Anti-Creationists......time to speak your clout

[bambu]

No Ad hominem, you are just a clown.....

Again....

Sure, "race" does not exist.......

Meanwhile, on planet Earth......

"Scientists, for instance, have recently identified small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans, the tendency of Asians to sweat less and West Africans’ resistance to certain diseases."

http://gifsoup.com/

 

[bambu]

Also from the article that I posted.....

“There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries,” said Marcus W. Feldman, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. “It’s not there yet for things like I.Q., but I can see it coming. And it has the potential to spark a new era of racism if we do not start explaining it better.”

"Though few of the bits of human genetic code that vary between individuals have yet to be tied to physical or behavioral traits, scientists have found that roughly 10 percent of them are more common in certain continental groups and can be used to distinguish people of different races. They say that studying the differences, which arose during the tens of thousands of years that human populations evolved on separate continents after their ancestors dispersed from humanity’s birthplace in East Africa, is crucial to mapping the genetic basis for disease."

 

[whar]

DNA can hold alot of information but it is not magical. They are working on storing photons of light trapped in crystals. This would store information several orders of magnitude greater than DNA. It the article you cite they are storing 5.2 megs on a DNA chip but they do not state the size of this storage however I have 100x more storage that on my phone. I would imagine if you compared the current size of storing a single byte on a hard drive with the size of a DNA molecule you would find them comparable for storage density. Perhaps now that we have new subject to beat to death you will find new pictures to make your arguments for you.

 

[bambu]

@Whar....

LOL....

I don't need pics to crush your ignorant argument....

1) Each cell has 2 meters of DNA

2) Average person has 75 trillion cells.

3) Length of DNA in a person=150 x 10 to the 12th power in meters or 46,500,000,000 miles.

4) Distance from earth to sun= 150 x 10 to the 9th power in meters or 93,000,000 miles.

Some answers:

1) If you were to stretch out the DNA in one cell in a straight line it would be 2 meters long.

2) From head to toe, a person has 75 trillion cells. Blood cells, bone cells, brain cells etc... Everything in your body is made up of living cells!

3) If you took all the DNA that's in your body and stretched it out. You could go the the sun from earth and back again, 500 times!

4) Distance to the sun 93,000,000 miles. 93,000,000m x 500 = 46,500,000,000 miles is how long your DNA is in your whole body!

How much information can DNA hold?

The DNA molecule found in the nucleus of all cells can hold more information in a cubic centimeter than a trillion music Cd's.

Now since you have read all this. How big is 2%?

2% of 75 trillion cells

2% of 46,500,000,000 miles of DNA

2% of a trillion music Cd's( each CD holds 700 megs of data).If "one" music cd can hold 700 megs, 2% of that would be 14 megs(the 2% of one cd). So 14 megs times 1 trillion = 14 trillion megs! This is how much information 1 DNA molecule holds at the 2% level. And since there are 75 trillion cells, average, in the human body to get the total DNA information, it would be 14 trillion(information on one DNA molecule) times 75 trillion molecules(average DNA molecules in a human body). So 14 trillion times 75 trillion = 1050 trillion megs of DNA information through out your whole body. 2% of that is 21 trillion megs. Get the picture?

The 2% that science speaks of is so big that science has very well hidden it. It is most definitely large enough to differentiate the "races."

It's only natural, actual facts are thrown at you, the impact will blow trees back and crack statues.....

http://gifsoup.com/

 

[LUClEN]

No Ad hominem, you are just a clown.....

Again....

Sure, "race" does not exist.......

Meanwhile, on planet Earth......

"Scientists, for instance, have recently identified small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans, the tendency of Asians to sweat less and West Africans’ resistance to certain diseases."

http://gifsoup.com/

more ad hominem

You keep posting the same things yet they fail to prove your stance. If race exists as you say then why are you not posting more sources to confirm that idea? If it is so clear cut and obvious then it should be very easy to do.

 

[bambu]

No Ad hominem, you are just a clown.....

Again....

Sure, "race" does not exist.......

Meanwhile, on planet Earth......

"Scientists, for instance, have recently identified small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans, the tendency of Asians to sweat less and West Africans’ resistance to certain diseases."

http://gifsoup.com/

more ad hominem

You keep posting the same things yet they fail to prove your stance. If race exists as you say then why are you not posting more sources to confirm that idea? If it is so clear cut and obvious then it should be very easy to do.

Perhaps.....

However, this is new research and not popular amongst you newfangled egalitarian evolutionary niggas...

