Institute for Creation Research - No really, it's a thing.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Microtectonics maybe, but not macrotectonics... surely?

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Microtectonics maybe, but not macrotectonics... surely?

You mean the theory that all the continents were joined together at one point and such?
Honestly, I'm not interested in it enough to have an informed opinion. Off the top of my head, I'd say we probably stand a good chance at figuring out major details, but I would have reservations about our ability to make accurate predictions about the more fine details. However, it's not a field I've looked into practically at all, so it is wisest to keep my mouth shut about it for now.

Understand, it's not that I think our science or scientists sucks or anything. It's just that I think we are less likely to make mistakes with a theory that's been established for some time and been observed for a long time. Make sense?

a reply to: StalkerSolent

What do you mean? We can observe plate tectonics in action.

We can observe evolution in action as well.
www.darwinawards.com...


We can observe small changes in genetics as well as small changes in the location of continents. Guess what small changes add up to?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: StalkerSolent

We can observe evolution in action as well.
www.darwinawards.com...

Ha, ha.
Yup, I've been talking about evolution in acting earlier on the thread.

We can observe small changes in genetics as well as small changes in the location of continents. Guess what small changes add up to?

Haven't been denying that now, have I? Genetics is different than continental drift, though, because cells actively try to correct for mutations. Not that it's entirely successful of course...

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Genetics is different than continental drift, though

No crap.

because cells actively try to correct for mutations.

No they don't. You seem to have cellular biology confused with genetics.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: StalkerSolent

No crap.

Genius, aren't I?

No they don't. You seem to have cellular biology confused with genetics.

That's possible. Where precisely am I wrong? In that cells deal with harmful mutations? Or in that the harmful mutations cells deal with are linked with genetics?

a reply to: StalkerSolent

I was quite clear I think, in saying where you were wrong. And where you were correct.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: StalkerSolent

I was quite clear I think, in saying where you were wrong.

In that cells correct for DNA mutations? Because they do.

a reply to: StalkerSolent
Your source:

In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and, thus, a mutation cannot be repaired.

en.wikipedia.org...

A reminder:

because cells actively try to correct for mutations.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: StalkerSolent
Your source:

In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and, thus, a mutation cannot be repaired.

en.wikipedia.org...

A reminder:

because cells actively try to correct for mutations.

Touché.

It looks to me like they do try to correct *preemptively,* though, by repairing damages that lead to mutations. Thanks for the correction

a reply to: StalkerSolent

It looks to me like they do try to correct *preemptively,* though, by repairing damages that lead to mutations.

Nice try. But no.
You were, in essence, denying mutation's role in evolution.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: StalkerSolent

It looks to me like they do try to correct *preemptively,* though, by repairing damages that lead to mutations.

Nice try. But no.

Am I mistaken in my understanding that they attempt to repair damages that would otherwise lead to mutations?

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Your bold (and erroneous) claim is irrelevant. Mutation occurs and so does evolution.

It's a bit more than touché. You can't see a continent move but you acknowledge plate tectonics.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Your erroneous claim is irrelevant. Mutation occurs and so does evolution.

I'm not denying that. I've already referred to known instances of speciation elsewhere on the thread. You know this. My erroneous claims are relevant to *me,* because I don't want to repeat them.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

My erroneous claims are relevant to *me,* because I don't want to repeat them.

You can't see a continent move but you acknowledge plate tectonics.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: StalkerSolent

My erroneous claims are relevant to *me,* because I don't want to repeat them.

You can't see a continent move but you acknowledge plate tectonics.

Really? I was pretty sure we'd actually measured current rates of continental drift.
Regardless, it's a field that I'm even more ignorant of than cellular biology. My interest in plate tectonics is limited primarily to avoiding faultlines, which is something we *have* measured. :-/

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Regardless, it's a field that I'm even more ignorant of than cellular biology. M

So, you're talking out your butt.
I got that.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Regardless, it's a field that I'm even more ignorant of than cellular biology. M

So, you're talking out your butt.
Got it.

I made that clear from the beginning

a reply to: StalkerSolent
Trolling then.
Bitchin.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: StalkerSolent
Trolling then.
Bitchin.

Speak for yourself