Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Page 6 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Ben Reilly on Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:52 am

First topic message reminder :

Just thinking about the comments you sometimes see -- "Scientists once thought the Sun revolves around the Earth." "Scientists once thought we think with our hearts." "Scientists once though leeches could cure you of illnesses."

No, no and no. None of the people who thought those things were scientists in the modern sense of the word; none of them used the scientific method to reach their conclusions.

In fact, most "science" before the mid-1800s was quite haphazard and prone to guessing and overall shoddy work. Leonardo DaVinci was the rare exception before the advent of modern science who put it quite poetically:

"Many think that they can with reason blame me, alleging that my proofs are contrary to the authority of certain men held in great reverence by their inexperienced judgments, not considering that my works are the issue of simple and plain experience which is the true mistress.

These rules enable you to know the true from the false – and this induces men to look only for things that are possible and with due moderation – and they forbid you to use a cloak of ignorance, which will bring about that you attain to no result and despair abandon yourself to melancholy."

I think it would be fair to say that comparing the "scientists" who came before the widespread use of the scientific method to today's scientists would be like comparing witch doctors to modern physicians.

... um, discuss.

_________________
"Some would call it happiness, but I like to think that what I found is me. That sounds simple enough, but the truth is, it took quite a while to do it."

- Willie Nelson
Ben Reilly
Ben Reilly
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. God of Thunder.

Posts : 27690
Join date : 2013-01-19
Age : 44
Location : Tesco's

http://www.newsfixboard.com

Back to top Go down


Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by veya_victaous on Tue Feb 25, 2014 3:57 am

heavenly father wrote:they are still rabbits a million years later..lol what has evolved..

still would like to know the mutations that cause species to change to another, or a different sex even.

Can you not get your head around the concept they are different Rabbits and an evolved Species only occurs if there is a change in environment or niche, otherwise you see long progression of slight evolution along the lines of greater fertility, immune system or Intelligence and social systems.

WE have explained this to you already, it is explained countless times in the information people have posted. You are either a Troll (because you purposely keep saying things that multiple people have corrected you on with evidence, multiple times) or you have a learning capacity issue.
Your points Against Evolutions are so uneducated it is ridiculous they are science questions for a 12 year old or younger. I suggest you go to high school and get a basic education. (I’m not being rude this is very serious, the sort of statements you make are just ridiculous, I would expect Children to call you stupid)
Faith does not Change Facts. No matter how much you want it too. To suggest it does just makes you uneducated and ignorant. No Different than a Christian from the Dark Ages.

I can Tell you about the First ‘adam’ I.e the first male creature.. but I doubt you would understand as you have to go back over 500 million years to when all life lived in the oceans.
But basically there was a singled celled organism, that reproduced asexually (I.e made a clone of itself) this is very slow form of evolution as the genetic material is a 1 for 1 trade from one generation to the next so mutations are very rare. One of them did mutate though. You see the cell centre of the original creature had 4 legs (X chromosome) the mutated version only had 3 (Y chromosome) the mutated version was unable to reproduce itself but worked out that it could force part of its genetic material onto an emerging cell of the original asexual creature. When it did this the new creature Now possessed 2 Chromosomes and ’Gender’ was Evolved. IF the creature only has X chromosomes than it is female, if it has a mix of X and Y it is Male. You may have notice that besides some simple sea life ALL sentient creature evolved from these Ancient bacteria like organisms so that we all at our core still have these X and Y chromosomes.



_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
veya_victaous
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 19095
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 36
Location : Australia

Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Ben Reilly on Tue Feb 25, 2014 4:53 am

veya_victaous wrote:
heavenly father wrote:they are still rabbits a million years later..lol what has evolved..

still would like to know the mutations that cause species to change to another, or a different sex even.

Can you not get your head around the concept they are different Rabbits and an evolved Species only occurs if there is a change in environment or niche, otherwise you see long progression of slight evolution along the lines of greater fertility, immune system or Intelligence and social systems.

