I see that your delirium has worn off.

davidylan:

you keep saying the same nonsense and then covering it with insulting bluster. The genomic mutations that are required for clear phenotypic changes occurs FIRST at the level of the individual organism no? It takes one individual to change and then pass on that change to his/her offspring no? As long as the change in that individual is beneficial then the mutation is sustained over a larger proportion of the population no?

A very simple experiment to show this was what we used to perform routinely in the lab 2-3 yrs ago...

When you initially perform a stable transfection (lentivirus as your best option)... typically most of your cell population dies off (lipofectamine or using nucleofection methods are notorious for killing over 70% of ur cells). Most times you really dont need more than 1-2 cells to stably transfect. An easy way to select for your transfected cells is to use a resistance gene marker stably inserted into your plasmid. Treating your cells with the antibiotic that the resistance gene is expected to confer resistance for then kills off your untransfected cells.
All you need do after that is culture your tiny cells left for weeks to rapidly divide (2-4 weeks is ideal) until you have a new cell population that now carries your selective gene marker stably recombined in the genome.

While we see the phenotypic changes that were confered by the transfected plasmid... it took barely 2-10 cells (if your technique is very successful) that took up your plasmid to incorporate the genome change and then spawn a new generation/population of cells carrying that selective marker.

So mr thehomer... it is frankly stupid to say that random mutations that spawn changes in the phenotype do NOT occur at the level of the individual but at the level of the population. Frankly most of you are ignorant dolts just taking up space here. Please dont quit your day job.

Sigh. This dishonest slippery eel is at it again.

Now take a careful look at your own example and note your usage of the words in bold. You would have done better to have actually read some of my follow up posts. Like the one here

thehomer:

My point is that evolution isn't assessed at the level of the individual. I've already said this before.

which conceptually better presents what I meant to say.

Once again, you demonstrate that you had no idea of what you were doing. You were merely following the rules rather than conceptually internalizing what you were being taught.

davidylan:
We already know that. your point being?
Dont those random mutations start at the level of one organism? Or is it your claim that those mutations occur randomly in a large portion of the population AT ONCE? you do know that is daft right? Considering many of you fools have never even performed a simple mutation experiment in your lives... it is amazing to read your ignorant nonsense...

How is it daft to understand that these random mutations can and do occur randomly in the population? What do you understand by "at once" when one is talking about an evolutionary time scale? Seriously your stupidity is astounding. Whether or not you've performed a simple mutation experiment doesn't actually make you an expert on the concepts as you keep demonstrating from time to time.

The sort of ignorance you keep displaying in your claimed field is simply embarrassing. Take something common in the tropics like sickle cell anaemia. Do you think it was one individual who had the mutation that spread it to all the other places it currently occurs? Reading this article will inform you otherwise. Please read it and understand that reconsider what you've said above.

davidylan:

pah.
Me
debosky
ihedinobi
frosbel
enigma...

just a few of those who have become disgusted at your slimy, dishonest style. You notice most folks here dont even bother to respond to your posts. I will refrain from doing so as well.

Boo hoo. Here you're simply going with the bandwagon fallacy combining it with a poisoning the well fallacy. Merely saying that I'm a bad person or that many other people think that I'm a bad person doesn't actually address any single argument I've made. Why don't you actually stick to the argument? If you're going to accuse me of any misdeeds, then you need to clearly spell it out using my posts. They're still up there for you to use.
Sheesh. Don't you ever learn?

Enigma: ^^^ He is unquestionably the most sly and dishonest of the evangelical atheists.

There are some of them who make up for poor argument with rudeness and obnoxiousness.

There are one or two (only one currently active IIRC) fairly intellectually honest.

Then you have the ranters who regard unthinking, ill-thought or even outright senseless rants as "logic and reason".

Quit whining and address the arguments.

davidylan:

interesting that both you and ihedinobi made the same observation on this same thread. I ran into another thread earlier where debosky made the same exact comment.

Yet for some reason, you couldn't use that thread to actually demonstrate what you were accusing me of? The thread is still up along with my posts so you're still welcome to try.

Uyi Iredia:

This should be the second time I'm telling you that Nature can't select. Nature is a classification of things, saying it (Nature) can select is a reification fallacy.

And you're back with the same error. "Natural selection" is a phrase with a specific meaning. As I've told people before, words and phrases can mean different things. Splitting it up into its constituent words won't really help you that much. I've advised you in the past to actually read up on it.

Ishilove:
Au contraire; it shows he is very very smart

I wouldn't consider slipperiness in a debate to be a sign of being smart though. Neither is dishonesty.

davidylan:

you're either very dumb or quite dishonest. I never said science wasnt empirical... that is too broad a brush. Evolution in particular has no empirical evidence... that is the issue. I get tired of this mental gymnastics these ignorant dolts constantly employ.

This is the most blatant LIE ever!

Kay 17: All scientific theories are empirical in nature in the first place, or else they wouldn't be regarded as scientific.

