Evidence for God from Science

Evolution is not just Evolution. Evolution states the change in traits by GAIING information. I don't even like to call it Micro Evolution, because of the statement you just made. I like to call it adaptation. Bacteria adapts to its evironment, as do people. But I never saw anything (and I don't think it will ever happen) changed from one thing to another. The core DNA stays the same. The genes might differ, but thats it. The big question still is that why we don't see stuff change today from one thing to another. Any evolutionist will tell you because it takes millions of years, but the fact of the matter is that not everything change at the same moment, and then it takes millions of years again. And if a animal or plant lose or gain a chromosone, it must happen from one generation to the next I believe. So you should have a mother and father with 26 pairs, and a child with 27 or 25 or something like that, which means that it will be incompatilble with everything else. That is why a people with severe down sindrome can't procreate. The male DNA helix can't fuse with the female DNA helix to make up a DNA double helix. I might be totaly wrong, but that is what logic is telling me.

Anyway. Enjoy your search, and might it be fruitfull.

jaques

jaquesb wrote:Evolution is not just Evolution. Evolution states the change in traits by GAIING information. I don't even like to call it Micro Evolution, because of the statement you just made. I like to call it adaptation. Bacteria adapts to its evironment, as do people.

But I never saw anything (and I don't think it will ever happen) changed from one thing to another. The core DNA stays the same. The genes might differ, but thats it.

If the genes change then the core DNA has changed. And you won't see the large scale changes, they are just not ino our time scale.

The big question still is that why we don't see stuff change today from one thing to another. Any evolutionist will tell you because it takes millions of years, but the fact of the matter is that not everything change at the same moment, and then it takes millions of years again.

And therein lies the issue, however, we do see the small scale changes.

And if a animal or plant lose or gain a chromosone, it must happen from one generation to the next I believe. So you should have a mother and father with 26 pairs, and a child with 27 or 25 or something like that, which means that it will be incompatilble with everything else.

We actually do have very strong evidence that this atually did happen with the chromosomes in humans and chimps. We can map the similarites between the chromosomes in chimps and in humans and see that one part of a chromosome is the same as the separate one in the other chromosome

And this would create reproductive isolation

That is why a people with severe down sindrome can't procreate. The male DNA helix can't fuse with the female DNA helix to make up a DNA double helix. I might be totaly wrong, but that is what logic is telling me.

I don't knwo why you think the "male helix" fuese with the female helix. There is no fusion between helix of the male and female chromosome. The chromosomes remain distinct. Perhaps you are thinking of the chromosome's ability to sync with the counterpart? Downs syndrome is a trisomy, with an extra 21. But about half of the women with DOwn syndrome can have children.



jaques[/quote]

Hey, I herd someone talking about this in the quote below and had a question about it.

quote " inborn resistance to cholera. Which is conferred by having an inactive form of the mutation that otherwise causes cystic fibrosis"

Is this mutation "inborn resistance to cholera" only beneficial with no bad side effects or like 100% just purely beneficial ?

Cystic fibrosis heterozygote resistance to cholera toxin in the cystic fibrosis mouse model
SE Gabriel, KN Brigman, BH Koller, RC Boucher, and MJ Stutts
Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 27599.



The effect of the number of cystic fibrosis (CF) alleles on cholera toxin (CT)-induced intestinal secretion was examined in the CF mouse model. CF mice that expressed no CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein did not secrete fluid in response to CT. Heterozygotes expressed 50 percent of the normal amount of CFTR protein in the intestinal epithelium and secreted 50 percent of the normal fluid and chloride ion in intestinal epithelium and secreted 50 percent of the normal fluid and chloride ion and fluid secretion suggests that CF heterozygotes might possess a selective advantage of resistance to cholera.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... 6/5182/107

The is the same idea of selective advantage to sickle cell anemia. Those that are heterozygous for sickle cell are more resistant to malaria.

In this article they found that mice that are heterozygous for the cystic fibrosis gene do not respond to te cholera toxin, meaning that in areas of high cholera, those with this gene would survive and reproduce more than those without, they would succumb to cholera more frequently.

zoegirl wrote:

Cystic fibrosis heterozygote resistance to cholera toxin in the cystic fibrosis mouse model
SE Gabriel, KN Brigman, BH Koller, RC Boucher, and MJ Stutts
Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 27599.



The effect of the number of cystic fibrosis (CF) alleles on cholera toxin (CT)-induced intestinal secretion was examined in the CF mouse model. CF mice that expressed no CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein did not secrete fluid in response to CT. Heterozygotes expressed 50 percent of the normal amount of CFTR protein in the intestinal epithelium and secreted 50 percent of the normal fluid and chloride ion in intestinal epithelium and secreted 50 percent of the normal fluid and chloride ion and fluid secretion suggests that CF heterozygotes might possess a selective advantage of resistance to cholera.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... 6/5182/107

The is the same idea of selective advantage to sickle cell anemia. Those that are heterozygous for sickle cell are more resistant to malaria.

