Thread: Election Day

Originally Posted by adjacent

Actually, I think I can put some light into how mutations occur. The enzymes that do the DNA copying and editing are nearly perfect but not exactly perfect. There is a certain degree of miscopying (I don't remember the exact number but it is close to 1/10000000 DNA base pairs copied. Now, if you think that there are billions of base pairs in the DNA of any living organism (of course, there will be a variation in the amount of DNA from organism to organism, but a prototypical one) then you have thousands of spontaneous mutation per generation. Besides that, you have to add the mutations that are produced by environmental impact (UV light from the sun, chemicals, radioactivity, virus), and the amount increases. That happens in the somatic (in the body cells) as well as in germ line cells (in our case, ovules and sperm). Now, many mutations don't do anything or do little, many are harmful (if they are harmful enough that kill the new formed embryo right away and nobody knows that they even happened), and a few give an advantage to the new formed individual.
That is my attempt to summarize evolution at the molecular level. I hope this is helpful, especially to diehard.

You obviously paid attention in biology class. Good post!

This is the most interesting thread I've seen here in a long time. How did I miss it? I guess I wasn't paying much attention to this site around the election.

I personally like how's it's evolved into science chat. (Okay, yes, bad pun intended.)

Originally Posted by ChiTownTwinsFan

I personally like how's it's evolved into science chat. (Okay, yes, bad pun intended.)

Me too! Good pun.

Originally Posted by glunn

Originally Posted by adjacent

Actually, I think I can put some light into how mutations occur. The enzymes that do the DNA copying and editing are nearly perfect but not exactly perfect. There is a certain degree of miscopying (I don't remember the exact number but it is close to 1/10000000 DNA base pairs copied. Now, if you think that there are billions of base pairs in the DNA of any living organism (of course, there will be a variation in the amount of DNA from organism to organism, but a prototypical one) then you have thousands of spontaneous mutation per generation. Besides that, you have to add the mutations that are produced by environmental impact (UV light from the sun, chemicals, radioactivity, virus), and the amount increases. That happens in the somatic (in the body cells) as well as in germ line cells (in our case, ovules and sperm). Now, many mutations don't do anything or do little, many are harmful (if they are harmful enough that kill the new formed embryo right away and nobody knows that they even happened), and a few give an advantage to the new formed individual.
That is my attempt to summarize evolution at the molecular level. I hope this is helpful, especially to diehard.

You obviously paid attention in biology class. Good post!

Thanks, I make a living out of it.

I have always wondered how creation and evolution cannot co-exist. I get blasted by hardliners from each side, but to take it to the very basic level, we can't take evolution all the way back to the formation of life, but we can absolutely see (and fairly strongly prove) evolution from that point. So how can it not be co-existent?

Originally Posted by biggentleben

I have always wondered how creation and evolution cannot co-exist. I get blasted by hardliners from each side, but to take it to the very basic level, we can't take evolution all the way back to the formation of life, but we can absolutely see (and fairly strongly prove) evolution from that point. So how can it not be co-existent?

No reason. I don't believe in creationism but there's no reason it can't exist alongside evolution because evolution doesn't even try to explain the formation of life, just what happens to it afterward.

Unless you're a crazy person and believe the earth to be 6,000 years old, like my brother does. He's an idiot. I can't believe we share genetic code.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Originally Posted by biggentleben

I have always wondered how creation and evolution cannot co-exist. I get blasted by hardliners from each side, but to take it to the very basic level, we can't take evolution all the way back to the formation of life, but we can absolutely see (and fairly strongly prove) evolution from that point. So how can it not be co-existent?

No reason. I don't believe in creationism but there's no reason it can't exist alongside evolution because evolution doesn't even try to explain the formation of life, just what happens to it afterward.

Unless you're a crazy person and believe the earth to be 6,000 years old, like my brother does. He's an idiot. I can't believe we share genetic code.

I agree with both of you that they can co-exist. But I would note that the main evidence for creationism is the Old Testament, and no one seems to know exactly who came up with the concept.

Originally Posted by glunn

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Originally Posted by biggentleben

I have always wondered how creation and evolution cannot co-exist. I get blasted by hardliners from each side, but to take it to the very basic level, we can't take evolution all the way back to the formation of life, but we can absolutely see (and fairly strongly prove) evolution from that point. So how can it not be co-existent?

No reason. I don't believe in creationism but there's no reason it can't exist alongside evolution because evolution doesn't even try to explain the formation of life, just what happens to it afterward.

Unless you're a crazy person and believe the earth to be 6,000 years old, like my brother does. He's an idiot. I can't believe we share genetic code.

I agree with both of you that they can co-exist. But I would note that the main evidence for creationism is the Old Testament, and no one seems to know exactly who came up with the concept.