Davidlyan: Not true, read your own definition.

https://www.nairaland.com/986687/how-murdered-5-argument-killed/7

Davidlyan: and that was my point! The definition of the term "empirical" CLEARLY excludes scientific theory which was why it should have been the most relevant definition to this discussion (Kay17 omits this because it destroys his ignorant position).

Davidlyan: Look lets not pander to sentiment here. Stating that scientific theories are empirical in nature is just a dishonestly silly statement that makes no shred of sense

Davidlyan: That is just trying to skirt around the fact that you are clueless here. Theories are just theories BECAUSE we have no empirical evidence for it and that is FACT

https://www.nairaland.com/986687/how-murdered-5-argument-killed/8

thehomer:
Now take a careful look at your own example and note your usage of the words in bold. You would have done better to have actually read some of my follow up posts. Like the one here



which conceptually better presents what I meant to say.

Once again, you demonstrate that you had no idea of what you were doing. You were merely following the rules rather than conceptually internalizing what you were being taught.

Yawn. Most incredibly inane piffle.
The funny thing though is that when anthropologists and scientists describe their "evidence" for evolution, they do so by assessing a single "missing link" and then projecting their "findings" to the larger population.

Saying that "evolution is assessed at the level of the population" is a meaningless statement that conveys nothing beyond an ego-driven attachment to incredulous illogic.

Secondly, if you read the detailed experiment i described earlier on... i did use that to drive home the point that I had made earlier (which you arrogantly and ignorantly bleat is wrong) that mutations start at the individual organism level and is then passed on to the population as long as it is a beneficial mutation. It was EXACTLY the same point Mr_Anony was making as well here

Note his first question - Mr_Anony:
Would you agree that each individual cell is evolving however, we observe it by looking at the population?

That is EXACTLY the question that my experiment was meant to address - i.e. genome change (as a result of plasmid transfection)is first observed at the level of a few individual cells who then propagate the change to the rest of the population. This was your inane response - [size=18pt]No[/size] for various reasons.
1. Many organisms aren't unicellular.
2. [size=18pt]You cannot tell that a single organism is evolving because that will be too little information[/size].

Now that answer is senseless and wrong. For more info pls read up on transfections.
It is VERY EASY to tell that a single organism is evolving/mutating... antibiotic resistance is the easiest means of testing this in the test tube. Secondly to say that there is very little information to tell us that a single organism is changing is plain mad.

Sorry. You seem to forget your previous posts... then come around to make subtle changes then claim you were right afterall.

thehomer:
How is it daft to understand that these random mutations can and do occur randomly in the population?

The EXACT SAME random mutations DO NOT occur spontaneously in a population. They start with one individual and then get passed down that specific lineage. That is why your claim (of course with no supporting evidence) is daft.

thehomer:
What do you understand by "at once" when one is [b]talking about an evolutionary time scale? [/b]Seriously your stupidity is astounding. Whether or not you've performed a simple mutation experiment doesn't actually make you an expert on the concepts as you keep demonstrating from time to time.

Stup[i]i[/i]d. Again you try to dodge the facts by hiding behind that amorphous "evolutionary time scale". Again your point is that somehow a mutation slowly occurred across multiple species over time? The only explanation again is one anony and I have given... it begins in one individual and then as it stabilizes within the genome, it gets passed down that particular lineage and spreads through cross-breeding. Exactly the point my experiment was meant to pass across to thick-headed morons like you.

thehomer:
The sort of ignorance you keep displaying in your claimed field is simply embarrassing. Take something common in the tropics like sickle cell anaemia. Do you think it was one individual who had the mutation that spread it to all the other places it currently occurs? [/b]Reading this article will inform you otherwise. Please read it and understand that reconsider what you've said above.

why not?
So the sickle cell gene could only have been spread if the mutation occurred in several populations over time? False and your article certainly does not convey that meaning. [b]the initial SNP is a very specific V-E substitution at position 6 in the beta-globin gene. How is it that every single variant of the disease has this SNP as the fundamental defect? Why didnt other variants have several different SNPs that could just as easily caused the same disease? The only explanation is that this SNP would have probably occurred in one individual and then passed down through cross breeding. It is highly likely that environmental and other genetic factors may have influenced the differing haplotypes that we see today that mainly manifests in varying intensity of disease symptoms.

Another SNP example would be the hemophilia gene (popularly known as the royal disease). read up on it.

Kay 17:

This is the most blatant LIE ever!



https://www.nairaland.com/986687/how-murdered-5-argument-killed/7





https://www.nairaland.com/986687/how-murdered-5-argument-killed/8

another dumb id[i]i[/i]ot. There is a difference between SCIENCE (as a whole body of knowledge)and SCIENTIFIC THEORY (used in the context of discussing evolutionary theory).

Try again

davidylan:

Yawn. Most incredibly inane piffle.
The funny thing though is that when anthropologists and scientists describe their "evidence" for evolution, they do so by assessing a single "missing link" and then projecting their "findings" to the larger population.

Actually, they do not. The missing link is a part of the whole picture.

davidylan:
Saying that "evolution is assessed at the level of the population" is a meaningless statement that conveys nothing beyond an ego-driven attachment to incredulous illogic.