WE have explained this to you already, it is explained countless times in the information people have posted. You are either a Troll (because you purposely keep saying things that multiple people have corrected you on with evidence, multiple times) or you have a learning capacity issue.
Your points Against Evolutions are so uneducated it is ridiculous they are science questions for a 12 year old or younger. I suggest you go to high school and get a basic education. (I’m not being rude this is very serious, the sort of statements you make are just ridiculous, I would expect Children to call you stupid)
Faith does not Change Facts. No matter how much you want it too. To suggest it does just makes you uneducated and ignorant. No Different than a Christian from the Dark Ages.

I can Tell you about the First ‘adam’ I.e the first male creature.. but I doubt you would understand as you have to go back over 500 million years to when all life lived in the oceans.
But basically there was a singled celled organism, that reproduced asexually (I.e made a clone of itself) this is very slow form of evolution as the genetic material is a 1 for 1 trade from one generation to the next so mutations are very rare.  One of them did mutate though. You see the cell centre of the original creature had 4 legs (X chromosome)  the mutated version only had 3 (Y chromosome) the mutated version was unable to reproduce itself but worked out that it could force part of its genetic material onto an emerging cell of the original asexual creature. When it did this the new creature Now possessed 2 Chromosomes and ’Gender’ was Evolved. IF the creature only has X chromosomes than it is female, if it has a mix of X and Y it is Male. You may have notice that besides some simple sea life ALL sentient creature evolved from these Ancient bacteria like organisms so that we all at our core still have these X and Y chromosomes.



 cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers 
 cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers 
 cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers 
 cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers 
 cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers 
 cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers 
 cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers 
 cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers 

_________________
"Some would call it happiness, but I like to think that what I found is me. That sounds simple enough, but the truth is, it took quite a while to do it."

- Willie Nelson
Ben Reilly
Ben Reilly
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. God of Thunder.

Posts : 27690
Join date : 2013-01-19
Age : 44
Location : Tesco's

http://www.newsfixboard.com

Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by veya_victaous on Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:24 am

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Hope you guys at least have the ability to read:


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-neuroscience-of-heart/

That's for all you arrogant idiots who think they know it all.

Cheers Ben - I've now figured out how intelligent you're not.

the article is very interesting but I think this argument is about a point of specifics.  :::grouch:: 

The article talks about how Heart Rate variability (HRV) affects emotion.
But that does not mean the Heart Controls emotions... HRV is still controlled by the brain
the Autonomic nervous system (ANS) to be precise. This is not to say the Heart doesn't also have a nerve plexus... but it is part of the Sympathetic nervous system (SNS)

http://www.biocomtech.com/hrv-science/heart-rate-variability-basics

The origin of heartbeat is located in a sino-atrial (SA) node of the heart, where a group of specialized cells continuously generates an electrical impulse spreading all over the heart muscle through specialized pathways and creating process of heart muscle contraction well synchronized between both atriums and ventricles. The SA node generates such impulses about 100-120 times per minute at rest. However in healthy individual resting heart rate (HR) would never be that high. This is due to continuous control of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) over the output of SA node activity, which net regulatory effect gives real HR. In healthy subject at rest it is ranging between 50 and 70 beats per minute.

Autonomic nervous system. The autonomic nervous system is a part of the nervous system that non-voluntarily controls all organs and systems of the body. As the other part of nervous system ANS has its central (nuclei located in brain stem) and peripheral components (afferent and efferent fibers and peripheral ganglia) accessing all internal organs. There are two branches of the autonomic nervous system - sympathetic and parasympathetic (vagal) nervous systems that always work as antagonists in their effect on target organs.

Sympathetic nervous system. For most organs including heart the sympathetic nervous system stimulates organ's functioning. An increase in sympathetic stimulation causes increase in HR, stroke volume, systemic vasoconstriction, etc. The heart response time to sympathetic stimulation is relatively slow. It takes about 5 seconds to increase HR after actual onset of sympathetic stimulation and almost 30 seconds to reach its peak steady level.