"When scientists first decoded the human genome in 2000, they were quick to portray it as proof of humankind’s remarkable similarity. The DNA of any two people, they emphasized, is at least 99 percent identical.

But new research is exploring the remaining fraction to explain differences between people of different continental origins.

Scientists, for instance, have recently identified small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans, the tendency of Asians to sweat less and West Africans’ resistance to certain diseases."

"I humiliate, separate the English from the Dutch"

 

[Gold_Certificate]

LOL........

I'm not going to argue semantics buddy......

"Natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

Exactly.

It is a mechanism of evolution, that is not the same as being the definition "evolution".



The quote you just posted and my above post seem to be an agreement.

So, as I also said in my above post, if that is what you're referring to as the definition for "evolution", it would be incorrect.

Is there an evolution theory without this "mechanism."????

Yes, random mutation; which is broader. Unlike most body cells which undergo "mitosis" to divide--creating an exact copy unless something goes wrong; when germ cells (also known as sex cells) divide, they undergo "meiosis"--producing haploid cells with a recombination of half of the original chromosomes.

For this reason, when fertilization occurs, the resulting zygote--which is a diploid cell resulting in the combination of a sperm and egg cell--is genetically unique from the two parents. The result of this can be beneficial (which may be labeled as natural selection if further passed on through sexual selection or survivability); however it can also detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring.

This change in genetic makeup over generations is a form of biological evolution, and it occurs every time organisms such as humans have children.

You do understand that natural selection encompasses elements that are "detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring"......

How you gonna try to argue the theory of evolution without its "key mechanism"???......

Natural selection is non-random; as is mentioned by the quote you posted here. Random genetic mutation can be passed on and spread throughout multiple generations, or it may only occur for one generation without being passed on at all; this is what makes it broader than "natural selection".

I'm arguing that a mechanism of evolution (natural selection in this case) is not the same as the definition of evolution.

 

[Gold_Certificate]

LOL........

I'm not going to argue semantics buddy......

"Natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

Exactly.

It is a mechanism of evolution, that is not the same as being the definition "evolution".



The quote you just posted and my above post seem to be an agreement.

So, as I also said in my above post, if that is what you're referring to as the definition for "evolution", it would be incorrect.

Is there an evolution theory without this "mechanism."????

Yes, random mutation; which is broader. Unlike most body cells which undergo "mitosis" to divide--creating an exact copy unless something goes wrong; when germ cells (also known as sex cells) divide, they undergo "meiosis"--producing haploid cells with a recombination of half of the original chromosomes.

For this reason, when fertilization occurs, the resulting zygote--which is a diploid cell resulting in the combination of a sperm and egg cell--is genetically unique from the two parents. The result of this can be beneficial (which may be labeled as natural selection if further passed on through sexual selection or survivability); however it can also detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring.

This change in genetic makeup over generations is a form of biological evolution, and it occurs every time organisms such as humans have children.

You do understand that natural selection encompasses elements that are "detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring"......

How you gonna try to argue the theory of evolution without its "key mechanism"???......

Natural selection is non-random; as is mentioned by the quote you posted here. Random genetic mutation can be passed on and spread throughout multiple generations, or it may only occur randomly for one generation in only one of the offspring without being passed on at all; this is what makes it broader than "natural selection"--which is gradual and accumulating.

I'm arguing that a mechanism of evolution (natural selection in this case) is not the same as the definition of evolution.

That's cool. However we were in the middle of a creationist(I.D.) v. evolution(anti-creation) debate.....

Again,

"Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population (see allele frequency). Over time, this process can result in populations that specialize for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms."

The attempts to remove natural selection from the process and theory of evolution are preposterous......

Exactly, "creationist v. evolution", not "creationist v. a mechanism of evolution" or "creationist v. natural selection".

This is why I asked whether the definition "evolution" was being referred to, since "natural selection" is not the definition of "evolution"; because evolution can occur without being natural selection.

 

[whar]

Bambu we can currently store a byte of information in about 96 atoms. We have new drives that will store that a byte in 12. A base pair of DNA (the phosphate backbone along with the two nucleotides) require about 25 atoms. Now a byte of storage is made up of 8 bits. This byte results in information which require all 8 bits. In the case of DNA the unit of information is a Codon which is made up of 3 base pairs. So it requires around 75 atoms. This is a limited language, to store a book they probably had to use one more base pairs to store a byte or about 100 atoms for each byte.

 

[LUClEN]

No Ad hominem, you are just a clown.....

Again....

Sure, "race" does not exist.......

Meanwhile, on planet Earth......