What exactly is meaningless about it? What do you think evolution is? Were you taught in school that evolution was assessed using only an individual?

davidylan:
Secondly, if you read the detailed experiment i described earlier on... i did use that to drive home the point that I had made earlier (which you arrogantly and ignorantly bleat is wrong) that mutations start at the individual organism level and is then passed on to the population as long as it is a beneficial mutation. It was EXACTLY the same point Mr_Anony was making as well here

Note his first question - Mr_Anony:
Would you agree that each individual cell is evolving however, we observe it by looking at the population?

That is EXACTLY the question that my experiment was meant to address - i.e. genome change (as a result of plasmid transfection)is first observed at the level of a few individual cells who then propagate the change to the rest of the population. This was your inane response - [size=18pt]No[/size] for various reasons.
1. Many organisms aren't unicellular.
2. [size=18pt]You cannot tell that a single organism is evolving because that will be too little information[/size].

The experiment you described showed you that you need to compare populations.

davidylan:
Now that answer is senseless and wrong. For more info pls read up on transfections.
It is VERY EASY to tell that a single organism is evolving/mutating... antibiotic resistance is the easiest means of testing this in the test tube. Secondly to say that there is very little information to tell us that a single organism is changing is plain mad.

Sorry. You seem to forget your previous posts... then come around to make subtle changes then claim you were right afterall.

Seriously, your ignorant rambling knows no bounds. If the organism that mutated died before producing any offspring, is that evolution at the level of the individual? You're well and truly lost.

davidylan:
The EXACT SAME random mutations DO NOT occur spontaneously in a population. They start with one individual and then get passed down that specific lineage. That is why your claim (of course with no supporting evidence) is daft.

Did you read the Nature article? If that isn't supporting evidence, then what will be supporting evidence to you? Sometimes I simply have to exclaim that your idiocy knows no bounds. The theory of evolution has two major mechanisms, random mutations (within individuals in the population) and natural selection (of those individuals). Those points aren't in question. What you're questioning here is whether you assess this by looking at a single individual or at a population of these individuals. What actually did you learn in school?

davidylan:
Stup[i]i[/i]d. Again you try to dodge the facts by hiding behind that amorphous "evolutionary time scale". Again your point is that somehow a mutation slowly occurred across multiple species over time? The only explanation again is one anony and I have given... it begins in one individual and then as it stabilizes within the genome, it gets passed down that particular lineage and spreads through cross-breeding. Exactly the point my experiment was meant to pass across to thick-headed morons like you.

You daft deluded numbskull, please go back and ask who ever taught you how one determines whether or not evolution is occurring. Ask them whether they do that by examining only one individual or a population. Your so-called experiment points out to you that you need to assess populations.

davidylan:
why not?
So the sickle cell gene could only have been spread if the mutation occurred in several populations over time? False and your article certainly does not convey that meaning. the initial SNP is a V-E substitution at position 6 in the beta-globin gene. How is it that every single variant of the disease has this SNP as the fundamental defect? Why didnt other variants have several different SNPs that could just as easily caused the same disease? The only explanation is that this SNP would have probably occurred in one individual and then passed down through cross breeding. It is highly likely that environmental and other genetic factors may have influenced the differing haplotypes that we see today that mainly manifests in varying intensity of disease symptoms.

Obviously, you either didn't read the nature article properly or you're suffering from reading comprehension disorder. Take a look at this paragraph and pay attention to the parts in bold.

Nature:
Using RFLP analysis, geneticists found many distinct haplotypes in and around the tens of kilobases that make up the β-globin gene cluster. For instance, in 1984, Pagnier et al. reported that within four African populations with significant frequencies of sickle-cell trait, three distinct haplotypes were present among SCA patients that corresponded almost entirely to geographic origin. Patients from Benin and Algeria were homozygous for one haplotype (the Benin type), whereas more than 80% of patients from the Central African Republic (CAR) and from Senegal were homozygous for two other haplotypes (the Bantu and Senegal types, respectively). Although a few patients had two haplotypes resulting from population mixing, this study strongly suggested that the sickle-cell mutation arose independently at least three times in Africa and was selected for among geographically and reproductively isolated populations. A later study expanded the number of independent African initiating mutations to four, when Lapoumeroulie and colleagues identified a distinct haplotype among sickle-cell patients of the Eton ethnic group of eastern Cameroon (the Cameroon type, Figure 2) (Lapoumeroulie et al., 1992).

Once again davidylan, please read and stop embarrassing yourself with your ignorance and bluster.

davidylan:
Another SNP example would be the hemophilia gene (popularly known as the "royal disease". read up on it.

Here are two articles (one, two) on haemophilia also saying the same thing about independent mutations. There's more where these came from. Please please read these abstracts.

Did you think that anyone with it must be or have been a royal? There are Africans with haemophilia too.

Maybe you need another bout of delirium.

davidylan:

another dumb id[i]i[/i]ot. There is a difference between SCIENCE (as a whole body of knowledge)and SCIENTIFIC THEORY (used in the context of discussing evolutionary theory).

