Probability of evolution

Originally posted by LemonJello
you're thanking KK for mocking your claims? why haven't you thanked others in this thread for doing the same?

He might have recced me at least!

PS Hmm maybe he did ...

Originally posted by LemonJello
you're thanking KK for mocking your claims?

Yes, I never before heard of anyone saying that DNA evolved, a while back I even recently had a scientist (An evolutionist) who took like 8 years of collage, tell me that DNA does not evolve, he even game me a link from talkorigins.org to tell me how it came into being without evolving. I cant find it anywhere now, so it does no good for me to tell you about it,

I'm still of the opinion that there is no evidence of it, and science make up "Theories" to go along with everything else they claim

Originally posted by flyUnity
Yes, I never before heard of anyone saying that DNA evolved, a while back I even recently had a scientist (An evolutionist) who took like 8 years of collage, tell me that DNA does not evolve, he even game me a link from talkorigins.org to tell me how it came into being without evolving. I cant find it anywhere now, so it does no good for me to tell you abo ...[text shortened]... o evidence of it, and science make up "Theories" to go along with everything else they claim

Here's some of a certain Dr. S. Cutting's credentials

1996- Lecturer School of Biological Sciences Royal Holloway University of London
1992-96 Assistant Professor University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Philadelphia, USA
1987-91 Post-doctoral fellow The Biological Laboratories Harvard University, USA
1983-86 Ph.D. Dept.Biochemistry Oxford Uviversity, UK

Here's the link:
http://www.rhul.ac.uk/biological-sciences/AcademicStaff/Cutting/simcv.html

Among other things, Dr. Cutting does work for a company that traces your family tree via DNA analysis. The following link is from the "about us" page from that company:

http://www.geogene.com/lowres/aboutus.html

Lastly, a quote from another of that company's pages answering the question "how does DNA evolve?"

"How DNA evolves

Occasionally, there are small errors, or “mutations”, in the copying process and the DNA code is altered slightly. Mutations are the ultimate source of variation and novelty in evolution and we all carry mutations that make us different from our parents. The vast majority of mutations are harmless; in fact, some are good! When the child grows up and eventually has children of his or her own, these mutations will be present in the DNA passed on to the offspring. In this way, mutations are preserved in the genetic code passed on from generation to generation. Over time, these tiny changes accumulate so that one family line develops a unique genetic code that distinguishes that lineage from all others."

The link to the above:
http://www.geogene.com/lowres/information/evolve.html

Would you say that no scientist says DNA evolves?

Originally posted by flyUnity
Yes, I never before heard of anyone saying that DNA evolved, a while back I even recently had a scientist (An evolutionist) who took like 8 years of collage, tell me that DNA does not evolve, he even game me a link from talkorigins.org to tell me how it came into being without evolving. I cant find it anywhere now, so it does no good for me to tell you abo ...[text shortened]... o evidence of it, and science make up "Theories" to go along with everything else they claim

oh, i see. sorry, i probably assumed too much.

if you believe in evolution, then you will believe DNA evolves (it must for evolution to hold). if you do not believe in evolution, then you will say DNA does not evolve, lest you reach a contradiction in your own belief system.

i know a buttload of good scientists. they all share an unquestionable integrity and rigor with respect to the scientific process. the process is pretty simple: you make controlled observations and draw reasonable and jusified conclusions that allow you to sleep comfortably at night. these conclusions then constitute theoretical formulations. why do you assume all scientists who study and also incidentally propone evolution are out to defile this process?

This thread is just a confusing mess of words like evolution, DNA and abiogenesis.

DNA changes every time a child is born. The child's DNA is different from the parents and that change can have consequences on the appearance of the child. The biological change of populations of organisms over time is biological evolution (regardless of what the change is or what it represents).

DNA change can be used to explain how the diversity of modern life came from original single celled life, because the difference between a horse and a bacterium is basically just a matter of different DNA.

But if you are going to talk about how DNA came about naturally, then that's a totally different topic from biological evolution. Biological evolution is about changes to DNA, wheras the origin of DNA itself is about changes to non-DNA molecules until they become DNA. This is clearly different and is called abiogenesis, not biological evolution.