The problem in creationism arise from the literal interpretation of the Bible, that insists in seven days. for the Creation. Once you remove that, and take 7 days as seven (and seven in the Biblical sense, as many) as seven periods, there is plenty of room for evolution to fin into the Biblical story. That is why Catholicism, that does not interpret the Bible literally, has no major problems with evolution. But the Churches that take the Bible literally (certain Evangelical Churches, for example) they do.
Regarding on how Biochemistry started, there are certain explanations. Under the primitive earth conditions, it is possible to synthesize urea and a few aminoacids from inorganic forms of nitrogen. Once you have nitrogen in organic molecules (like aminoacids, and urea), provided there is some water, it can go from there. Mind that we are talking here of periods of hundred of millions of years.
How did we get from baseball to here?

Originally Posted by adjacent

How did we get from baseball to here?

I blame it on the old BYTO folks. They'd manage to take a conversation about Sidney Ponson and three pages later, have turned it into a conversation about penis length and its effect on socio-economic status.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

I blame it on the old BYTO folks. They'd manage to take a conversation about Sidney Ponson and three pages later, have turned it into a conversation about penis length and its effect on socio-economic status.

Pfft....I see you're still in denial.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

I blame it on the old BYTO folks. They'd manage to take a conversation about Sidney Ponson and three pages later, have turned it into a conversation about penis length and its effect on socio-economic status.

Pfft....I see you're still in denial.

I think we need to look into length redistribution.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

I blame it on the old BYTO folks. They'd manage to take a conversation about Sidney Ponson and three pages later, have turned it into a conversation about penis length and its effect on socio-economic status.

Pfft....I see you're still in denial.

I think we need to look into length redistribution.

BYTO sounds like an interesting place. I sometimes wonder why the site was abandoned.

Originally Posted by glunn

BYTO sounds like an interesting place. I sometimes wonder why the site was abandoned.

Forced migration. Thank goodness for liberal immigration policy here at TD.

Originally Posted by glunn

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

I blame it on the old BYTO folks. They'd manage to take a conversation about Sidney Ponson and three pages later, have turned it into a conversation about penis length and its effect on socio-economic status.

Pfft....I see you're still in denial.

I think we need to look into length redistribution.

BYTO sounds like an interesting place. I sometimes wonder why the site was abandoned.

We had a congeniality problem (I know hard to figure).

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

We had a congeniality problem (I know hard to figure).

Speak for yourself ... some of us can get along with any animal. :P

Originally Posted by adjacent

Originally Posted by glunn

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Originally Posted by biggentleben

I have always wondered how creation and evolution cannot co-exist. I get blasted by hardliners from each side, but to take it to the very basic level, we can't take evolution all the way back to the formation of life, but we can absolutely see (and fairly strongly prove) evolution from that point. So how can it not be co-existent?

No reason. I don't believe in creationism but there's no reason it can't exist alongside evolution because evolution doesn't even try to explain the formation of life, just what happens to it afterward.

Unless you're a crazy person and believe the earth to be 6,000 years old, like my brother does. He's an idiot. I can't believe we share genetic code.

I agree with both of you that they can co-exist. But I would note that the main evidence for creationism is the Old Testament, and no one seems to know exactly who came up with the concept.

The problem in creationism arise from the literal interpretation of the Bible, that insists in seven days. for the Creation. Once you remove that, and take 7 days as seven (and seven in the Biblical sense, as many) as seven periods, there is plenty of room for evolution to fin into the Biblical story. That is why Catholicism, that does not interpret the Bible literally, has no major problems with evolution. But the Churches that take the Bible literally (certain Evangelical Churches, for example) they do.
Regarding on how Biochemistry started, there are certain explanations. Under the primitive earth conditions, it is possible to synthesize urea and a few aminoacids from inorganic forms of nitrogen. Once you have nitrogen in organic molecules (like aminoacids, and urea), provided there is some water, it can go from there. Mind that we are talking here of periods of hundred of millions of years.
How did we get from baseball to here?

The thing is that a very vocal minority of those who believe in creation actually believe in a literal 7 days. Many of those who believe in creation do not believe in an Earth that is only aged ~10,000 years. It's akin to politics (to bring it back to the original topic of the thread), where you see extremists on the liberal and conservative sides that make a heck of a lot of noise, but the large majority of the country sits between those extremes, not in them. I certainly don't believe every liberal wants to take away my hunting rifle, and I don't believe every conservative wants to have 3,408 automatic weapons per household (to pick one particular issue), but that's the word we hear because those are the loudest talkers.

Originally Posted by biggentleben

Originally Posted by adjacent

Originally Posted by glunn

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Originally Posted by biggentleben

I have always wondered how creation and evolution cannot co-exist. I get blasted by hardliners from each side, but to take it to the very basic level, we can't take evolution all the way back to the formation of life, but we can absolutely see (and fairly strongly prove) evolution from that point. So how can it not be co-existent?

No reason. I don't believe in creationism but there's no reason it can't exist alongside evolution because evolution doesn't even try to explain the formation of life, just what happens to it afterward.

Unless you're a crazy person and believe the earth to be 6,000 years old, like my brother does. He's an idiot. I can't believe we share genetic code.

I agree with both of you that they can co-exist. But I would note that the main evidence for creationism is the Old Testament, and no one seems to know exactly who came up with the concept.

