swa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On May 18, 6:39 pm, Chris Bell wrote:
>
*snip*
>>>If the first option from whence would come the genetic information to
>>>bring
>>>about the changes that would be akin to monkeys becoming men
>>
>>The genetic information is already there. Most of the changes between
>>species are differences in where or when that information is used. The
>>main difference between monkeys and humans is that we have tended to
>>remain physiologically immature,
>
>
> I can't understand your statement that humans 'have tended to remain
> 'physiologically immature'
>
Sorry, I didn't express myself clearly. Young animals tend to have
somewhat different cxharacteristics from the mature of that species. In
apes and many other mammals, the young have less hair, larger heads
relative to body and longer limbs. These are the characteristics which
also appear in humans when compared to apes. They can evolve by allowing
***ual maturity to occur before physiological maturity would otherwise
happen.
>
>>while becoming ***ually mature. This is
>>one of the common routes in evolution and requires few changes in the
>>genes governing development. The actual process is thought to be via
>>gene duplication during mitosis,
>
>
> 'thought to be' - so IT is only a theory = hypothesis, not actually
> proven .
>
All science is theory, ie unproven.
>
>> then the extra gene moving in position
>>within the chromosome. All this is well understood to happen frequently,
>>but of course, only a very small percentage of such changes turn out to
>>be beneficial to the organism. What genetic sequencing is showing us is
>>that many of those changes are recorded in our genome, having been
>>removed from the active part and are now found in the junk areas (the
>>largest part),
>
>
> How do you know there are 'junk areas'?
> How do you know they did not perform some useful purpose in the past
> ie the appendix
>
Many did. But they also contain viruses which have somehow entered the
genome, but can now be identified as we decode more organisms. While
there is a way for new material to get into our genes, we know of no way
it can be safely removed. That is why our genome is so large containing
many more genes than we need or actually use. We carry an enormous
amount of junk around with us. I believe we even carry the gene for
producing vitamin C, but at some stage in our evolution it moved into
the junk area, so is no longer expressed. It is speculated that this
happened at a time when our ancestors ate lots of fruit, so had no need
for the gene, so mutants without it had no disadvantage, unlike now.
>
>>but they can be traced back to the active parts of those
>>of our ancestors, even very primitive ones. They can easily move back to
>>the active part if they are needed.
>>
>
> But wouldn't that mean they would perform the same purpose?
> ie not assist in becoming another species
>
Not necessarily, because it also depends on when and where the gene is
expressed, and that depends where in the genome it is.
>
>>>But also how did non-living become living in the first place?
>>
>>Until we know what living is, this question is unanswerable.
>>
>
> My Second Grade pupils knew what 'living' was, so why not our most
> learned scientists?
>
Because our most learned scientists know much more than those second
grade pupils. Complexity comes after simplicity in the normal learning
process.
>
>>>It is a fact that within recorded history humans have always been
>>>humans;
>>>but evolutionists would say that is not enough time for evolution -
>>>change from one species to another species to happen.
>>
>>Yes there is, but it takes many thousands of generations of separation.
>>Speciation has been demonstrated in yeasts and bacteria, but there
>>generation time is minutes, not years.
>
>
> And what do the yeasts and bacteria become?
> Just variations of yeasts and bacteria?
>
Yes, but new species of yeasts and bacteria.
> For humans, generation time is
>
>>around 20 years minimum so we are talking about separation times of
>>multiples of 20,000 years. Modern humans only left Africa about 40 to 60
>>thousand years ago (perhaps a little longer) so not nearly enough time.
>>Nevertheless, much change happened with the development of somewhat
>>different races in different areas, and quite different skin colours for
>>example.
>
>
> The different skin colours came from two created humans and developed
> through natural selection ie the descendents who did not inherit
> enough melanin died out through cancer.
Too simplistic. Skin colour comes from the need to balance vitamin D
production with the risk of skin cancer. Too little sun will kill you
just as surely (probably more so) than too much.
> If I had lived in the tropics or spent long hours sunbathing on
> Sydney' s beaches the chances would have been I would be dead now from
> melanomas.
>
I doubt it, unless you have a rather rare mutation which disables the
repair mechanisms which are also activated by sun****ne, or you are a
true albino unable to produce melanin. There is now good evidence that
sun****ne protects against several forms of cancer in the body, not just
skin cancer.
>
>>Of course, when that happened there were other Homo species
>>around the world, and the big question is why did they disappear? We
>>were so close to some that it is not really understandable why we were
>>not able to interbreed.
>>
>
> Are you inferring the Neanderthal peoples in that statement?
>
That is one of the other species of Homo which probably still existed
when sapiens moved out of Africa.
>
>>>But basically it is not so much a matter of time, but a matter of
>>>genetic information which prevents one type of organism changing into
>>>another type of organism.
>>
>>That is not true. Genetic information is recycled very efficiently. Time
>>is one factor, but the other is separation, and is just as im****tant.
>>New species no not arise unless there are two separate populations to
>>evolve in different directions.
>>
>
> So how did the unicellular organism acquire enough genetic information
> to become multicellular in the past?
Read about slime moulds. They are both single-celled and multi-celled,
but at different stages of life.
> Why are there still unicellular organisms in the world?
>
Why not?
> For that matter how did the multicellular organism acquire its rather
> complex genetic information in the first instant?
>
From a single-celled organism that found a need to become multi-celled
to survive in some specific situation.
> Living comes from living, doesn't it?
>
> Wiil a molecule become a monkey?
A monkey consists of molecules, so it already has.
> Will a monkey become a man?
It already did.
> Evolutionists believe it happened in the past quite naturally without
> any human intervention in a laboratory.
> I have not heard of it happening today?
>
Yet it is happening all around you. You need to open your eyes.
> Is it that the evolutonary biologists/biochemists are wasting millions
> of dollars when that money could be used to help the needy in the
> world today?
>
And what are we wasting on pointless wars, trashy television, appalling
advertisements and unhealthy junk foods? The answer is many billions of
dollars, far exceeding all funds spent on scientific research.
> Gladys Swager
Chris
|