In this article they found that mice that are heterozygous for the cystic fibrosis gene do not respond to te cholera toxin, meaning that in areas of high cholera, those with this gene would survive and reproduce more than those without, they would succumb to cholera more frequently.

So your saying they are more likely to get Sickle Cell Anemia if they have a inborn resistance to cholera ?

Vanlore wrote:

zoegirl wrote:

Cystic fibrosis heterozygote resistance to cholera toxin in the cystic fibrosis mouse model
SE Gabriel, KN Brigman, BH Koller, RC Boucher, and MJ Stutts
Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 27599.



The effect of the number of cystic fibrosis (CF) alleles on cholera toxin (CT)-induced intestinal secretion was examined in the CF mouse model. CF mice that expressed no CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein did not secrete fluid in response to CT. Heterozygotes expressed 50 percent of the normal amount of CFTR protein in the intestinal epithelium and secreted 50 percent of the normal fluid and chloride ion in intestinal epithelium and secreted 50 percent of the normal fluid and chloride ion and fluid secretion suggests that CF heterozygotes might possess a selective advantage of resistance to cholera.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... 6/5182/107

The is the same idea of selective advantage to sickle cell anemia. Those that are heterozygous for sickle cell are more resistant to malaria.

In this article they found that mice that are heterozygous for the cystic fibrosis gene do not respond to te cholera toxin, meaning that in areas of high cholera, those with this gene would survive and reproduce more than those without, they would succumb to cholera more frequently.

So your saying they are more likely to get Sickle Cell Anemia if they have a inborn resistance to cholera ?

NO, First, it's sickle cell that gives them RESISTANCE to MALARIA. THey aren't more liekylt to get it, in fact, the wont have the same degree of symptoms, they survive better than those that are homozygous for the normal hemoglobin gene.

Those that have the cystic fibrosis gene seem to have more resistance to cholera. NOtice in the abstract it says that they don't respond to the cholera toxin. They aren't more liekly to get it, they just don't respond to the toxin.

This is an idea called heterozygote advantage. In areas that are high in malaria, we see a significant rise in sickle cell anemia.

zoegirl wrote:

NO, First, it's sickle cell that gives them RESISTANCE to MALARIA. THey aren't more liekylt to get it, in fact, the wont have the same degree of symptoms, they survive better than those that are homozygous for the normal hemoglobin gene.

Those that have the cystic fibrosis gene seem to have more resistance to cholera. NOtice in the abstract it says that they don't respond to the cholera toxin. They aren't more liekly to get it, they just don't respond to the toxin.

This is an idea called heterozygote advantage. In areas that are high in malaria, we see a significant rise in sickle cell anemia.

O ok I think I understand this now.

Vanlore wrote: Sickle Cell Anemia- genetic disease in which the hemoglobin protein is mutated, giving red blood cells a twisted shape that may painfully block circulation. This often leads to medical crises and may cause an early death.

Malaria -a parasitic disease spread by mosquitos that causes chills and fever; potentially fatal complications in the liver, kidneys, blood, and brain are possible.

Cystic fibrosis- A serious genetic disease of excretory glands, affecting lungs and other organs; it causes production of very thick mucus that interferes with normal digestion and breathing.

Cholera- a bacterial infection of the small intestine that causes severe watery diarrhea, dehydration, and possibly death.

Ok so first you need to have sickle cell in order to have the resistance to malaria

Ok second you need to have cystic fibrosis to have resistance to cholera

I would not want either of those resistances would you? To me it seems like your looking at the bright side of having a genetic defect but this error of information could also be interpreted as flaws or errors happening over time not really building anything up in the since. Would not natural selection filter this out if not for medical intervention and modern advancements ?

If there were no malaria and no cholera, then yes, selection would weed these out (or we would ceratinly see selection to the point where it brings about a much lower frequency. And in those areas that so not have malaria we see a dramatic decrease in the sickle cell gene frequency.

However, when you look at areas that do have malaria, there are higher frequencies of the sickle cell gene.

LOok, the idea behind selection is not perfection but the best match to the environment. Evolution does not predict perfection, but the best fit to the environment, and it that means that a condition that might be a defect elsewhere confers an advantage in a different environemnt, well, it will provide that advantage and they would prefderentially survice and reproduce and the next generation would have a higher frequency of those genes.

zoegirl wrote:If there were no malaria and no cholera, then yes, selection would weed these out (or we would ceratinly see selection to the point where it brings about a much lower frequency. And in those areas that so not have malaria we see a dramatic decrease in the sickle cell gene frequency.

However, when you look at areas that do have malaria, there are higher frequencies of the sickle cell gene.

LOok, the idea behind selection is not perfection but the best match to the environment. Evolution does not predict perfection, but the best fit to the environment, and it that means that a condition that might be a defect elsewhere confers an advantage in a different environemnt, well, it will provide that advantage and they would prefderentially survice and reproduce and the next generation would have a higher frequency of those genes.