Try again

Actually, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory just as the theory of gravitation and the theory of plate tectonics. It is just you and your fellow creationists that claim there is a difference.

thehomer:
Actually, they do not. The missing link is a part of the whole picture.

Hmmm really they do. Dont be embarrassed to admit the truth.

thehomer:
The experiment you described showed you that you need to compare populations.

Yawn. Not true. We only study populations because we need a lot of samples. If we could get enough sample from one cell we would not need the entire population. We sometimes study mutations in as little as 4 mice.
I notice that you skip addressing the OBVIOUS LIE on your part that a you get very little useful info from a single mutating organism though. Nice try dumbo.

thehomer:
seriously, your ignorant rambling knows no bounds. If the organism that mutated died before producing any offspring, is that evolution at the level of the individual? You're well and truly lost.

Daft. You should have read this portion of my post - The genomic mutations that are required for clear phenotypic changes occurs FIRST at the level of the individual organism no? It takes one individual to change and then pass on that change to his/her offspring no? As long as the change in that individual is beneficial then the mutation is sustained over a larger proportion of the population no?

If the organism that mutated died then of course no evolving takes place.

thehomer:
Did you read the Nature article? If that isn't supporting evidence, then what will be supporting evidence to you? Sometimes I simply have to exclaim that your idiocy knows no bounds. The theory of evolution has two major mechanisms, random mutations (within individuals in the population) and natural selection (of those individuals). Those points aren't in question. What you're questioning here is whether you assess this by looking at a single individual or at a population of these individuals. What actually did you learn in school?

My question is DID YOU read the article yourself because if you did you should be able to point precisely to what portion supports your nonsensical statement. It obviously did not provide supporting evidence for you. I read that article, that was why i was able to address the SNP and haplotype questions... again DID YOU? Or have you, as is usual with you ignorant blowhards, merely posted a link you know nothing about?

thehomer:
You daft deluded numbskull, please go back and ask who ever taught you how one determines whether or not evolution is occurring. Ask them whether they do that by examining only one individual or a population. Your so-called experiment points out to you that you need to assess populations.

Most of the papers that first described gene knockouts were done in mouse populations of sometimes less than 3 id[i]i[/i]ot. Again just hiding your lack of knowledge behind a lot of insulting bluster.

thehomer:
Obviously, you either didn't read the nature article properly or you're suffering from reading comprehension disorder. Take a look at this paragraph and pay attention to the parts in bold.

Once again davidylan, please read and stop embarrassing yourself with your ignorance and bluster.

Already read it and i certainly do not agree with that claim. Again read my response to that exact portion here - the initial SNP is a V-E substitution at position 6 in the beta-globin gene. How is it that every single variant of the disease has this SNP as the fundamental defect? Why didnt other variants have several different SNPs that could just as easily caused the same disease? The only explanation is that this SNP would have probably occurred in one individual and then passed down through cross breeding. It is highly likely that environmental and other genetic factors may have influenced the differing haplotypes that we see today that mainly manifests in varying intensity of disease symptoms.

Did you even read what i wrote at all? The authors have based their SPECULATIVE conclusions on differing HAPLOTYPES (perhaps you should find out what that means first). The SCA anomaly still remains the result of only one single specific SNP (again find out what that means too).

thehomer:
Here are two articles (one, two) on haemophilia also saying the same thing about independent mutations. There's more where these came from. Please please read these abstracts.

Did you think that anyone with it must be or have been a royal? There are Africans with haemophilia too.

Maybe you need another bout of delirium.

good point. Wrong on that score.

davidylan:

another dumb id[i]i[/i]ot. There is a difference between SCIENCE (as a whole body of knowledge)and SCIENTIFIC THEORY (used in the context of discussing evolutionary theory).

Try again

Ok, what's the difference?

I was thinking that with the arrival of therhomer the essence of this thread will be address, "the life span issue"

guy, this thread has miss its purpose the way it is so, please turn back.

However, the other atheist where trying to address the thread as best as they can, but you have not.

Can you try again or better still start addressing the thread.

Thanks

davidylan:

Hmmm really they do. Dont be embarrassed to admit the truth.

Once again, I'll direct you to take a look at the evidence for evolution. It is more than missing links. Simply look it up on Wikipedia. I've shown you these things before so there is no need for you to lie.

davidylan:
Yawn. Not true. We only study populations because we need a lot of samples. If we could get enough sample from one cell we would not need the entire population. We sometimes study mutations in as little as 4 mice.
I notice that you skip addressing the OBVIOUS LIE on your part that a you get very little useful info from a single mutating organism though. Nice try dumbo.

This is why I've been saying over and over again that you really didn't understand what you were doing in the lab. The reason why you study populations is because a single individual isn't enough to assess that evolution is occurring. Another thing you should know is that evolution isn't just studying mutations. If the mutations are harmful and prevent reproduction, would you still say that evolution is occurring? What lie? Don't blame me for not knowing what you were doing in a lab.

davidylan:
Daft. You should have read this portion of my post - The genomic mutations that are required for clear phenotypic changes occurs FIRST at the level of the individual organism no? It takes one individual to change and then pass on that change to his/her offspring no? As long as the change in that individual is beneficial then the mutation is sustained over a larger proportion of the population no?