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
veya_victaous
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 19095
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 36
Location : Australia

Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by veya_victaous on Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:02 am

no HRV stands for "Heart Rate Variation" i.e changes in heart rate which is controlled by the ANS which is attached at the base of the brain.

You're article never says the Heart (the Organ or it's attached nerve plexus) control emotions, it says HRV controls emotions and HRV is controlled by the brain.

The heart is a pump if the ANS (part of the brain) tells it to pump faster or slower it effects a persons emotions.

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
veya_victaous
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 19095
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 36
Location : Australia

Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by stardesk on Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:20 am

Fuzzy, quoting you: 'You arrogant lot are clutching at straws now. How enjoyable. I wonder what your next excuse will be.'

As I said to HF, it's no good you religious people keep saying God did this and that, when there is no basis of truth, logic, or reason in the claims. It is a feeble excuse because evolution is now a proven fact, based on many years of research by many scientists from many different countries, not one old man in his laboratory with way-out ideas. Religion has had its day and it is slowly fizzling out. Mankind will eventually move on and, hopefully, leave religion where it belongs, in the annuls of mythology for later generations to puzzle over why mankind went down that road.

Several of us in these discussions have provided ample evidence and proof of evolution and, with respect, I would suggest you try reading some of the many books and magazines that cover evolution. Expand your knowledge and become a more fulfilled person, in control of your own life.
stardesk
stardesk

Posts : 948
Join date : 2013-12-13

Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by veya_victaous on Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:41 am

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:no HRV stands for "Heart Rate Variation" i.e changes in heart rate which is controlled by the ANS which is attached at the base of the brain.

You're article never says the Heart (the Organ or it's attached nerve plexus) control emotions, it says HRV controls emotions and HRV is controlled by the brain.

The heart is a pump if the ANS (part of the brain) tells it to pump faster or slower it effects a persons emotions.

Are you telling me the nerve plexus is not involved in controlling the heart beat?

No, I didn't think so.

Keep clutching at straws though. This is most enjoyable. I love exposing bro-scientists.  

No I never said that I clearly said it does but it is part of the SNS  Rolling Eyes . The nerve plexus in the heart keeps it at relatively constant rate, It does change but only slowly in response to base stimuli like temperature or digestive needs, that is the function of the SRS. the kind of fluctuations that are classified as HRV are controlled by the ANS in the Brain. The experiment in You're article talked about giving the subject stimuli either Positive or Negative (not Base Stimuli) to affect emotions which they showed affected HRV.
No where does it suggest it is not the Brain Or that it is being controlled by the Heart (apart form the sensationist bit in the first paragraph that goes on to be qualified with actual information)

Since 1995, a broad spectrum of research emerged in support of Polyvagal theory and has demonstrated the importance of the heart in social functioning. In 2001, Porges and his colleagues monitored infants when they engaged in a social interaction with the experimenter (cooing, talking, and smiling at them) and when they encountered the experimenter simply making a still face—a frozen expression—toward them. Infants’ HRV not only increased during the social interaction, but also increases in HRV predicted positive engagement (greater attention and active participation by the infants) during this interaction. In adults as well, HRV appears to be associated with success in regulating one’s emotions during social interaction, extraversion, and general positive mood.

You sort of Proved Ben's Experiment in the other thread, a Hypothesis could be that the Heart controls emotion, But the nerves that carry the electric impulses that cause HRV are connect to the ANS not the SNS. So The Peer Review process would knock that conclusion down straight away as we have already proved (for other medical purposes) that those physical nerves that are carrying the signal that creates the condition that affects emotion are connect to the Brain.

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
veya_victaous
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 19095
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 36
Location : Australia

Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by stardesk on Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:13 am

Fuzzy, quoting you again: 'Now you're just being hysterical. Where have I mentioned or referenced religious scripture. And nobody has even mentioned evolution.'