The confusing part is that some evolutionary processes are expected to be involved in abiogenesis, such as natural selection. But this is natural selection acting upon molecules and not organisms.

Originally posted by flyUnity
Oh I see, there is no evidence that it evolves, (There's more evidence that it dont) but in order for evolution to be true, it has to evolve.

FFS. I DNA didn't evolve we would not see single nucleotide polymorphisms, simple sequence repeat polymorphisms or indel polymorphisms. But we do. So DNA changes. This is different to transposition, this is different to recombination. This is change over generations (or time).

Get used to it.

Originally posted by PotatoError
This thread is just a confusing mess of words like evolution, DNA and abiogenesis.

DNA changes every time a child is born. The child's DNA is different from the parents and that change can have consequences on the appearance of the ...[text shortened]... s natural selection acting upon molecules and not organisms.

actually in a way you're both right and wrong because you have to make an assumption that DNA doesn't use the same bonding physics the it's contituent elements that made DNA in the first place.

the creationists propose a lot of stuff that is dead wrong based on their Laws of Physics which is of course "God did it" and that it hasn't been proven in a test test tube life originated from non-life. Scientists being constrained by the conventions of science won't call it a fact until they do , even thought they have no reason to think otherwise, waits for the eventual proof.
Now I, on the otherhand, seeing a great deal of factors in favor of abiogenesis , and not seeing factors against,, will consider it a fact until proven otherwise.

the following site is very imformative.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/orgel.html

Originally posted by frogstomp
actually in a way you're both right and wrong because you have to make an assumption that DNA doesn't use the same bonding physics the it's contituent elements that made DNA in the first place.

the creationists propose a lot of stuff that is dead wrong based on their Laws of Physics which is of course "God did it" and ...[text shortened]... owing site is very imformative.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/orgel.html

was half asleep when I wrote that.

Yesterday I was driving and I saw the numberplate "ARW357". Out of all the numberplates out there what are the chances I saw that one!

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Yesterday I was driving and I saw the numberplate "ARW357". Out of all the numberplates out there what are the chances I saw that one!

Posing a problem for his undergraduate class, Richard Feynman, the Nobel physicist, noted a car in the parking lot, with a particular license plate, ARW357. One can easily assess the probability of seeing this license plate by multiplying the independent probabilities of seeing each number (1/10) and each letter (1/26). The answer is one in eighteen million. Yet Feynman had just seen the license plate, so it had unity probability! Since Feynman asked the question when he already knew the answer, the statistical calculation was invalid. This point has been raised, less dramatically, by many others. See D.L Goodstein, "Richard P. Feynman, Teacher," Physics Today 70-75 (February 1989).
Just to clear that up a bit ...

Originally posted by LemonJello
that's ridiculous. the DNA we have today evolved into what it is. why do you think it's so complex?

that's ridiculous. the DNA we have today evolved into what it is. why do you think it's so complex?

You use the world "evolve" as if it is a fact. Do you have any proof whatsoever that anything can "evolve"?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]that's ridiculous. the DNA we have today evolved into what it is. why do you think it's so complex?

You use the world "evolve" as if it is a fact. Do you have any proof whatsoever that anything can "evolve"?[/b]

Thats one of your more silly posts. since it opens the door for him to ask what scientific proof do you have for the existence of god. which of course is none.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]that's ridiculous. the DNA we have today evolved into what it is. why do you think it's so complex?

You use the world "evolve" as if it is a fact. Do you have any proof whatsoever that anything can "evolve"?[/b]

You have time and again been shown talkorigins homepage. It has answers to almost all your ridiculous claims including this one. Please check with it before posting in here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

Originally posted by frogstomp
Thats one of your more silly posts. since it opens the door for him to ask what scientific proof do you have for the existence of god. which of course is none.

Same strategy. Change the subject. Are we discussing God or evolution?

Originally posted by nickybutt
You have time and again been shown talkorigins homepage. It has answers to almost all your ridiculous claims including this one. Please check with it before posting in here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

Please refer to the Trueorigin web page. It is a refutation of the talkorigins site.

See: www.trueorigin.org