The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Two: The Empiricists Strike Back!

[ironduck]

yes I am reading them you moron!

Be nice or I can guarantee you that a) people won't answer you nicely anymore and b) you will get banned.

 

[ironduck]

I'm just as likely to believe it as you are to agree with AiG. Anyway i'm off as well - got revision to see too. I probably won't come back because I'm tired of reading TO website because its bull.

Dangnambit! Why won't anyone ever answer me if there was rain and rainbows before the flood?

All these people ever wanna talk about is radiometric dating!

So far I've had two replies from creationists: One was that it was so obvious everyone should know. The second is that it's not interesting.

*sigh*

 

[diablodelmar]

Be nice or I can guarantee you that a) people won't answer you nicely anymore and b) you will get banned.

a) I don't care anymore and b) I don't care anymore

 

[diablodelmar]

You have told me other stuff. You have told me that evolution is bunk. You have told me that the earth is only 6000 years old (or something along that line). Surely you must know something as simple as whether or not there was rain and rainbows before the flood? At least give me your best guess.

Oh, and I care because I find the whole young earth creationism pretty funny

Yeah well I find evolution funny because God said he created the earth.

Goodbye.

 

[ironduck]

It seems you don't care about anything but claiming that you're right and everyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong.

 

[El_Machinae]

You're trying to use science to disprove evolution, because you believe that God created the Earth 6000 years ago?

That's fair. But you should know that ALL the science points to the earth being older than that. It's not a dilemma. For both theories to be correct, you just have to accept that God created the Earth with dinosaur bones already in it.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Wow. I go away for a few hours and this thread has three new pages. This is page 24 by my view; page 21 started April 25th; page 20 started April 20th.

 

[carlosMM]

A famous anatomist, Dr. Rudolph Virchow,

First, your source is pulling Virchow into the dirt by degrading him to an anatomist. Second, please bring a link to the original publication by him (hint: it doesn't exist the way you cite it)

Similar discoveries were made to disprove the Ramapithecus when it was found to be an orangutan.

Hm, funny, but why do you creatidiots never cite anything more recent than 100 years???????????

 

[El_Machinae]

Because by then the conspiricy took root! They can only site sources before they were corrupted.

 

[carlosMM]

EM: he's a nice troll, isn't he?

Moderator Action: The report is all we need - not the accusations.

 

[El_Machinae]

Diablo? I don't think he's sophisticated enough to be called a troll. He had 'disproven' evolution to himself, and wanted to share his findings. There's a hint of honest-intent there (though the intellectual laziness overshadowed it, eventually - ie, not knowing what he was talking about).

Ironduck ... I'm dying to post in your rain thread. You dog. Er, duck.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

And so yet another creationist shows up, makes a bunch of arguments that have been posted before in the ~30-40 pages of this thread that he hasn't botherted reading, gets his srguments torn to shreds, decides that we're all horribly mistaken, and disappears.

 

[El_Machinae]

Okay ... I've got one.

Why isn't our mitochondria genome degrading?

The egg contains mtDNA that degrades over time. It has error-correcting measures in place, but they're not perfect. This is one reason why a 20 year old gamete (in 20 year old mother) is superior than one from a 30 year old mother.

Again, the anti-degredation measures are not perfect.

So, the mitochondria in my body came from my mother. They were 20 years old (but well preserved), but slightly damaged from natural abuse. Now, when I have a daughter, those mitochondria will be 20 years old (from my mom) plus 20 years from me. So - forty years of good preservation (but not perfect).

Why isn't my daughter worse off, mtDNA-wise, than I was?

Now, you'll say that there's natural selection within the cell, and poor mitochondria are out competed by healthy ones. This I get. Yet this natural selection is insufficient to prevent the gradual weakening of the mitochondria quality ... because a 30 year old'ss mtDNA is worse of than a 20 year old's.

(I get that the repair mechanisms are superior (more 'on') when we're younger)
(I get that there is natural selection among the mitochondria to preserve the line)

So why isn't my daughter's mitochondria worse than mine? Or, even better, why isn't my great-great-great granddaughter's mitochondria MUCH worse than mine (since she has my mitochondria)?

With creationism, we can assume that Noah's wife had 'pretty good' mtDNA, and that our 'worse' DNA is a result of accumulated damage - but that eventually there is an endpoint where the mitochondria is not viable.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

So, the mitochondria in my body came from my mother. They were 20 years old (but well preserved), but slightly damaged from natural abuse. Now, when I have a daughter, those mitochondria will be 20 years old (from my mom) plus 20 years from me. So - forty years of good preservation (but not perfect).

El_Mac, you're a woman? Never would have guessed. Or else you just forgot that you only get mtDNA from the mother's side.

Why isn't my daughter worse off, mtDNA-wise, than I was?

Because mtDNA replicates just like nuclear DNA. So damaged mtDNA replicates but doesn't carry on the errors it accumulated, just the ones it started with.

I think, but I could be wrong on the detail. I am not a geneticist.

 

[ironduck]

Ironduck ... I'm dying to post in your rain thread. You dog. Er, duck.

Well, it's already going downhill. The only creationist to post so far is ybbor who said I was desperate and was just looking for a strawman. Not sure how it can be a strawman when it's the only topic for the thread.

Maybe Quasar or someone will post an answer at some point.

 

[El_Machinae]

Almost all the mtDNA gets passed on from the mum. Maybe a bit from the dad.

But if the DNA is damaged before it replicates, then the mutations will be passed on.

PS: I refuse to post my gender because my wife wouldn't approve. But you can always think the post is hypothetical if you want to assume I'm a man.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Almost all the mtDNA gets passed on from the mum. Maybe a bit from the dad.

But if the DNA is damaged before it replicates, then the mutations will be passed on.

Is that so? How can it get damaged? Is it damaged severely? I know that it mutates at a set rate, so it can be used to calculate change in a population.

PS: I refuse to post my gender because my wife wouldn't approve. But you can always think the post is hypothetical if you want to assume I'm a man.

So that's why you think same-sex marriage is so important . . .

 

[Bluemofia]

Almost all the mtDNA gets passed on from the mum. Maybe a bit from the dad.

But if the DNA is damaged before it replicates, then the mutations will be passed on.

No. All Mitochondria DNA comes from the mother. The sperm contains nothing but human DNA, and it has no room for mitochondrias. The mitochondria comes with the egg.

 

[Bill3000]

No. All Mitochondria DNA comes from the mother. The sperm contains nothing but human DNA, and it has no room for mitochondrias. The mitochondria comes with the egg.

I beg to differ. If a sperm did not have mitochondria, then it cannot have aerobic respiration.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I beg to differ. If a sperm did not have mitochondria, then it cannot have aerobic respiration.

Yes, but the mtDNA is discarded when the sperm enters the egg cell, so that only the nDNA is passed on to the offspring. Otherwise there would be competition between mtDNA from the mother and father that would kill the zygote.