I would suggest you read back some of the previous pages in this particular discussion.

_________________
Theodosius Dobzhansky: 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.'
stardesk
stardesk

Posts : 948
Join date : 2013-12-13

Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by stardesk on Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:36 am

lol!  Honestlly Fuzzy, and unusual for me to cast aspertions in these discussions, you really do talk a load of crap. If anyone is being hysterical it is yourself, because you have no logical answer to evolution. All you do, like HF, is cling to your closed minded religious nonsense. Evolutionary knowledge has been proved, whereas a lot of the early accounts in the Koran and Bible, especially in Genesis, have been proved to be sheer nonsense and fabrication by people who were ignorant of the realities of the world they lived in.
stardesk
stardesk

Posts : 948
Join date : 2013-12-13

Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Guest on Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:40 am

stardesk wrote:lol!  Honestlly Fuzzy, and unusual for me to cast aspertions in these discussions, you really do talk a load of crap. If anyone is being hysterical it is yourself, because you have no logical answer to evolution. All you do, like HF, is cling to your closed minded religious nonsense. Evolutionary knowledge has been proved, whereas a lot of the early accounts in the Koran and Bible, especially in Genesis, have been proved to be sheer nonsense and fabrication by people who were ignorant of the realities of the world they lived in.

lol evolution has not been proven, still waiting for any mutations that wold act as a mechanism for evolution... Smile 

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Guest on Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:07 pm

evolution deals with humanity and not even with how life began...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by veya_victaous on Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:25 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
stardesk wrote:Fuzzy, quoting you again: 'Now you're just being hysterical. Where have I mentioned or referenced religious scripture. And nobody has even mentioned evolution.'

I would suggest you read back some of the previous pages in this particular discussion.

I started on page 5. Show me where I've linked the Quran or gone into evolution?

On the other hand, I have given you links to scientific articles.

Like I said, you're delusional and hysterical because your closed minded world view is under threat. You thought you knew it all but clearly true scientists are much smarter than that.

I read your article and quoted you sections of it, sepecifically the ACTUAL experiment which was not testing the Heart but HRV which is controlled by the brain.
I don t disagree with the article, I would suggest the Actual Hypothesis that the scienctist were testing (As opposed to the summary by the journalist at the begining) is logical and I would hypothesis the same. That the control or 'practice' or HRV creates a person that is more balanced emotionally. this makes sense because the more often we send a signal down a nervous pathway the stronger/clearer that signal becomes, this is why Practice works. and HRV is in response to emotional stimuli, therfore it is logical that an individual more capable of intialising and controling this response through more developed neural pathways is goign to be able to balance their emotions quicker and/or more consistantly.

Good on you for reading but you need to read the whole thing and to understand and article sometimes you will need to reference other things. like in this case you have obviously confused HRV, a function controled by the ANS, with the physical organ the Heart. Also you seem to be simplifying the nerous systems, there are 2 the ANS which is controlled by the brain. and SNS which is spread through the body mainly concentrated in nexuses in or around 'vital' organs. the SNS doesn't think it just runs automated processes and can slowly adjust to stimuli, this is why, although impacted, quadraplegic people can still breath and digest food. the ANS is our brain and the 'active' command system for our bodies, that responds rapidly to Stimuli. An example of HRV is getting a shocked or surprised, you see the instantanous change in heart rate because our brain has rapidly processed something shocking or surprising so intialises the bodies response, which is to increase blood flow to the muscles so we can take action (run away etc). the Brain intialises HRV via the ANS.

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
veya_victaous
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 19095
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 36
Location : Australia

Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by stardesk on Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:37 pm

Fuzzy my friend, I've had a copy of the Koran for many years, how else would I know that it is a virtual copy of the Old Testament. I've read it many times and compared it to the Bible and can only conclude that Christianity was well known across the known world, and Mohammed would have been very familiar with its stories. Have you read the Old Testament? There are many of the same accounts in both books, but as the Koran was much later than the Bible it is a virtual copy. As it says in a tv advert: 'Go compare.'

