...Phenylalanine-"

You are so far over his head he probably thinks you're skimming by in a magical fire breathing, metal bird and will drop to the ground to worship you shortly. Not at all unlike the cargo cults in Micronesia and every religion ever formed. "I don't understand, it must be GOD!!!!"...

[LordYon13]

@ProCreationist Secondly genetic variation between individuals means an entire species isn't likely to be wiped out. A good example is warfarin resistance in rats- a mutation led to some rats being resistant to warfarin and so weren't killed by the poison- this gene became predominant. Warfarin was no longer used the cost of making the resistance protein was too great so the rats with the gene were less successful- the other rats were favoured- however the entire population was not wiped out.

[LordYon13]

@ProCreationist Ok, I'm talking about genuine mutations at the molecular level, so a neutral mutation would be something like ttT (codes Phe) mutating to ttC (codes for Phe- capitals are for emphasis) this mutation leads to an identical protein being made and so doesn't affect the organism- as the genetic code is degenerate this accounts for a large number of mutations.

[LordYon13]

(cont) If you have a single beneficial mutation say that allows more efficient ATP production then an organism could perhaps double its number of offspring surviving to adulthood- within a few generations that mutated gene will be predominant in the population. Again detrimental mutations affect another 10% of the population or w/e and their genes are not passed on, but another single beneficial mutation gives an advantage to an individual- increases reproductive chances/survival.

[LordYon13]

@ProCreationist I don't believe the ratio of beneficial to detrimental mutations is quite like that- although maybe if you include detrimental and neutral mutations you might be closer. Anyway that's besides the point. Mutations work on the individual, not species level, so for example 50,000 detrimental mutations in a population of 200,000 is not going to wipe out the species.

[superman19837]

@ProCreationist this is the problem I have with creationist they find one subject that they have not fully read into and use this as their basis for argument, there are pros and cons to all sorts of natural processes but you have to understand exactly where the pros are pros and the cons are cons

[superman19837]

@ProCreationist some mutations are harmful like DNA genome re-sequencing that are fast and caused by viruses radiation transposons and mutagenic chemicals. But there is a line of good mutation ie..(base pair deletion) in the CCR5 and CCR5-Δ32 which confers HIV resistance in homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes. the good mutation is what is categorized as natural selection. This is where the mutation takes place and the organism adapts and benefits from it. do you understand now.

[superman19837]

@ProCreationist So as opposed to the theory of evolution you believe that man was made from dirt, a girl partner was molded from a rib, and talking snakes are all the norm? Well if this is your belief then there is nothing more I have to say to you, other than think of this one thing! If the bible is the inspired word of God and the entire universe is his creation, why leave so many apparent things out, I mean if this is a testimony of his work and word, why make it so ambiguous?

[LordYon13]

@ProCreationist I'm glad that you've taken the time to talk to other people about this, some people seem to refuse any kind of discussion! I'll admit that the vast majority of mutations have either no effect (e.g. "silent" mutations, or ones in "junk" DNA) or are detrimental to the organism. With the huge amounts of time for such mutations to occur, I believe that a mutation with at least some benefit is bound to occur, although others are free to disagree!

[superman19837]

@ProCreationist I am sorry but you believe in the bible and its creation story may I ask you a question do you believe all of the bible to be absolute ?

[LordYon13]

@ProCreationist

Evidence. The word you're looking for to describe what it takes to acknowledge evolution is evidence. That is why it is a scientific theory, rather than a belief system.

[superman19837]

so when we mutated from apes, is that part of the almost category, or is this something you disbelieve aswell, or the recently descovered half snake half lizard in Australia. or the different same species of birds with slight differences as to adapt to its surroundings, that as well is mutation. The list goes on and on my friend. Facts are things we can comprehend and observe, faith is a belief backed by false sense of personal understanding.

[superman19837]

@ProCreationist well could you provide a explanation of creationism that is not so far fetched, that maybe I could finish a video without feeling like it is wasting my time?...

[mistereveready]

You're a bit wrong on the cell. Even if there was no proper understanding of how a cell came into formation, ID would still be wrong. At least via the supernatural nonsense. Also, one thing that bothers me is the concept of supernatural. If something exists, no matter how strange or complex, it is part of reality/nature, IE not super(above/out) of nature.

[littlegreenjason]

@mistereveready I don't believe in the "supernatural" either. Just because we might not be able to understand something or even truly perceive it doesn't somehow make it beyond the natural realm.

[2eelShmeal]

Let us assume for sake of argument that creationism/intelligent design is true.

WHICH god is supposed to have been responsible? Most of the American ID proponents do not talk about the fact that they have already decided that it was the god of the bible. Why is it that their "intelligent designer" just always turns out to be the god in which they believe? They have a clear bias, an overt prejudice, and an obvious loyalty to their own person presuppositions.

[NilzyBoiii]

good work man. i am sick of these retards who cant get around their way of thinking

[winterstellar]

There is NO debate whatsoever in science, nor among regular people in more informed and modern and educated and much less superstitious/religious countries than the USA. Evolution is observable, testable, the observations are predictable, and evolution is already being used in various fields of science/technology..it has become what we call "applied science"...like so infinitely many other things in science...so trying to "fight evolution" is like trying to "fight the evil round earth-theory",ha

[Frater8]

im for rampage myself. i think he has the tools and the patience plus the strength to defeat evans all the way. but with mma anything can happen. do u happen to train?

[superman19837]

@Frater8 yep I train in charlottetown boxing mostly but some muay thai and kick boxing

[Frater8]

You should watch the whole debate. Otherwise you are showing that you are like one that reads only part of the bible and claims to know god. I have read the whole bible and came to the conclusion that it's all made up bullshit. The other thing is listen to what others have to say and give them the ideology you have with facts that cannot be refuted. By the way cool hat, who do you have evans or rampage?

[superman19837]

@Frater8 Rampage all the way... hahha.. And the reason I didn't watch the whole debate.. is because I can only listen to so much crap in one day... And I have read the bible twice front to back...One almost has to read it twice to fully understand exactly whats going on.

[PokerVertigo]

@superman19837 Wait.. you can only listen to "so much crap in one day" but you read the bible twice front to back?...

Maybe you should listen to the whole debate, since you obviously need to read something "twice to fully understand exactly whats going on." ... God created the heaven and the earth.. then created light... Maybe he should have created light first so he could see what he was doing...

[superman19837]

@PokerVertigo is this a rebuttal to the video. Because if so "God created the heaven and the then created light" is not a argument for the existence of god. I have a question for you ! Do you believe everything in the bible is true, and what evidence of god do you have to provide. Then after these questions are asked maybe we could have a intelligent discussion about your so called deity.

[PokerVertigo]

@superman19837 I was making fun of the bible... I don't really believe in creationism or that the universe was created in 6 days... I don't care for the bible, I wish I had written it... it has the highest number of sales of any book out there...

[superman19837]

@PokerVertigo Oh K.. well . I wish you hadn't written it either. Your first response after review of your second response now seems to be a bit ambiguous.