"Scientists, for instance, have recently identified small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans, the tendency of Asians to sweat less and West Africans’ resistance to certain diseases."

http://gifsoup.com/

more ad hominem

You keep posting the same things yet they fail to prove your stance. If race exists as you say then why are you not posting more sources to confirm that idea? If it is so clear cut and obvious then it should be very easy to do.

Perhaps.....

However, this is new research and not popular amongst you newfangled egalitarian evolutionary niggas...

"When scientists first decoded the human genome in 2000, they were quick to portray it as proof of humankind’s remarkable similarity. The DNA of any two people, they emphasized, is at least 99 percent identical.

But new research is exploring the remaining fraction to explain differences between people of different continental origins.

Scientists, for instance, have recently identified small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans, the tendency of Asians to sweat less and West Africans’ resistance to certain diseases."

"I humiliate, separate the English from the Dutch"

You cannot find other reference material that coincides with the idea that race exists other than one New York times piece? Something more conclusive than the identification of 3 traits?

 

[Gold_Certificate]

LOL........

I'm not going to argue semantics buddy......

"Natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

Exactly.

It is a mechanism of evolution, that is not the same as being the definition "evolution".



The quote you just posted and my above post seem to be an agreement.

So, as I also said in my above post, if that is what you're referring to as the definition for "evolution", it would be incorrect.

Is there an evolution theory without this "mechanism."????

Yes, random mutation; which is broader. Unlike most body cells which undergo "mitosis" to divide--creating an exact copy unless something goes wrong; when germ cells (also known as sex cells) divide, they undergo "meiosis"--producing haploid cells with a recombination of half of the original chromosomes.

For this reason, when fertilization occurs, the resulting zygote--which is a diploid cell resulting in the combination of a sperm and egg cell--is genetically unique from the two parents. The result of this can be beneficial (which may be labeled as natural selection if further passed on through sexual selection or survivability); however it can also detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring.

This change in genetic makeup over generations is a form of biological evolution, and it occurs every time organisms such as humans have children.

You do understand that natural selection encompasses elements that are "detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring"......

How you gonna try to argue the theory of evolution without its "key mechanism"???......

Natural selection is non-random; as is mentioned by the quote you posted here. Random genetic mutation can be passed on and spread throughout multiple generations, or it may only occur for one generation without being passed on at all; this is what makes it broader than "natural selection".

I'm arguing that a mechanism of evolution (natural selection in this case) is not the same as the definition of evolution.

LOL........

I'm not going to argue semantics buddy......

"Natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

Exactly.

It is a mechanism of evolution, that is not the same as being the definition "evolution".



The quote you just posted and my above post seem to be an agreement.

So, as I also said in my above post, if that is what you're referring to as the definition for "evolution", it would be incorrect.

Is there an evolution theory without this "mechanism."????

Yes, random mutation; which is broader. Unlike most body cells which undergo "mitosis" to divide--creating an exact copy unless something goes wrong; when germ cells (also known as sex cells) divide, they undergo "meiosis"--producing haploid cells with a recombination of half of the original chromosomes.

For this reason, when fertilization occurs, the resulting zygote--which is a diploid cell resulting in the combination of a sperm and egg cell--is genetically unique from the two parents. The result of this can be beneficial (which may be labeled as natural selection if further passed on through sexual selection or survivability); however it can also detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring.

This change in genetic makeup over generations is a form of biological evolution, and it occurs every time organisms such as humans have children.

You do understand that natural selection encompasses elements that are "detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring"......

How you gonna try to argue the theory of evolution without its "key mechanism"???......

Natural selection is non-random; as is mentioned by the quote you posted here. Random genetic mutation can be passed on and spread throughout multiple generations, or it may only occur randomly for one generation in only one of the offspring without being passed on at all; this is what makes it broader than "natural selection"--which is gradual and accumulating.

I'm arguing that a mechanism of evolution (natural selection in this case) is not the same as the definition of evolution.

That's cool. However we were in the middle of a creationist(I.D.) v. evolution(anti-creation) debate.....

Again,

"Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population (see allele frequency). Over time, this process can result in populations that specialize for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms."

The attempts to remove natural selection from the process and theory of evolution are preposterous......

Exactly, "creationist v. evolution", not "creationist v. a mechanism of evolution" or "creationist v. natural selection".

This is why I asked whether the definition "evolution" was being referred to, since "natural selection" is not the definition of "evolution"; because evolution can occur without being natural selection.

What the fuck is this shit?

I didn't repost these.

My laptop wasn't even on at 11:03AM.

 

[bambu]

LOL........