If the organism that mutated died then of course no evolving takes place.

You see? This is why I keep saying that your idiocy knows no bounds. Again I have to ask you what you think evolution is because just a short while ago, you were talking about assessing evolution in a single individual by looking at its mutation yet you're saying that if the organism that mutated died, then evolution isn't happening. This is stupidly contradictory. Have you seen it yet? Keep in mind that evolution isn't just mutation. I've said this too before.

davidylan:
My question is DID YOU read the article yourself because if you did you should be able to point precisely to what portion supports your nonsensical statement. It obviously did not provide supporting evidence for you. I read that article, that was why i was able to address the SNP and haplotype questions... again DID YOU? Or have you, as is usual with you ignorant blowhards, merely posted a link you know nothing about?

Yep I read the article. Did you read the paragraph and what was in bold? That directly contradicts what you've been saying you halfwit. The paragraph was from the article. The article wasn't asking you a question, it was passing across to you information. The question headings weren't for you to fill in with your fantasy, they were there to draw the reader to read the following paragraph and understand the answer. Do you actually know how to read or is it just scientific papers that bother you?

davidylan:
Most of the papers that first described gene knockouts were done in mouse populations of sometimes less than 3 id[i]i[/i]ot. Again just hiding your lack of knowledge behind a lot of insulting bluster.

[size=16pt]
Oh your God[/size] .
Gene knockouts experiments aren't demonstration of evolution, they're used to study the expressions of various genes you daft camel. Read up on it here and what it is for. And note what it isn't for. Wow you really have no idea of what you're doing.

davidylan:
Already read it and i certainly do not agree with that claim. Again read my response to that exact portion here - the initial SNP is a V-E substitution at position 6 in the beta-globin gene. How is it that every single variant of the disease has this SNP as the fundamental defect? Why didnt other variants have several different SNPs that could just as easily caused the same disease? The only explanation is that this SNP would have probably occurred in one individual and then passed down through cross breeding. It is highly likely that environmental and other genetic factors may have influenced the differing haplotypes that we see today that mainly manifests in varying intensity of disease symptoms.

I hope you've registered your objection with the magazine so they can consider your esteemed opinion against that of the experts who peer reviewed the paper.

Did you see these parts in bold in the paper?

Nature:
In 1978, Y. W. Kan and Andreé Dozy used the new tools of recombinant DNA and restriction enzymes to observe sequence differences (polymorphisms) in the DNA around the β-globin genes of different individuals. They went on to use these polymorphisms, reflected in the loss or gain of specific restriction enzyme cleavage sites, to trace the sickle β-globin allele within family pedigrees (Kan & Dozy, 1978a; 1978b; 1980). These studies were the first application of restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs) to follow disease genes, and they represented a milestone in human genetics. For SCA in particular, this effort paved the way for prenatal diagnosis and improved genetic counseling. In addition, it provided the tools used by other investigators to show that the mutation causing SCA arose multiple times during human history.

Nature:
In contrast to these non-African cases of SCA due to breeding between nations, investigators examining SCA patients in the eastern oases of Saudi Arabia and portions of central India discovered another distinct haplotype, indicating a fifth independent occurrence of the sickle-cell mutation in a region historically hyperendemic for malaria (Kulozik et al., 1986). Whether the geographic distribution of this mutation resulted from eastern migration to India or western migration to the Arabian peninsula is still unknown.

Is that evidence enough for you? Or do you now want to write a letter to Nature telling them to retract this paper? Daft buffoon.

davidylan:
Did you even read what i wrote at all? The authors have based their SPECULATIVE conclusions on differing HAPLOTYPES (perhaps you should find out what that means first). The SCA anomaly still remains the result of only one single specific SNP (again find out what that means too).

I read what you wrote but it was rubbish. Now read the heading of the paper and tell me why you think they shouldn't have used the haplotypes in assessing the distribution of sickle cell anemia and the sickle cell trait. Assume I don't know what those words mean in your explanation.

davidylan:
good point. Wrong on that score.

What was wrong? Are you confused about the independent mutations?

davidylan:

Hmmm really they do. Dont be embarrassed to admit the truth.

Once again, I'll direct you to take a look at the evidence for evolution. It is more than missing links. Simply look it up on Wikipedia. I've shown you these things before so there is no need for you to lie.

davidylan:
Yawn. Not true. We only study populations because we need a lot of samples. If we could get enough sample from one cell we would not need the entire population. We sometimes study mutations in as little as 4 mice.
I notice that you skip addressing the OBVIOUS LIE on your part that a you get very little useful info from a single mutating organism though. Nice try dumbo.

This is why I've been saying over and over again that you really didn't understand what you were doing in the lab. The reason why you study populations is because a single individual isn't enough to assess that evolution is occurring. Another thing you should know is that evolution isn't just studying mutations. If the mutations are harmful and prevent reproduction, would you still say that evolution is occurring? What lie? Don't blame me for not knowing what you were doing in a lab.

davidylan:
Daft. You should have read this portion of my post - The genomic mutations that are required for clear phenotypic changes occurs FIRST at the level of the individual organism no? It takes one individual to change and then pass on that change to his/her offspring no? As long as the change in that individual is beneficial then the mutation is sustained over a larger proportion of the population no?

