Evil-ution

[ahole-ic]

yawn

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

Read all of what I posted, it's perfectly logical.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Since when did surgeon's in NC make over a million dollars? I see average that a Neurosurgeon makes under half that.

Actually many neurosurgeons make MUCH more than this. I talked to one the other day making well over a mill per year. Average means Average lol Average is still over 600k theres all kinds of potential to make more than that.

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

yawn

So what did you mean by ahole-ic again? I mean, if it was so light-hearted and not an insult, then it should be pretty easy to explain. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

Off topic but since you're in the field, have you seen the commercial with the guy performing brain surgery and making his patient do his work on the computer? I think it's for a travel site.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process. They effect one nucleotide base at a time and are called point mutations. Once in every 10,000 to 100,000 copies there is a mistake made. Our bodies have a compare – correct process that is very efficient. In fact it is 1016 times better than the best computer code, but once in every 1,000,000,000 or 10,000,000,000 copies a mutation “gets out” so to speak. That is equal to a professional typist making a mistake in 50,000,000 pages of typescript. You see mutations are predominately bad and the cell tries to make sure they don’t happen.
The Neo-Darwinists made random mutations the engine of evolution. They claim that many very small mutations are the basis of the “goo to you” hypothesis of evolution. For mutations to be the driver of the massive amount of information there must be two things true of those mutations.

1. The mutations must be positive and allow the organism to procreate and pass them on.

2. The mutations must add information to the genome of the organism.

To date no evolutionist has pointed out such a mutation and if they exist they must be exceedingly rare.

The smallness of the point mutation is also in question. Dawkins seems to think that the mutation can be as small as needed to make the hypothesis work, but it appears that one nucleotide base is as small as you can get. So a positive mutation cannot add but a single bit of information to the genome or one nucleotide’s worth. But is that enough? And if that truly does occur will natural selection grab and go with it?

You simply used a putdown to try to prove your point.

A single mutation causes a condition in Fruit flies called anntenapedia. Pics:

See the difference? One change makes it grow an extra pair of legs instead of anntenae. point mutations are more than enough change to facilitate extreme phenotype changes. Through degeneration, these traits once achieved can reduce and become increasingly complex. IE eventually something that started being governed by a single gene make and up being affected by 20. (such as an eye ball)

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Off topic but since you're in the field, have you seen the commercial with the guy performing brain surgery and making his patient do his work on the computer? I think it's for a travel site.

Yes lol, I like how they made the surgeon look like a homeless bum with a huge beard flying all over the place and no face mask.

 

[ahole-ic]

So what did you mean by ahole-ic again? I mean, if it was so light-hearted and not an insult, then it should be pretty easy to explain. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

You can look at what I said to holic, or you can troll yourself. Frankly it's much more fun to watch your troll attempts than to shut them down.

 

[martiandancer31 10+ year member]

The issue is that evolution IS sufficiently proven and you are basically using the uncertainty principle to try to discredit it. Frankly, give one, JUST one at a time please (lets keep this orderly) piece of evidence that contradicts evolution and I promise you I'll be able to show the reason it's not credible. All the evidence you need to see that it does happen I've already given you. Here the main points are again.#1. Random mutations always occur. Proven unequivocally.

#2. Mutations are positive negative or neutral based on their effect on the organisms suitability for reproduction in it's environment. Proven

#3. Negative mutations tend to be eliminated via selection. Again Proven.

#4. Positive mutations tend to remain in the population. Proven

#5. Because all living things are coded for by a combination of the same 4 chemicals. Anything has the possibility to change into anything by the re-combination and addition or subtraction of genetic information. Again PRROOOOVEN

 

so, evolution is possible. Yup, no argument here. However, the probability of all of these things happening in such a way as to go from a single-celled organism to a human is ludicrously low.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

To be perfectly honest, I wish that neuro didn't pay so much. I'd pursue it even if it was the lowest paying field, and many of my rivals can't say the same. So the best minds are drawn to the competition just for the money in many cases. I dream of correcting degenerative conditions such as Alzheimer's. For some people, this disease is worse than losing a loved one completely. Parkinson's is very similar as well. I also have interest in improving the over-all efficacy of tumorectomies. Particularly in inoperable metastatic tumors. You can treat with radiation and chemo, but the problem is these treatments usually only halt progression and RARELY give any chance of reversal. Surgical removal is where it's at. If you remove the tumor the prognosis extends indefinitely as long as the tumor doesn't return.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

so, evolution is possible. Yup, no argument here. However, the probability of all of these things happening in such a way as to go from a single-celled organism to a human is ludicrously low.

Agreed, so low that the progress would've taken 4 billion years..... Oh wait, that's the theory supported by fossil records and evolution theory.

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

Tumors and their treatment is very interesting. My friend's mom had some sort or cryo treatment on one that showed some good results but ultimately is was too little too late. Nevertheless it was pretty fascinating hearing how it all worked, and instead of treating her whole body with chemo they injected it directly into the tumor if I remember correctly.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

This amount of diversity was achieved in less than 1000 years solely through selective breeding. And you think the jump from a sponge to a human would've taken more than a couple billion years?

 

[ahole-ic]

A single mutation causes a condition in Fruit flies called anntenapedia. Pics:

See the difference? One change makes it grow an extra pair of legs instead of anntenae. point mutations are more than enough change to facilitate extreme phenotype changes. Through degeneration, these traits once achieved can reduce and become increasingly complex. IE eventually something that started being governed by a single gene make and up being affected by 20. (such as an eye ball)

Assuming the mutation will survive natural selection. You see you have a huge leap you are making which is why i made my last post. The fact that these things change and creatures have anomolies is not in question. The fact that everything came from 1 organism and through millions of years of mutations it created the entire population of the earth... that is a stretch. The fact that mutations can happen, does not necessarily mean that. I am not arguing for intelligent design. I am just stating the obvious here that there is a huge assumption that because these mutations occur that, that must mean everything came from a single organism millions and millions of years ago. What if there were more than one? That totally disproves darwin's theory of evolution. It doesn't mean mutations don't occur and the science pertaining to it is wrong. It simply means that what you think you know as total fact right now, isn't.... and your arrogance is unwarranted.

 

[pro-rabbit 5,000+ posts]

To my knowledge no one here has said it is fact..if it was it would be a law not a theory.

You are starting to run in circles here. You see where this is going? It is a very long and drawn out troll by you on this topic.

For the troll I have to say a successful troll is successful. As for you "points" I hope you are not seriously taking what you say as "fact" or "true" to the extent that you make them out to be.

Is there a possibility of what several scientists think about evolution is wrong? yes. That is a part of science. Once they are proven/shown it is wrong a new altered theory emerges and takes it place. Much like how the theory of a flat world was altered over time.