The problem in creationism arise from the literal interpretation of the Bible, that insists in seven days. for the Creation. Once you remove that, and take 7 days as seven (and seven in the Biblical sense, as many) as seven periods, there is plenty of room for evolution to fin into the Biblical story. That is why Catholicism, that does not interpret the Bible literally, has no major problems with evolution. But the Churches that take the Bible literally (certain Evangelical Churches, for example) they do.
Regarding on how Biochemistry started, there are certain explanations. Under the primitive earth conditions, it is possible to synthesize urea and a few aminoacids from inorganic forms of nitrogen. Once you have nitrogen in organic molecules (like aminoacids, and urea), provided there is some water, it can go from there. Mind that we are talking here of periods of hundred of millions of years.
How did we get from baseball to here?

The thing is that a very vocal minority of those who believe in creation actually believe in a literal 7 days. Many of those who believe in creation do not believe in an Earth that is only aged ~10,000 years. It's akin to politics (to bring it back to the original topic of the thread), where you see extremists on the liberal and conservative sides that make a heck of a lot of noise, but the large majority of the country sits between those extremes, not in them. I certainly don't believe every liberal wants to take away my hunting rifle, and I don't believe every conservative wants to have 3,408 automatic weapons per household (to pick one particular issue), but that's the word we hear because those are the loudest talkers.

The extremists on both sides are a pain in the ass.

There are obvious compromises that cannot be reached, and the costs of not being able to compromise seem almost incalculable. This fiscal cliff impasse has me very pissed off, because I think that we need to raise taxes on people who can afford it AND raise the Social Security retirement age. Also, the amount of waste remains staggering, and one would hope that both sides would be willing to cut waste. We don't need 10 aircraft carriers and we don't need 20+ programs that address the same issue. I am praying that Obama and Boehner can come to an adult solution, because we may see a worldwide economic depression if they cannot.

Originally Posted by biggentleben

Originally Posted by adjacent

Originally Posted by glunn

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Originally Posted by biggentleben

I have always wondered how creation and evolution cannot co-exist. I get blasted by hardliners from each side, but to take it to the very basic level, we can't take evolution all the way back to the formation of life, but we can absolutely see (and fairly strongly prove) evolution from that point. So how can it not be co-existent?

No reason. I don't believe in creationism but there's no reason it can't exist alongside evolution because evolution doesn't even try to explain the formation of life, just what happens to it afterward.

Unless you're a crazy person and believe the earth to be 6,000 years old, like my brother does. He's an idiot. I can't believe we share genetic code.

I agree with both of you that they can co-exist. But I would note that the main evidence for creationism is the Old Testament, and no one seems to know exactly who came up with the concept.

The problem in creationism arise from the literal interpretation of the Bible, that insists in seven days. for the Creation. Once you remove that, and take 7 days as seven (and seven in the Biblical sense, as many) as seven periods, there is plenty of room for evolution to fin into the Biblical story. That is why Catholicism, that does not interpret the Bible literally, has no major problems with evolution. But the Churches that take the Bible literally (certain Evangelical Churches, for example) they do.
Regarding on how Biochemistry started, there are certain explanations. Under the primitive earth conditions, it is possible to synthesize urea and a few aminoacids from inorganic forms of nitrogen. Once you have nitrogen in organic molecules (like aminoacids, and urea), provided there is some water, it can go from there. Mind that we are talking here of periods of hundred of millions of years.
How did we get from baseball to here?

The thing is that a very vocal minority of those who believe in creation actually believe in a literal 7 days. Many of those who believe in creation do not believe in an Earth that is only aged ~10,000 years. It's akin to politics (to bring it back to the original topic of the thread), where you see extremists on the liberal and conservative sides that make a heck of a lot of noise, but the large majority of the country sits between those extremes, not in them. I certainly don't believe every liberal wants to take away my hunting rifle, and I don't believe every conservative wants to have 3,408 automatic weapons per household (to pick one particular issue), but that's the word we hear because those are the loudest talkers.

How small is the bible-as-literal minority in your view? I think you're making a false equivalency between religious extremism and liberal extremism. We can't equate the rejection of science with some hippies taking away your guns. Both are extreme, but beyond that the equivalency falls away.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

How small is the bible-as-literal minority in your view? I think you're making a false equivalency between religious extremism and liberal extremism. We can't equate the rejection of science with some hippies taking away your guns. Both are extreme, but beyond that the equivalency falls away.

Just based on numbers, those claiming Christian denominations whose creeds declare the Bible as the "inspired Word of God" outnumbers those whose creeds declare the Bible as "unaltered (or some other form of direct/unchanged/etc.) Word of God" by nearly 3-1 in this country, and it's drastically more if you go worldwide. However, just like with guns, the loud talkers can persuade those who don't believe the Bible as literal to assume people are promoting evolution in ways that they simply are not doing. There are many in my area of South Dakota (essentially pheasant hunting mecca) who are easily persuaded that liberals are out to end hunting because some extreme talker said they are, and the possibility of such would so drastically impact their income that it is a huge issue.

There are many out there who believe Christ was born December 25th as well and that he stayed out in a barn outside of town after being rejected for a room at a Best Western-esque hotel. None of that is true, but because their translation of the Bible says it, they don't believe anything else is even possible.