If the organism that mutated died then of course no evolving takes place.

You see? This is why I keep saying that your idiocy knows no bounds. Again I have to ask you what you think evolution is because just a short while ago, you were talking about assessing evolution in a single individual by looking at its mutation yet you're saying that if the organism that mutated died, then evolution isn't happening. This is stupidly contradictory. Have you seen it yet? Keep in mind that evolution isn't just mutation. I've said this too before.

davidylan:
My question is DID YOU read the article yourself because if you did you should be able to point precisely to what portion supports your nonsensical statement. It obviously did not provide supporting evidence for you. I read that article, that was why i was able to address the SNP and haplotype questions... again DID YOU? Or have you, as is usual with you ignorant blowhards, merely posted a link you know nothing about?

Yep I read the article. Did you read the paragraph and what was in bold? That directly contradicts what you've been saying you halfwit. The paragraph was from the article. The article wasn't asking you a question, it was passing across to you information. The question headings weren't for you to fill in with your fantasy, they were there to draw the reader to read the following paragraph and understand the answer. Do you actually know how to read or is it just scientific papers that bother you?

davidylan:
Most of the papers that first described gene knockouts were done in mouse populations of sometimes less than 3 id[i]i[/i]ot. Again just hiding your lack of knowledge behind a lot of insulting bluster.

[size=14pt]Oh your God[/size] .
Gene knockouts experiments aren't demonstration of evolution, they're used to study the expressions of various genes you daft camel. Read up on it here and what it is for. And note what it isn't for. Wow you really have no idea of what you're doing.

davidylan:
Already read it and i certainly do not agree with that claim. Again read my response to that exact portion here - the initial SNP is a V-E substitution at position 6 in the beta-globin gene. How is it that every single variant of the disease has this SNP as the fundamental defect? Why didnt other variants have several different SNPs that could just as easily caused the same disease? The only explanation is that this SNP would have probably occurred in one individual and then passed down through cross breeding. It is highly likely that environmental and other genetic factors may have influenced the differing haplotypes that we see today that mainly manifests in varying intensity of disease symptoms.

Did you see these parts in bold in the paper?

Nature:
In 1978, Y. W. Kan and Andreé Dozy used the new tools of recombinant DNA and restriction enzymes to observe sequence differences (polymorphisms) in the DNA around the ß-globin genes of different individuals. They went on to use these polymorphisms, reflected in the loss or gain of specific restriction enzyme cleavage sites, to trace the sickle ß-globin allele within family pedigrees (Kan & Dozy, 1978a; 1978b; 1980). These studies were the first application of restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs) to follow disease genes, and they represented a milestone in human genetics. For SCA in particular, this effort paved the way for prenatal diagnosis and improved genetic counseling. In addition, it provided the tools used by other investigators to show that the mutation causing SCA arose multiple times during human history.

Nature:
In contrast to these non-African cases of SCA due to breeding between nations, investigators examining SCA patients in the eastern oases of Saudi Arabia and portions of central India discovered another distinct haplotype, indicating a fifth independent occurrence of the sickle-cell mutation in a region historically hyperendemic for malaria (Kulozik et al., 1986). Whether the geographic distribution of this mutation resulted from eastern migration to India or western migration to the Arabian peninsula is still unknown.

Is that evidence enough for you? Or do you now want to write a letter to Nature telling them to retract this paper? Daft buffoon.

davidylan:
Did you even read what i wrote at all? The authors have based their SPECULATIVE conclusions on differing HAPLOTYPES (perhaps you should find out what that means first). The SCA anomaly still remains the result of only one single specific SNP (again find out what that means too).

I read what you wrote but it was rubbish. Now read the heading of the paper and tell me why you think they shouldn't have used the haplotypes in assessing the distribution of sickle cell anemia and the sickle cell trait. Assume I don't know what those words mean in your explanation.

davidylan:
good point. Wrong on that score.

What was wrong? Are you confused about the independent mutations?
Now you're trying but failing to criticize a Nature article because it doesn't agree with you?

truthislight: I was thinking that with the arrival of therhomer the essence of this thread will be address, "the life span issue"

guy, this thread has miss its purpose the way it is so, please turn back.

However, the other atheist where trying to address the thread as best as they can, but you have not.

Can you try again or better still start addressing the thread.

Thanks

If you can explain the conflict between evolution and the human lifespan, then you'll be able to get a better answer.

thehomer:

If you can explain the conflict between evolution and the human lifespan, then you'll be able to get a better answer.

I believe that was the essence of the thread.

That you that said you know better should educate us.

This is the theist willing to learn.


That the evolutionist that say they know how or have a theory on how the world/origin of life came about should explain to us the questions on life span.

I believe that for the reason that you can give so much detail explanation to the origin of life it suppose to be a kid thing explaining an inherent of the origin of life = life span.

