Do you beileve in evolution? Why or why not?

"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."”

—Bobby Henderson (pasta be upon him)
 
I don't believe in evolution. I believe in evidence, and the evidence point towards the fact and theory of evolution.

string theory is a very bad theory in fact it's mere hypothesis and evolutions a remarkably good one
I am very far removed from a string theorist, but I believe it more than mere hypothesis.
 
Evolution is the most viable explanation. I'm sticking with it until someone finds something more likely.
 
I'm a biology major, so it's pretty obvious what my position is.

The stratagy of creationists is to use the misconceptions rampant among lay people ("evolution is all chance", "there are no transitional forms", etc.) as a strawman to attack and also to mix up the scientific definition of theory with the layperson definition of theory. Evolution is just as much a fact as gravity. Without evolution, biology would just be a random collection of facts.
 
The Last Conformist said:
Woodrow Wilson said:
Of course like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised.
:goodjob: Beautiful!

I am studying a biochemistry-based degree. If anyone wants to know biochemistry stuff, PM me - especially if a good discussion gets going in this thread.
 
Perfection said:
Oh, it's pretty easy to explain it. Certain crystals will bond structures of one chirality on one side and of the other on the other side. Thus causing them to seperate, and once you've got chirality you can use it's cataylic properties to make more. Pretty simple teally.

There not that fragile, protiens can be pretty tough stuff

1. many protiens naturally form helixes
2. DNA is not made of protiens
3. Few biochemists studying abiogenesis claim that DNA was the first genetic material, most claim that RNA was

Not one of these actually addresses evolution. These are all ignorant questions about abiogenesis.

Ok I'm studying Physics so you'll have to excuse my biology knowledge, I did think though that DNA was made of amino acids such as adonine, guanine, cytosine, thymine, which makes them not proteins as such but protein encoders, sorry didn't put that very well:/

Well in that case there are no "doubts" against evolution ;) to be honest we know there are some holes out there that need a little clarity, but there hardly big enough to destroy the theory they are just based on things we don't know or can only guess at, not exactly holes more conjectural inconsistencies.
 
@Gogf, Sidhe
Adenine, Guanine, Thymine, and Cytosine aren't amino acids, they're nucleotides which make up DNA, which "codes for" the amino acids that make proteins. It's much easier to remember if you look at the structures. Give me a minute to find piccies.
 
Sophie 378 said:
@Gogf, Sidhe
Adenine, Guanine, Thymine, and Cytosine aren't amino acids, they're nucleotides which make up DNA, which "codes for" the amino acids that make proteins. It's much easier to remember if you look at the structures. Give me a minute to find piccies.
Actually Sophie, they're nucleobases, nucleotides have a sugar and phosphate group(s) :smug:
 
sok I know it's later here I'm tired I keep saying stupid things sorry:(

I do know about mRNA tRNA and such I'm just a bit weary:)
 
Sidhe said:
not exactly holes more conjectural inconsistencies.
Well, can you provide examples? I'm always interested in inconsistencies.
 
Actually Sophie, they're nucleobases, nucleotides have a sugar and phosphate group(s)

Nitrogenous base pairs to be be exact (in reference to A-T, and C-G).
 
Atlas14 said:
Nitrogenous base pairs to be be exact (in reference to A-T, and C-G).
No, they're not pairs, they're the single nucleobase ;)

When I correct a biochemist-in-training on biochemistry. I make damn well sure I'm correct. ;)
 
The Last Conformist said:
Woodrow Wilson said:
Of course like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised.

Any chance of cloning and re-election for him? sounds like a good president to me.

Sophie_378 said:
I am studying a biochemistry-based degree. If anyone wants to know biochemistry stuff, PM me - especially if a good discussion gets going in this thread.

Nah, don't use PM, let's have the discussion here. My degree is mostly maths, I'm just interested in Bio, Chem & Biochem.
 
Perfection said:
Actually Sophie, they're nucleobases, nucleotides have a sugar and phosphate group(s) :smug:
Only if you're being really pedantic! Biochem books commonly talk about ATCG without specifying whether they mean the bases alone or in a DNA molecule. Nevertheless, 1 point to Perfy.

Anyway ... here's a quick guide for people who wish to talk about these things for evolution discussions. Please PM me if I've made mistakes, or there are glaring omissions, or you would like a further explanation.
Spoiler nucleotides, DNA, amino acids and proteins :

A nucleotide is like this:
nucleotide.jpg

The nitrogenous base (green) is variable - the others are constant. IE, the sugar (pink) is always ribose for RNA, and always deoxyribose for DNA. A phosphate (purple) is just a phosphate group.
A nucleoside is the nitrogenous base (green) + sugar, a nucleotide is base + sugar + phosphate, and a base is the nitrogen-containing single or double ring that points into the DNA helix, pairing with the one on the opposite strand.

