Re: Rupture aortic aneurysm


"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4264660E.83765A64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Thorsten Schier wrote:
>>
>> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb:
>> > Jeff wrote:
>> >
>> >>"Bryan" <cyberbmcd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >>news:_Ww8e.1944$V02.1255@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> >>
>> >>(...)_
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>but there is proof of gravity, there is none for evolution
>> >>
>> >>Considering that we have seen bacteria and viruses evolve resistance
>> >>the
>> >>antibiotics as well as evolution in plants and animals, I would say
>> >>your
>> >>statement is inaccurate.
>> >
>> >
>> > In truth, the acquisition of drug resistance genes is **not**
>> > evolution.
>> >
>> > New species are **not** being formed by these processes of
>> > transfection,
>> > transduction, transposition, and/or conjugation of DNA containing drug
>> > resistant genes.
>>
>> Bacteria are a bit of a special case as the usual definition of what is
>> called a species don't really fit very well due to these phenomena.
>>
>> However, resistances against drugs or against chemical agents in general
>> also occur in eucaryotes like Plasmodium spp. (the pathogens of malaria)
>> or even insects, where those phenomena don't occur and the usual forces
>> of evolution, mutation and selection, do their work.
>
> You are redundant here because the forces of evolution **is** natural
> selection.

Wrong. *A* force of selection is natural selection. There are other forces
of evolution like mutation, recombination, genetic drift, isolation and
random events, like meteors landing in Mexico. Natural selection works on
diversity, and without a source of diversity, like mutations and
recombination, there would be nothing to select.

>> >>In addition, considering that we can see a family tree of various
>> >>organisms
>> >>based on differences in DNA sequences, and this family tree is
>> >>consistanat
>> >>with the one that is derived from differences in morphological
>> >>characteristics, I would say you are really wrong.
>> >
>> >
>> > This illustrates the **fact** that "genotype determines phenotype"
>> > which
>> > is not the same as proving the theory of evolution.
>>
>> You are quite wrong on this.
>
> Hardly.
>
>> It would only be true if scientists used only the genes that are
>> responsible for the morphology to build a family tree based on
>> differences in DNA sequences.
>>
>> But this is not the case. For example a popular gene for phylogenetic
>> trees is the gene for the enzyme Cytochrome C from the respiratory
>> chain. Differences in this gene have _nothing_ to do with differences in
>> morphological characteristics. They probably have little (if anything at
>> all) to do with differences in the phenotype, because the effect of
>> Cytochrome C does not really change that much over time.
>>
>> So the differences in the DNA sequence of Cytochrome C and the
>> differences in morphology are really independent information and when
>> both method of reconstructing the phylogenetic tree lead to similar
>> results, this is really very strong evidence that this is due to
>> evolution.
>
> Folks observe the same phenomenon when studying the phylogenetic tree of
> the many dog pedigrees. The intervention of an external intelligence
> (man) on the selective breeding of dogs is closer akin to creationism
> (intervention by God) than to evolution (selection by **random** natural
> forces).

Yet, the evidence from the fossils and DNA is overwhelming that new species
are not created, but rather evolve.

If man were created anew, why did God choose to give man horrible appendices
that rupture, backs that are poorly designed, and five fingers and toes? Why
did God make the panda look like it has an extra thumb that looks like it
evolved from a different bone in the wrist? Why did God give chicken the
ability to grow teeth by adding a few growth hormones? Why did God make the
DNA sequences of species that are morphologically more similar than species
that morphologically less similar (like humans have DNA that is very similar
to that of chimps, but more different than the DNA of mice)? And why did he
make it look the family tree of animals determined by morphology look like
the family tree derived from DNA differences? (You event talked about this
some in at least one of your papers).

>> Those who are formally trained in genetics would have known this.
>
> Those with scientific minds should remain skeptical about "very strong
> evidence."

So you shold reject "very strong evidence." I mean come on. There is no
scientifically back evidence that is inconsistant with evolution. Do you
know of any scientifically backed evidence that is inconsistant with
evolution?

>> > Those who are formally trained in genetics would have known this.
>>
>> As I explained above you are quite wrong on this.
>
> Hardly.
>
>> >>I strongly suggest that you read Stephen Jay Gould's and Ernst Mayr's
>> >>books.
>> >>And those of Charles darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace's original paper.
>> >
>> >
>> > I would strongly suggest you take a graduate level genetics course.
>>
>> I would suggest you refresh your formal training on genetics a bit.
>
> That would not change the truth.

Learning the truth about God and the way he created new life through
evolution would only glorify Him more.

Jeff

>> Regards,
>>
>> Thorsten
>
> Same to you.
>
> At His service,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Board-Certified Cardiologist
>
> **
> Suggested Reading:
> (1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
> (2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?V113154DA
> (3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
> (4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
> (5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
> (6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
> (7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Stripping the Darwinian doctrine
    ... genes, or mutations that were not known at his time. ... the later evidence (especially the evidence from these ... importance in evolution. ... What this shows is merely that Darwin didn't know much about ...
    (talk.origins)
  • News: Where Is Human Evolution Heading?
    ... Where Is Human Evolution Heading? ... The race's DNA is changing faster than ever; ... our genes are playing catch-up against modern scourges?like ... it doesn't take a Nobel Prize in genetics to imagine that babies could ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Stripping the Darwinian doctrine
    ... genes, or mutations that were not known at his time. ... the later evidence (especially the evidence from these ... last decades) showed that inheritance also has an epigenetic ... importance in evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Does it matter for modern evolutionary theory what Darwin really thought? Steve Rose Reviews and Ref
    ... Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb is a lucid book ... Evolution in Four Dimensions ... discoveries and so of genes. ... DNA molecules - and vehicles, ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: OT: Gravity explained
    ... own DNA). ... There would have been have been a crude "chemical" evolution ... as the complexity is incredible - and some ... precludes evaluating evidence, and evidence is the only way to ...
    (sci.electronics.design)