We are still waiting.

truthislight:

I believe that was the essence of the thread.

That you that said you know better should educate us.

This is the theist willing to learn.


That the evolutionist that say they know how or have a theory on how the world/origin of life came about should explain to us the questions on life span.

I believe that for the reason that you can give so much detail explanation to the origin of life it suppose to be a kid thing explaining an inherent of the origin of life = life span.

We are still waiting.

This isn't about someone claiming to know better or about learning, it is about the relationship between the human lifespan and the theory of evolution. What does one have to do with the other? Someone may understand the theory of plate tectonics but does that explain e.g the size of the various continents and islands?

If you can explain the relationship between them, then we can have somewhere to start.

thehomer:

This isn't about someone claiming to know better or about learning, it is about the relationship between the human lifespan and the theory of evolution. What does one have to do with the other? Someone may understand the theory of plate tectonics but does that explain e.g the size of the various continents and islands?

If you can explain the relationship between them, then we can have somewhere to start.

thank you sir.
Others are also welcome to air their views.

The limitations we have opens our minds to new frontiers.

davidylan where are you? Have you become delirious again?

thehomer: davidylan where are you?
Have you become delirious again?

do you have the answer to life span now?

Then present it on this thread.

or is it that you are addicted to endless debate that has no ends/values?

truthislight:

do you have the answer to life span now?

Then present it on this thread.

or is it that you are addicted to endless debate that has no ends/values?

If you can tell me what problem the human lifespan poses to the theory of evolution, then you'll have something to go on. So, can you tell me what problem the human lifespan poses for the theory?

thehomer:

If you can tell me what problem the human lifespan poses to the theory of evolution, then you'll have something to go on. So, can you tell me what problem the human lifespan poses for the theory?

nope!

We were hoping that you the smart guys will help us out.

For our(theist) stand you already know what it is but you said it is shallow/illogical/not true/myth.

We were rather waiting to get a better explanations from the or make sense of it from you "smart guys"

truthislight:

nope!

We were hoping that you the smart guys will help us out.

For our(theist) stand you already know what it is but you said it is shallow/illogical/not true/myth.

We were rather waiting to get a better explanations from the or make sense of it from you "smart guys"

I've just told you that I see no problem. If you see a problem, please point it out otherwise rectify your ignorance by reading. I'm not here to teach you something you can and are supposed to figure out on your own. When you've read and identified a problem, then you can present this problem.

yes! "Smart guys" evolution has no purpose indeed you say.

However, But according to you guys we are here through evolution.
So, evolution made us to evolved and have a body that is self regenerating.

This process of self regeneration is supposed to keep the human regeneration on and on nonstop.

But it then stops.

Is it not?
Is it that you guys drink new cell to stay alife or help the cell self regeneration process going on?

Or is it that you guys use cement to fill your skin whenever you sustain a cut or the skin grows BACK on its own?
Meaning that the body then have an automatic healing power. It should not stop all of a sudden and start degenerating.

This is suppose to go on indeffinitly, but it stops
Why?

Pls. "Smart guys" pls do tell us Whats going on, why does this self regeneration/renewal process not just keep going on?

So its like evolution has a purpose then, but all of a sudden it stop, why? Why? Why?

Pls! Dont 4get you guys even have an explanation for the origin of the univers which should be easier to explain/fixed?

But we are here, present not past, we are here right now not billion billion years ago that you will say no sample for experiment.

Helloooo! We are not invisible we are physical, practical science, no excuses.

Yes, human are available for practical science by evolutionist to unravel the reason for life span/death

No excuses please.

Do you guys thrive when you can pull the blanket over our eyes with billion billion years evolution?
That it seems then.

That you Feed us with whatever you want in the past.

Which should be easier "smart guys" pest explanations or present?

Billion billion years or hear and now experiment?

Why does the self regeneration process stop along the line?

If we had the answers we wont be asking.

Please explain.
We are waiting "smart gu

^^^
You sound like you have issues with "smart guys". You went on a similar rant with me iirc. If "smart guys" did something wrong to you don't take it personally. There are all sorts of intelligences, "smart guys" may be dumber than you in other areas. Certain members of this forum, not to mention the outer world, prove with distinction that you don't have to be a "smart guy" to succeed. Besides, take your issues out on whoever jizzed in your breakfast, not us.

Try and understand, as far as "smart guys" are concerned, there's nothing wrong with human lifespan. Even if there were it wouldn't be critical to our survival (else we'd be extinct). Evolution doesn't have a purpose, but you're so deluded and arrogant that you think the sun shines just for you, the universe rotates around you, and an all powerful being that incidentally looks just like one of us (complete with beard, no less), your special friend that makes you feel special, loved and will give you good things if you ingratiate constantly, is trolling us.

If you have a problem with evolution being purposeless, that's your problem. Make shi.t up, but don't expect the rest of us to humour you.

truthislight: yes! "Smart guys" evolution has no purpose indeed you say.

However, But according to you guys we are here through evolution.
So, evolution made us to evolved and have a body that is self regenerating.