There are four kinds of bases in DNA:
nucleotides-500x.jpg

Note how they are labelled as Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine.

(RNA uses uracil (sorry, can't seem to put in as a pic) instead of thymine, and since the sugars are riboses instead of deoxyriboses, the "bases" are called ribonucleotides and are adenosine 5'-triphosphate, guanosine 5'-triphosphate, cytidine 5'-triphoshate and uridine 5'-triphosphate ... but normally, in an RNA molecule, just referred to as adenine, guanine etc - or just AUCG.)

DNA is a very long string of these bases, which pair A-T and C-G like so:
3_36.gif

The two strands of DNA are antiparallel (ie one runs up and the other down), and coil into a helix.

The sequence of nucleobases is the genetic code that you hear about. The sequence is transcribed onto RNA, making a reverse, complementary strand: the DNA double-helix opens up so that free-floating ribonucleotides can come in and form a complementary strand. The RNA strand is then translated by ribosomes into a sequence of amino acids to make a protein. Since there are only four bases, and you want a variety of proteins, the bases are read in threes - triplets - with a set amino acid for each individual codon of three.
Fig%2027-07.GIF

This figure explains how the RNA is translated: the RNA codon UCA would give you Ser. The ribosomes just throw in amino acids in the matching configuration, sticking them together to form a protein chain. The codon AUG doubles for a START signal.

Amino acids are what make up proteins; proteins are the main structural and functional molecules in biology. They have this basic structure:
Figure1.jpg

The R group is variable again: there are 20 commonly occuring natural amino acids.
Amino_acids_2.png


Proteins are formed by the condensation of many amino acids - they bond together in a long chain.
figure%207.07.jpg

A polypeptide is just a long chain of peptides - ie, a protein.

For more info on protein structure, read the Folding@Home links in my sig!

Mutations arise when the DNA is damaged, incorrectly copied or incorrectly repaired. In non-coding regions (junk DNA etc), this may have no effect - but in an actual gene, or a regulatory region, it may well change things. If one base is substituted for another base, you may get just a change of one amino acids in one protein; or there may be no effect. If a base is added in, or removed, then it will snarl up a whole sequence of amino acids, giving a different protein. This protein may be non-functional, or have its function affected positively or negatively - or it may do something else intirely.

Edit, fixing dead link.
 
sanabas said:
Any chance of cloning and re-election for him? sounds like a good president to me.

http://www.search.com/reference/Woodrow_Wilson

Wilson's attitude on racial issues is generally regarded as a stain on his reputation; many argue that he was instrumental in shaping the worst period of racism in American history. His administration instituted segregation in federal government for the first time since Abraham Lincoln began desegregation in 1863, and required photographs from job applicants to determine their race. Wilson also regarded those whom he termed "hyphenated Americans" (German-Americans, Irish-Americans, etc.) with suspicion: "Any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready."

Wilson's "History of the American People" is repeatedly quoted in the notoriously racist film The Birth of a Nation, which glorifies the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in resistance to Radical Republican Reconstruction. The film was based on a trilogy by Wilson's classmate Thomas Dixon, whose stated goal was "to revolutionize northern sentiment by a presentation of history that would transform every man in my audience into a good Democrat!" Wilson saw the film in a special White House screening on February 18, 1915, and director D.W. Griffith reported to the press that Wilson had exclaimed, "It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true." The statement was widely reported and immediately controversial. In subsequent correspondence with Griffith, Wilson discussed Griffith's filmmaking enthusiastically, without challenging the accuracy of the quote. Given the film's strong Democratic partisan message and Wilson's documented views on race, it is not unreasonable to interpret the statement as supporting the Klan, and the word "regret" as referring to the film's depiction of Reconstruction. Wilson tried to remain aloof from the controversy, but finally, on April 30, issued a non-denial denial. Wilson's endorsement of the film's factual accuracy carried great weight and added to its popularity. The film in turn was one of the main factors that led, in the same year, to the reorganization (at Stone Mountain, Georgia) of the Ku Klux Klan, which had been dormant since it was outlawed in the 1870s.

Still think so?
 
Irish Caesar said:
Still think so?

Mmm, not so much. Maybe it would be easier to persuade him his racial views are rubbish and we can keep the evolutionary ones. I'd take a president with his only defect that he's a racist over a president who has the defect of wanting to preach ID. A racist prez has virtually no chance of actually propagating his views or making them law, one who wants to promote ID can do far more damage.
 
Did all this come up because it's Darwin's birthday or just happy coincidence?
 
Back
Top Bottom