I'm not going to argue semantics buddy......

"Natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

Exactly.

It is a mechanism of evolution, that is not the same as being the definition "evolution".



The quote you just posted and my above post seem to be an agreement.

So, as I also said in my above post, if that is what you're referring to as the definition for "evolution", it would be incorrect.

Is there an evolution theory without this "mechanism."????

Yes, random mutation; which is broader. Unlike most body cells which undergo "mitosis" to divide--creating an exact copy unless something goes wrong; when germ cells (also known as sex cells) divide, they undergo "meiosis"--producing haploid cells with a recombination of half of the original chromosomes.

For this reason, when fertilization occurs, the resulting zygote--which is a diploid cell resulting in the combination of a sperm and egg cell--is genetically unique from the two parents. The result of this can be beneficial (which may be labeled as natural selection if further passed on through sexual selection or survivability); however it can also detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring.

This change in genetic makeup over generations is a form of biological evolution, and it occurs every time organisms such as humans have children.

You do understand that natural selection encompasses elements that are "detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring"......

How you gonna try to argue the theory of evolution without its "key mechanism"???......

Natural selection is non-random; as is mentioned by the quote you posted here. Random genetic mutation can be passed on and spread throughout multiple generations, or it may only occur randomly for one generation in only one of the offspring without being passed on at all; this is what makes it broader than "natural selection"--which is gradual and accumulating.

I'm arguing that a mechanism of evolution (natural selection in this case) is not the same as the definition of evolution.

That's cool. However we were in the middle of a creationist(I.D.) v. evolution(anti-creation) debate.....

Again,

"Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population (see allele frequency). Over time, this process can result in populations that specialize for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms."

The attempts to remove natural selection from the process and theory of evolution are preposterous......

Exactly, "creationist v. evolution", not "creationist v. a mechanism of evolution" or "creationist v. natural selection".

This is why I asked whether the definition "evolution" was being referred to, since "natural selection" is not the definition of "evolution"; because evolution can occur without being natural selection.

?????

We did this one before.......

Bambu we can currently store a byte of information in about 96 atoms. We have new drives that will store that a byte in 12. A base pair of DNA (the phosphate backbone along with the two nucleotides) require about 25 atoms. Now a byte of storage is made up of 8 bits. This byte results in information which require all 8 bits. In the case of DNA the unit of information is a Codon which is made up of 3 base pairs. So it requires around 75 atoms. This is a limited language, to store a book they probably had to use one more base pairs to store a byte or about 100 atoms for each byte.

LOL....

bytes????

What you know bout zetabytes ?????

Scientists at Harvard University have shown that a single DNA molecule can be written 643 KB of data, which means that one cubic millimeter of DNA can store 5.5 petabit, or about 70 billion books, and four grams of DNA may contain all the information created by mankind for the year, i.e. about 1.8 zettabyte (billion TB).

No Ad hominem, you are just a clown.....

Again....

Sure, "race" does not exist.......

Meanwhile, on planet Earth......

"Scientists, for instance, have recently identified small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans, the tendency of Asians to sweat less and West Africans’ resistance to certain diseases."

http://gifsoup.com/

more ad hominem

You keep posting the same things yet they fail to prove your stance. If race exists as you say then why are you not posting more sources to confirm that idea? If it is so clear cut and obvious then it should be very easy to do.

Perhaps.....

However, this is new research and not popular amongst you newfangled egalitarian evolutionary niggas...

"When scientists first decoded the human genome in 2000, they were quick to portray it as proof of humankind’s remarkable similarity. The DNA of any two people, they emphasized, is at least 99 percent identical.

But new research is exploring the remaining fraction to explain differences between people of different continental origins.

Scientists, for instance, have recently identified small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans, the tendency of Asians to sweat less and West Africans’ resistance to certain diseases."

"I humiliate, separate the English from the Dutch"

You cannot find other reference material that coincides with the idea that race exists other than one New York times piece? Something more conclusive than the identification of 3 traits?

Nigga you coming in here on page 20 trying to claim I only got the Times as a reference?????

I dont have time to spoonfeed you silly niggas.....

Start from the beginning.......

and then try to say that all I got is the Times.....

 

[Gold_Certificate]

LOL........

I'm not going to argue semantics buddy......

"Natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

Exactly.

It is a mechanism of evolution, that is not the same as being the definition "evolution".



The quote you just posted and my above post seem to be an agreement.

So, as I also said in my above post, if that is what you're referring to as the definition for "evolution", it would be incorrect.

Is there an evolution theory without this "mechanism."????