I would suggest you read in the Koran the first paragraph of 'The House of Imran.'
stardesk
stardesk

Posts : 948
Join date : 2013-12-13

Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by veya_victaous on Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:26 pm

heavenly father wrote:evolution deals with humanity and not even with how life began...

no evolution has very little to do with humanity, it has to do with how life adapts and how such variations as we see on the this planet came to come about.


Evolution does not address the initial 'Animus' the specifics are unknown, and quite possibly did not occur on this planet. Life here could have arrived, but there is also suggestions that it could have came about via a specific combination of chemicals and a massive influx of energy. you have to keep in mind that the atmosphere was significantly different a billion years ago when this occurred. the atmosphere had much lower oxygen content and could generate higher voltage electrical storms.

the earliest known life forms are 2 proto-algae known as 'greens' and 'purples'. Purples were stronger and floated across the surface of the primordial oceans, the greens eked out an existence in the waters below them. Both absorb light wave lengths and use that energy to replicate. Because of the reduced exposure to normal light wave lengths the greens evolved a new trait to process not only normal light but also UV light that passed through the Purples. the Greens basically become Chlorophyll and are the basis of all plants. sentinel creatures came about later, those original creatures had evolved in to multicellular creatures (Plankton) some of them evolved into Zooplankton that could not absorb enough energy from light to replicate itself so 'consumes' plankton in order to replicate, Zooplankton could be consider the smallest/oldest sentient creature.

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
veya_victaous
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 19095
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 36
Location : Australia

Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Guest on Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:56 pm

Beekeeper wrote:Cool 

AND, OF COURSE....  

BACK at the Ranch, Herr Scheisemaster Fuzzy Zaks (all 160 cm and 45.4 kg. of him !) was still searching for that elusive evidence of some imagined long ago incident where he thinks that he "remembers" that he had somehow "wiped the floor with me" !?!

EVIDENCE that he can never find ~ as no such time has occurred in the real world, but only in FZ's wildest dreams !    cyclops


Beekeeper, please stop posting this kind of post.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by nicko on Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:08 pm

any thing you say against cack,, sorry zack will get a thumbs up from me!!
nicko
nicko

Posts : 12552
Join date : 2013-12-07
Age : 78
Location : rainbow bridge

Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by stardesk on Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:32 pm

HF keeps asking me about mutations so here, in brief, is an answer: As you will see, there are positive, neutral, and negative mutations.

Postive mutations occur when a change in the sequence of DNA of a gene produces a protein that is more functional then than the wildtype or un-mutated gene. Positive mutations can also turn on genes beneficial to the organism or turn off genes that are harmful to the organism. Positive mutations lead to the formation of new alleles. You can mutate a piece of bacterial DNA that was "turned off" to turn it on- this can make it less suceptible or more susceptible to anti biotics. It would be beneficial to the bacteria, but detrimental to us if we are trying to get rid of it.

Neutral mutations are mutations in DNA that ultimately don't significanlty hurt or benifit the final protein that is made. Maybe a single amino acid was changed- this might not alter the protein function too much.

Negative affects of mutations can be deletions of DNA, insertions, or mismatched base pairs. These are mutations that significantly harm the organism. Sometimes these cause a vital gene to be turned off, deleted, or altered so that the protein is no longer functional. This is harmful if it's a protein that's necessary for the function of the organism. A lot of pesticides and herbicides target the species by blocking a protein from being made by altering (mutating) the DNA. Some antibiotics work by blocking DNA synthesis or Protein synthesis in the bacteria, causing it to die. If the bacteria mutates to no longer need the specific protein, then the antibiotic becomes useless
stardesk
stardesk

Posts : 948
Join date : 2013-12-13

Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Guest on Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:41 pm

stardesk wrote:HF keeps asking me about mutations so here, in brief, is an answer: As you will see, there are positive, neutral, and negative mutations.