Ok I see what your saying. This is what you was talking about when you said we see a major increase in the CF heterozygote gene in areas that are high in malaria, we see a significant rise in sickle cell anemia.

This is very interesting, It sounds plausible that it is a response to malaria but what gene detects and targets this and tells CF what changes are to be made?

Also do you have a link to show the connection to the increase of CF heterozygote with the areas of the malaria?

I am wondering if the effect of or a form of malaria itself is responsible for the CF heterozygote that cause sickle cell but I need to study the subject more to assume this. But the CF heterozygote does seem like the body's response to malaria but is that true?

"zoegirl If there were no malaria and no cholera, then yes, selection would weed these out."

Well with no medical intervention I would say it would weed this out still because even if the body is doing this to protect itself adding malaria and cholera does not help the problems associated with this type of gene . But it is interesting that you say this might be a response to malaria . Not sure if your saying "it is the cause" or "might be related" ?

Also you included cholera so are you implying that the gene that cause Cystic fibrosis is a response to cholera as well or was that a typing error ?

Also as you can tell I like the Smilies

Vanlore wrote:

zoegirl wrote:If there were no malaria and no cholera, then yes, selection would weed these out (or we would ceratinly see selection to the point where it brings about a much lower frequency. And in those areas that so not have malaria we see a dramatic decrease in the sickle cell gene frequency.

However, when you look at areas that do have malaria, there are higher frequencies of the sickle cell gene.

LOok, the idea behind selection is not perfection but the best match to the environment. Evolution does not predict perfection, but the best fit to the environment, and it that means that a condition that might be a defect elsewhere confers an advantage in a different environemnt, well, it will provide that advantage and they would prefderentially survice and reproduce and the next generation would have a higher frequency of those genes.

Ok I see what your saying. This is what you was talking about when you said we see a major increase in the CF heterozygote gene in areas that are high in malaria, we see a significant rise in sickle cell anemia.

There is an increase in SICKLE CELL GENE frewency in areas of malaria, not an increase of CF gene....CF gene is for cholera.

This is very interesting, It sounds plausible that it is a response to malaria but what gene detects and targets this and tells CF what changes are to be made?

The fact that the gene exists is not the response but the fact that the gene frequency has increased is the response. And it is the sickle cell gene that corresponds to malaria.

It has been proposed that the CF gene corresponds to cholera, not sickle cell.

Also do you have a link to show the connection to the increase of CF heterozygote with the areas of the malaria?

It's the link between sickle cell and malaria and CF to cholera

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... ne-protect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterozygote_advantage

http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/malaria_sickle.html

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... f%26sa%3DN

I am wondering if the effect of or a form of malaria itself is responsible for the CF heterozygote that cause sickle cell but I need to study the subject more to assume this. But the CF heterozygote does seem like the body's response to malaria but is that true?

The mutation exists independently of the disease, it is the presence of the disease that means the the people who have these genes survive better. The disease doesn't prompt the mutation, merely the people who have the sickle cell gene survive in the areas that have malaria

"zoegirl If there were no malaria and no cholera, then yes, selection would weed these out."

Well with no medical intervention I would say it would weed this out still because even if the body is doing this to protect itself adding malaria and cholera does not help the problems associated with this type of gene . But it is interesting that you say this might be a response to malaria . Not sure if your saying "it is the cause" or "might be related" ?

The mutation exists. The body does not CHOOSE to do this. The people who have these genes are born with them. Those that have two genes of sickle cell have problems due to sickle cell anemia, they cannot carry oxygen as efficiantly and have blood clotting problems. Those that have two normal genes for hemoglobin are better at carrying oxygen than those with the sickle cell anemia. However, in those areas with malaria, the sporozoan responsible for malaria cannot reproduce in the diseased red blood cells with the sicle cell gene. So in areas of malaria, those that have one of each gene (heterozygous) have enough of the normal gene for hemoglobin to allow them enough oxygen carrying capability and enoiugh sickle cell hemoglobin to confer resistance to malaria. So they survive and reproduce. Those that have two normal genes for hemoglobin die from malaria and those with two sickle cell genes die from sickle cell anemia.

Also you included cholera so are you implying that the gene that cause Cystic fibrosis is a response to cholera as well or was that a typing error ?

No, if you read my first reply to you, it has always been sickle cell for malaria and CF for cholera (and TB)

Also as you can tell I like the Smilies

No problem

So many smilies

I particularly like the viking with the club, rather cheeky and brazen little guy

[quote="JC333"]Can someone point me in the right direction of a creation scientist(s)? I have been told that they only exist as a negligible minority in the scientific community?


The reason why creation scientists are in the minority is because the evolutionary religion controls and demands compliance to their religion of luck and chance in the educational institutions or cemeteries of science.

Science itself is reason and logic and evolution contains none of this, except for hope and faith, regardless of their lack of evidence. hence they force students to believe or they flunk them from the required courses on evolution. Only a few honest scientists make it to creation science and the truth of HIS-story and biology.