Yes, random mutation; which is broader. Unlike most body cells which undergo "mitosis" to divide--creating an exact copy unless something goes wrong; when germ cells (also known as sex cells) divide, they undergo "meiosis"--producing haploid cells with a recombination of half of the original chromosomes.

For this reason, when fertilization occurs, the resulting zygote--which is a diploid cell resulting in the combination of a sperm and egg cell--is genetically unique from the two parents. The result of this can be beneficial (which may be labeled as natural selection if further passed on through sexual selection or survivability); however it can also detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring.

This change in genetic makeup over generations is a form of biological evolution, and it occurs every time organisms such as humans have children.

You do understand that natural selection encompasses elements that are "detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring"......

How you gonna try to argue the theory of evolution without its "key mechanism"???......

Natural selection is non-random; as is mentioned by the quote you posted here. Random genetic mutation can be passed on and spread throughout multiple generations, or it may only occur randomly for one generation in only one of the offspring without being passed on at all; this is what makes it broader than "natural selection"--which is gradual and accumulating.

I'm arguing that a mechanism of evolution (natural selection in this case) is not the same as the definition of evolution.

That's cool. However we were in the middle of a creationist(I.D.) v. evolution(anti-creation) debate.....

Again,

"Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population (see allele frequency). Over time, this process can result in populations that specialize for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms."

The attempts to remove natural selection from the process and theory of evolution are preposterous......

Exactly, "creationist v. evolution", not "creationist v. a mechanism of evolution" or "creationist v. natural selection".

This is why I asked whether the definition "evolution" was being referred to, since "natural selection" is not the definition of "evolution"; because evolution can occur without being natural selection.

?????

We did this one before.......

Word, I didn't re-post those.

Shits a mystery.

 

[whar]

Bambu I am making atom to atom comparison. DNA is a great storage system since it does require so few atoms. Also it can store 4 data element in bit while magnetic storage is restricted to 2. This automatically improves DNA over binary storage. If DNA can store a bit in 25 atoms binary would have to store a bit on 12 or 13 atoms to compete. However we are researching storage systems that are comparable to DNA's storage density.

 

[bambu]

@Whar....

I understand that you are using atomic comparisons......

You should understand that it has no effect on my argument whatsoever.....

 

[bambu]

 

[whar]

The lamentations of your women was enjoyable.

 

[bambu]

Too bad your faggot ass missed it............

Stupid hairy-back son of a bitch.............

Turning your women into sluts is much more enjoyable....

 

[LUClEN]

Your argument fails even moreso with Whar's comparison to modern computer storage (so long as they are true). If correct it further illustrates the insignificance of 10%.

Bambu we can currently store a byte of information in about 96 atoms. We have new drives that will store that byte in 12.

Provided these numbers are correct, computer storage absolutely trounces DNA storage when compared.

Scientists at Harvard University have shown that a single DNA molecule can be written 643 KB of data, which means that one cubic millimeter of DNA can store 5.5 petabit, or about 70 billion books, and four grams of DNA may contain all the information created by mankind for the year, i.e. about 1.8 zettabyte (billion TB).

643 kb for per DNA molecule? let's do some math.

1 byte = 12 atoms in computers

643 kb = 1 molecule in DNA

1 molecule of DNA is estimated to have 204 billion atoms according to what I could scrounge up online..if this is true then we have this:

643 KB x 1024 (the number of bytes in a kb) = 658,432 bytes per 1 dna molecule.

Now if we divide to see how many atoms are needed for 1 byte we get the following:

204,000,000,000 / 658,432 = 309826.9828926905 atoms per byte

If this is all correct we then have computers that require 12 atoms to store one byte, and DNA that requires 309826.983 atoms to store one byte.

Just another way Whar has elucidated the insignificance of the figures you have provided.

 

[whar]

Not to defend Bambu but a nucleotide of DNA is made up of 5 -6 atom for a phosphate sugar backbone and another 6 -7 atoms for the nucleotide itself. This pairs with a similar phosphate sugar and nucleotide to store a bit. 4 or those should be enough to store a byte which is 8 bits. So I think DNA has a storage density around 100 atoms per byte. There may be ways to improve that as well.

The real power DNA brings is it is self structuring. That is instead of needing to be arrayed across a platter like a traditional hard drive DNA is 3 dimensional. While the per atom rate of storage is comparable the majority of the platter is not used to store data. The cutting edge storage that is being investigated generally relies on crystals that are read with a laser that can penetrate to different depths.

But even with that Bambu was making some 'other' point that I am not clear on. I suppose that DNA is too complex to evolve or something.