Postive mutations occur when a change in the sequence of DNA of a gene produces a protein that is more functional then than the wildtype or un-mutated gene. Positive mutations can also turn on genes beneficial to the organism or turn off genes that are harmful to the organism. Positive mutations lead to the formation of new alleles. You can mutate a piece of bacterial DNA that was "turned off" to turn it on- this can make it less suceptible or more susceptible to anti biotics. It would be beneficial to the bacteria, but detrimental to us if we are trying to get rid of it.

Neutral mutations are mutations in DNA that ultimately don't significanlty hurt or benifit the final protein that is made. Maybe a single amino acid was changed- this might not alter the protein function too much.

Negative affects of mutations can be deletions of DNA, insertions, or mismatched base pairs. These are mutations that significantly harm the organism. Sometimes these cause a vital gene to be turned off, deleted, or altered so that the protein is no longer functional. This is harmful if it's a protein that's necessary for the function of the organism. A lot of pesticides and herbicides target the species by blocking a protein from being made by altering (mutating) the DNA. Some antibiotics work by blocking DNA synthesis or Protein synthesis in the bacteria, causing it to die. If the bacteria mutates to no longer need the specific protein, then the antibiotic becomes useless

Hi Stardesk, yep, like the deletion I have on my 13q B cells!

How you doing?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by stardesk on Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:47 pm

Hi Sassy, nice to hear from you after a long time. I'm ok thanks. I hope you are too.

You've stumped me Sassy, what is/are 13q B cells?

_________________
Theodosius Dobzhansky: 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.'
stardesk
stardesk

Posts : 948
Join date : 2013-12-13

Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Guest on Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:55 pm

stardesk wrote:Hi Sassy, nice to hear from you after a long time. I'm ok thanks. I hope you are too.

You've stumped me Sassy, what is/are 13q B cells?

Blood cells, thats the chronic leukaemia deletion I have.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Guest on Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:24 am

veya_victaous wrote:
heavenly father wrote:they are still rabbits a million years later..lol what has evolved..

still would like to know the mutations that cause species to change to another, or a different sex even.

Can you not get your head around the concept they are different Rabbits and an evolved Species only occurs if there is a change in environment or niche, otherwise you see long progression of slight evolution along the lines of greater fertility, immune system or Intelligence and social systems.

WE have explained this to you already, it is explained countless times in the information people have posted. You are either a Troll (because you purposely keep saying things that multiple people have corrected you on with evidence, multiple times) or you have a learning capacity issue.
Your points Against Evolutions are so uneducated it is ridiculous they are science questions for a 12 year old or younger. I suggest you go to high school and get a basic education. (I’m not being rude this is very serious, the sort of statements you make are just ridiculous, I would expect Children to call you stupid)
Faith does not Change Facts. No matter how much you want it too. To suggest it does just makes you uneducated and ignorant. No Different than a Christian from the Dark Ages.

I can Tell you about the First ‘adam’ I.e the first male creature.. but I doubt you would understand as you have to go back over 500 million years to when all life lived in the oceans.
But basically there was a singled celled organism, that reproduced asexually (I.e made a clone of itself) this is very slow form of evolution as the genetic material is a 1 for 1 trade from one generation to the next so mutations are very rare.  One of them did mutate though. You see the cell centre of the original creature had 4 legs (X chromosome)  the mutated version only had 3 (Y chromosome) the mutated version was unable to reproduce itself but worked out that it could force part of its genetic material onto an emerging cell of the original asexual creature. When it did this the new creature Now possessed 2 Chromosomes and ’Gender’ was Evolved. IF the creature only has X chromosomes than it is female, if it has a mix of X and Y it is Male. You may have notice that besides some simple sea life ALL sentient creature evolved from these Ancient bacteria like organisms so that we all at our core still have these X and Y chromosomes.



are they still rabbits, have they changed species??


