[asking]

5. Number of names is impressive.
6. No religious differences among the names.

[WVHiflyer]

Box - I never implied sickle cell wasn't a terrible condition. But one copy of the mutated gene does confer immunity to malaria. It may not always prevent one from getting it ubt it will, at the very least, reduce the seriousness.

[Credendovidis]

box - I never implied sickle cell wasn't a terrible condition. But one copy of the mutated gene does confer immunity to malaria. It may not always prevent one from getting it but it will, at the very least, reduce the seriousness.

It simply was a case of what was the least bad for you in the tropics without medicines thousands of years ago : sickle cell sickness or the much higher human morbidity and mortality caused by malaria : evolution in all it's positive and negative effects !

:)

·

[inthebox]

From Science Daily

Survival Of The Fittest: Even Cancer Cells Follow The Laws Of Evolution


To arrive at these conclusions, researchers analyzed about 500,000 cancer mutation records from the Catalog of Somatic Mutations in Cancer database...

"Little could Darwin have known that his 'Origin of the Species' would one day explain the 'Origin of the Tumor,'"

So while millions of their fellow humans are suffering from cancer, looking to science for treatments and cures, there are a few researchers who call themselves fellows of the “institute of advanced studies” who have nothing better to do than tell jokes about On the Origin of Tumors by Natural Selection, and the Preservation of Favored Mistakes in the Struggle for Death.:( :mad:

[Credendovidis]

.... there are a few researchers who ... have nothing better to do than tell jokes ...

That says something of the researchers involved here. But is does not say anything about the topic , about why the ICR seem to think that lying and cheating is a good approach to "spread the word"...

:rolleyes:

·

[sassyT]

Hello everyone! :)
I have been gone for quite a while and not much has changed it seems.. the Darwinist are still struggling to scientifically prove their theory.
Darwinism relies on the uproven premise that random mutations create "new" information in species which lead to the creation of a new never seen before genus. However science has never observed this fantancy. I am yet to see a random mutation where by for instance a human baby is born with feathers or fish scales(new information).
With this said The theory of Macro evolution still remains a Myth, a farce and a hoax.

[asking]

Hello everyone!! :)
i have been gone for quite a while

Hi Sassy. Were you traveling? I hope you had fun!

[Credendovidis]

.... the Darwinist are still struggling to scientifically prove their theory.

I did not see that struggling at all. All I saw were several theists struggling in vain to explain that their religious myths have any basis in reality...

Darwinism relies on the uproven premise that random mutations ....

Darwinism does not rely on any unproven premise at all. It is an explanation of what can be seen by everyone with an open mind. And it is backed up by loads of actual findings across many different fields of support.

With this said The theory of Macro evolution still remains a Myth, a farce and a hoax.

Not really. But based on the drift of your statement one can conclude that it is more valid to state that any of the many religious claims still remain a Myth, a farce, and a hoax.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

·

[asking]

From Science DailySo while millions of their fellow humans are suffering from cancer, looking to science for treatments and cures, there are a few researchers who call themselves fellows of the “institute of advanced studies” who have nothing better to do than tell jokes about On the Origin of Tumors by Natural Selection, and the Preservation of Favored Mistakes in the Struggle for Death.:( :mad:

Inthebox, as your quote shows, they didn't say what you just said. They just said "origin of the tumor," not the rest, which I guess you invented yourself? The evolution of cancer is cells is not a joke. It's very important that cells evolve, both inside us and in tissue culture. It's also a problem in the culture of adult stem cells in the laboratory.

[sassyT]

Hi Sassy. Were you traveling? I hope you had fun!

Hello asking! Yes, I have been travelling.. because now I have to get back to school. Two more semesters and I will be done. Can't wait!

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

I did not see that struggling at all. All I saw were several theists struggling in vain to explain that their religious myths have any basis in reality...

Again these are your opinions and BELIEFS , which i must say, have proved to not be reflect reality in the past.