This process of self regeneration is supposed to keep the human regeneration on and on nonstop.

But it then stops.

Is it not?
Is it that you guys drink new cell to stay alife or help the cell self regeneration process going on?

Or is it that you guys use cement to fill your skin whenever you sustain a cut or the skin grows BACK on its own?
Meaning that the body then have an automatic healing power. It should not stop all of a sudden and start degenerating.

This is suppose to go on indeffinitly, but it stops
Why?

Pls. "Smart guys" pls do tell us Whats going on, why does this self regeneration/renewal process not just keep going on?

So its like evolution has a purpose then, but all of a sudden it stop, why? Why? Why?

Pls! Dont 4get you guys even have an explanation for the origin of the univers which should be easier to explain/fixed?

But we are here, present not past, we are here right now not billion billion years ago that you will say no sample for experiment.

Helloooo! We are not invisible we are physical, practical science, no excuses.

Yes, human are available for practical science by evolutionist to unravel the reason for life span/death

No excuses please.

Do you guys thrive when you can pull the blanket over our eyes with billion billion years evolution?
That it seems then.

That you Feed us with whatever you want in the past.

Which should be easier "smart guys" pest explanations or present?

Billion billion years or hear and now experiment?

Why does the self regeneration process stop along the line?

If we had the answers we wont be asking.

Please explain.
We are waiting "smart gu

I don't understand what you're rambling about.

Please can you clearly state your objection in about three to five lines clearly? What I can say about your post is that living things die so humans dieing after a while doesn't affect the theory of evolution. If you think it does, you're doing a bad job in expressing this problem.

wiegraf: ^^^
You sound like you have issues with "smart guys". You went on a similar rant with me iirc. If "smart guys" did something wrong to you don't take it personally. There are all sorts of intelligences, "smart guys" may be dumber than you in other areas. Certain members of this forum, not to mention the outer world, prove with distinction that you don't have to be a "smart guy" to succeed. Besides, take your issues out on whoever jizzed in your breakfast, not us.

Try and understand, as far as "smart guys" are concerned, there's nothing wrong with human lifespan. Even if there were it wouldn't be critical to our survival (else we'd be extinct). Evolution doesn't have a purpose, but you're so deluded and arrogant that you think the sun shines just for you, the universe rotates around you, and an all powerful being that incidentally looks just like one of us (complete with beard, no less), your special friend that makes you feel special, loved and will give you good things if you ingratiate constantly, is trolling us.

If you have a problem with evolution being purposeless, that's your problem. Make shi.t up, but don't expect the rest of us to humour you.

^^^^
West of my precious time.

Resorted to use of foul language/insult.

That is actually a mark of weakness.

I will leave you alone. Less i birth in the mud with you.

Have a nice day.
Peace.

truthislight:

^^^^
West of my precious time.

Resorted to use of foul language/insult.

That is actually a mark of weakness.

I will leave you alone. Less i birth in the mud with you.

Have a nice day.
Peace.

Thanks

truthislight: yes! "Smart guys" evolution has no purpose indeed you say.

However, But according to you guys we are here through evolution.
So, evolution made us to evolved and have a body that is self regenerating.

This process of self regeneration is supposed to keep the human regeneration on and on nonstop.

But it then stops.

Is it not?
Is it that you guys drink new cell to stay alife or help the cell self regeneration process going on?

Or is it that you guys use cement to fill your skin whenever you sustain a cut or the skin grows BACK on its own?
Meaning that the body then have an automatic healing power. It should not stop all of a sudden and start degenerating.

This is suppose to go on indeffinitly, but it stops
Why?

Pls. "Smart guys" pls do tell us Whats going on, why does this self regeneration/renewal process not just keep going on?

So its like evolution has a purpose then, but all of a sudden it stop, why? Why? Why?

Pls! Dont 4get you guys even have an explanation for the origin of the univers which should be easier to explain/fixed?

But we are here, present not past, we are here right now not billion billion years ago that you will say no sample for experiment.

Helloooo! We are not invisible we are physical, practical science, no excuses.

Yes, human are available for practical science by evolutionist to unravel the reason for life span/death

No excuses please.

Do you guys thrive when you can pull the blanket over our eyes with billion billion years evolution?
That it seems then.

That you Feed us with whatever you want in the past.

Which should be easier "smart guys" pest explanations or present?

Billion billion years or hear and now experiment?

Why does the self regeneration process stop along the line?

If we had the answers we wont be asking.

Please explain.
We are waiting "smart gu

Who says that evolution stops?
Evolution is about ensuring the propagation of the species and not indefinite extension of an individual life. Like I stated earlier in this thread, an indefinite or extra-ordinary lifespan of an individual that is out of harmony with the ecological environment would actually be harmful to the long term survival of that species.
Evolution requires regular turnover of the biological prototypes in order to renew and refresh the gene pool.
The rate of turnover varies from species to species.

I am shocked that a Phd micro-biologists would see this as nonsense.

@davidylan,why are flamingoes pink?didn't you learn that they are all born white but based on the red pigment in their diet,they EVOLVED to become pink?