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by stardesk on Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:41 pm

Fuzzy, you said earlier up the page: 'But again, I will repeat: none of you have answered my 'scientific' evidence, by actual scientists, so all you can do is throw the accusation that I'm some sort of nutcase. How incredible pathetic. You are demeaning actual science.'

Several of us have presented you, and HF, with ample evidence which you continually deny and refute, and yet you yourself cannot give a logical and informative answer. I, and no doubt others in here, could present you with tons of evidence but the forum wouldn't apreciate our taking up several pages of a discussion with pages and pages of evidence for evolution.

Once more I ask, have you read the Bible and more specifically Genesis? And compared it to the stories in the Koran? Have you read the first paragraph of 'The House of Imran' in the Koran. Should you not have read it I'll briefly explain. It is an acceptance of all that came before, ie. Bible accounts and more specifically the stories in the Old Testament.

If there's one thing I've learned about debating, it is get your facts right before saying anything.
stardesk
stardesk

Posts : 948
Join date : 2013-12-13

Back to top Go down

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Guest on Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:44 pm

stardesk wrote:Fuzzy, you said earlier up the page: 'But again, I will repeat: none of you have answered my 'scientific' evidence, by actual scientists, so all you can do is throw the accusation that I'm some sort of nutcase. How incredible pathetic. You are demeaning actual science.'

Several of us have presented you, and HF, with ample evidence which you continually deny and refute, and yet you yourself cannot give a logical and informative answer. I, and no doubt others in here, could present you with tons of evidence but the forum wouldn't apreciate our taking up several pages of a discussion with pages and pages of evidence for evolution.

Once more I ask, have you read the Bible and more specifically Genesis? And compared it to the stories in the Koran? Have you read the first paragraph of 'The House of Imran' in the Koran. Should you not have read it I'll briefly explain. It is an acceptance of all that came before, ie. Bible accounts and more specifically the stories in the Old Testament.

If there's one thing I've learned about debating, it is get your facts right before saying anything.

what evidence have you ever presented to me??? Smile 

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Guest on Thu Feb 27, 2014 3:30 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
stardesk wrote:Fuzzy, you said earlier up the page: 'But again, I will repeat: none of you have answered my 'scientific' evidence, by actual scientists, so all you can do is throw the accusation that I'm some sort of nutcase. How incredible pathetic. You are demeaning actual science.'

Several of us have presented you, and HF, with ample evidence which you continually deny and refute, and yet you yourself cannot give a logical and informative answer. I, and no doubt others in here, could present you with tons of evidence but the forum wouldn't apreciate our taking up several pages of a discussion with pages and pages of evidence for evolution.

Once more I ask, have you read the Bible and more specifically Genesis? And compared it to the stories in the Koran? Have you read the first paragraph of 'The House of Imran' in the Koran. Should you not have read it I'll briefly explain. It is an acceptance of all that came before, ie. Bible accounts and more specifically the stories in the Old Testament.

If there's one thing I've learned about debating, it is get your facts right before saying anything.

Show me the story of Mary in the Quran - and show me similar in the. Bible.


Does the Quran say the world was created in 6 days like the Bible?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Guest on Thu Feb 27, 2014 3:37 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:


Does the Quran say the world was created in 6 days like the Bible?

No.

Simple enough for you. Or would you like to expose your stupidity further. Hope it's the latter. Hee hee !

Back to more poor insults and proving now you are a liar ha ha


1- Chapter: 7 , Verse: 54

your guardian-lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne.

2- Chapter: 25 , Verse: 59

he who created the heavens and the earth and all that is between, in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority): Allah most gracious: ask thou, then, about him of any acquainted (with such things).

3- Chapter: 57 , Verse: 4

He it is who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is moreover firmly established on the throne (of authority). he knows what enters within the earth and what comes forth out of it, what comes down from heaven and what mounts up to it. and he is with you where so ever ye may be. and Allah sees well all that ye do.