Darwinism does not rely on any unproven premise at all. It is an explanation of what can be seen by everyone with an open mind. And it is backed up by loads of actual findings across many different fields of support.

Rather than making hot air empty claims like these, kindly provide objective evidence of a random mutation that has added new information to a species. (For example a human baby born with feathers or a baby elephant born with fish scales)

Not really. But based on the drift of your statement one can conclude that it is more valid to state that any of the many religious claims still remain a Myth, a farce, and a hoax.

very original i must say...

[michealb]

I think the point that most evolutionist are making is that we don't have extraordinary claim and that all evidence point to evolution. If you have a different claim have it fit all of the evidence if you have a extraordinary supernatural claim point us to the evidence of something supernatural. Then we will listen to you too. Otherwise you are just fanatic. While this may be my opinion I think it fits with general reasoning which we should all use to govern our lives.

[michealb]

(For example a human baby born with feathers)

How about a baby human born with a tail?

[asking]

Hello asking! Yes, i have been travelling.. because now i have to get back to school. two more semesters and i will be done. Can't wait!

So what's your plan after you get your degree? Are you going to get a job in biology?

[asking]

How about a baby human born with a tail?

I'm guessing Sassy will argue that's a throwback--since it's technically old information that was already there that has been suppressed. So it's not "new." But of course in order to argue that, she has to concede the genes for the tail are old information that we carry within us. A lose-lose situation. :)

[michealb]

That's kind of why I used that argument. Of course I've already read what the creationist say about the human tail so I know what she is going to come back with. I think it still answers her challenge though.

[asking]

Thats kind of why I used that argument. Of course I've already read what the creationist say about the human tail so I know what she is going to come back with. I think it still answers her challenge though.

The tail was a good idea. What is the creationist argument?

I keep thinking about my favorite example of hard-to-argue with evidence for evolution. But it's not an answer to her specific challenge--new genetic information.

To me, all new mutations are new information, so I don't really know what would satisfy in that department. Gene replication followed by separate mutations is so obvious. But I guess Sassy wants a specific trait. The problem is that you can see genetic mutations all the time but you can't know which ones will turn out to have been useful until generations pass and you can see the results. So the question is, by definition, unanswerable. It's not about whether it's right or not. But it is the nature of evolution that you can only answer that particular question retrospectively.

Anyway, in an old embryology experiment, mouse ectoderm (what later turns into skin and nerve tissue) placed on the mouth tissues of a developing chick embryo stimulated the development of actual teeth. In other words, the bird, which has not had teeth for millions of years, still carries the genes for making teeth. Those genes are just turned off. The mouse ectoderm, which normally stimulates the development of teeth in mice (and other mammals), was able to send a signal to the chick tissue to turn on those genes and make teeth--demonstrating that birds are descended from animals that made teeth--e.g. dinosaurs. How cool is that?

[michealb]

I thought that the experiment that produced E coli that could process citrate was a pretty compelling for mutations being able to add useful code but I'm not a biology student what do I know. :)
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist

The creationist argument for the tails in humans is that it's not really a tail it just looks like a tail. It's just a clump of skin since most of the time the tail doesn't have any bones in it.

[asking]

Very nice! I love long-term experiments. So few scientists do them anymore.

(For anyone who doesn't want to read the article, it says that after 44,000 generations growing in the lab, one lineage of E. coli bacteria evolved the ability to break down citrate, even though the INability to break down citrate is considered one of the defining characteristics of these gut bacteria (E. coli). Not being able to metabolize citrate is a trait that separates E. coli from other species of bacteria, so by evolving that ability, they evolved a trait typical of another species.)

As for the human tail, this website says that about two- thirds of human tails are "true tails" with muscle, nerves, blood vessels, and normal skin. Rarely, they have vertebrae, too. Also, it mentions that the Barbary macaque (a monkey) has a vestigial tail with no vertebrae.

The following discussion is taken from

[michealb]

I don't know why we don't do this?