4- Chapter: 11 , Verse: 7

he it is who created the heavens and the earth in six days - and his throne was over the waters - that he might try you, which of you is best in conduct. but if thou wert to say to them, "ye shall indeed be raised up after death", the unbelievers would be sure to say, "this is nothing but obvious sorcery!"

5- Chapter: 32 , Verse: 4

It is Allah who has created the heavens and the earth, and all between them, in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority): ye have none, besides him, to protect or intercede (for you): will ye not then receive admonition?

6- Chapter: 10 , Verse: 3

verily your lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority), regulating and governing all things. no intercessor (can plead with him) except after his leave (hath been obtained). this is Allah your lord; him therefore serve ye: will ye not receive admonition?

7- Chapter: 50 , Verse: 38

we created the heavens and the earth and all between them in six days, nor did any sense of weariness touch us.



The bible says the same

Zack exposed again

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Guest on Thu Feb 27, 2014 3:43 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Back to more poor insults and proving now you are a liar ha ha


1- Chapter: 7 , Verse: 54

your guardian-lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne.

2- Chapter: 25 , Verse: 59

he who created the heavens and the earth and all that is between, in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority): Allah most gracious: ask thou, then, about him of any acquainted (with such things).

3- Chapter: 57 , Verse: 4

He it is who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is moreover firmly established on the throne (of authority). he knows what enters within the earth and what comes forth out of it, what comes down from heaven and what mounts up to it. and he is with you where so ever ye may be. and Allah sees well all that ye do.

4- Chapter: 11 , Verse: 7

he it is who created the heavens and the earth in six days - and his throne was over the waters - that he might try you, which of you is best in conduct. but if thou wert to say to them, "ye shall indeed be raised up after death", the unbelievers would be sure to say, "this is nothing but obvious sorcery!"

5- Chapter: 32 , Verse: 4

It is Allah who has created the heavens and the earth, and all between them, in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority): ye have none, besides him, to protect or intercede (for you): will ye not then receive admonition?

6- Chapter: 10 , Verse: 3

verily your lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority), regulating and governing all things. no intercessor (can plead with him) except after his leave (hath been obtained). this is Allah your lord; him therefore serve ye: will ye not receive admonition?

7- Chapter: 50 , Verse: 38

we created the heavens and the earth and all between them in six days, nor did any sense of weariness touch us.



The bible says the same

Zack exposed again

Has a day always been 24 hours?


Oh for fuck sake, the bible and the Quran both give the same time for creation, whether you think a day is 24 hours or not, stop clutching at straws, they are both the same on the number of days.

DOH

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Guest on Thu Feb 27, 2014 3:51 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:


Oh for fuck sake, the bible and the Quran both give the same time for creation, whether you think a day is 24 hours or not, stop clutching at straws, they are both the same on the number of days.

DOH

Why are you getting angry at a simple question? Explains a lot.

Creation (the beginning of) happened over 6 'time periods' or stages. The universe is still creating. Does the bible say that?

The fact you are diverting the thread speaks volumes about you clutching at straws.

lol not angry, just cannot believe you come out with such an absurd view, the Quran states clearly 6 days, so you are saying no the Quran contradicts itself then?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Scientists didn't "get it wrong" - Page 6 Empty Re: Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

Post by Guest on Thu Feb 27, 2014 3:59 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

lol not angry, just cannot believe you come out with such an absurd view, the Quran states clearly 6 days, so you are saying no the Quran contradicts itself then?

What the Quran in glorious ENGLISH! HA HA!

Again I say: has a day always been 24 hours? Yes or No. No waffle. Like Smelly.


And?

It is a clear a set time period of 6 days, the same as the bible, just because the Quran claims the length of a time of a day is, does not mean it is different to the bible does it?
Seriously the number is the key, 6, both are the same in both books.

Are you now disputing that, odd that the number is chosen the same in both, you are debating the length of a day, not how many days

DOH

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Page 6 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum