Some of the things people don't / won't tell you are...
1. Miller had to rescue his newly formed amino acids after each electric shock.. As the next electric shock would fry them
2. There was only about 3% of the resulting "muck", was amino acids.. The rest was tar and other compounds toxic to LIFE...
3. (I am going on memory for this, please forgive me), Miller used ammonium gas as that is what is assumed to be in the atmosphere in "pre-life times" there was an absense of OXYGEN... However this ammonium gas breaks down under UV light..... Yet there was no ozone to stop UV light.... But if there were Ozone / oxygen then the amino acids would oxidise....
It fails if there is oxygen, and it fails if there isn't oxygen
I have heard a number of creationists talking about the toxic created in that experiment, and it makes no sense. In the context of Millers amino acids, they are not toxic. They're actually necessary building blocks for biochemical compounds.
May I also bring up the Murchison meteorite. Over 100 amino acids were found on it, which were able to survive outer space. In comparison, the Earth ain't so difficult.
By the way Miller "rescuing" the amino acids was a simulation of the oceans. In early Earth, the atmosphere was pretty crazy.
It is possible life originated in geothermal vents - that would stop the UV. Although someone else will have to clarify that further, I'm no expert on Abiogenesis.
Out of all of these only number 5 is used in my Biology textbook for Uni... (Yet it is the 1 I have the most problems with as it is not benefitial to have a sickle cell anemia which will kill you anyway)
First of all people with sickle cell can receive medical treatment. Secondly, if the individual receives it from only one parent and is heterozygous, they experience a milder condition and can leave completely normal lives if they avoid extreme exertion. Thirdly, people that have sickle cell disease occurs most commonly in people where (or descendents were) malaria is most common. There is a survival value in carrying only a single sickle-cell gene (sickle cell trait). As I already said, it decreases chances of getting malaria.
1- Antibiotic resistance is change yes... However it is microevolution, at the end of the day, bacteria is still bacteria, it hasn't changed. Also we cannot be 100% sure that these changes are due to random mutations, (not ALL change is evolution, stop thinking this way), as bacteria are able to swap and share genes via plasmids.. As such a bacteria may have already had the genetic information for the resistance and just spread it to its mates. Also due to this clasifying a bacteria species is nigh on impossible as they readily change their DNA from these plasmids... Perhaps utilising the Bible, in regards to placing bacteria as a single kind would be prudent
So you're saying all bacteria have every possible form of antibiotic etc, stashed away somewhere to fight it? The vast majority of the bacteria die and usually only one or two are the ones that have the resistance - they then proliferate until the entire population is now resistant.
2- This is a format of natural selection, but how does resistance to a type of chemical, equate to becoming a new species?
I never said it was becoming a new species. I said it was a beneficial mutation. Some insects are now resistant to certain pesticides due to mutations.
3- I do not know that much about HIV immunity, perhaps you can show how it proves evolution thanks
I was talking about random mutations first of all, not evolution. There is a genetic mutation that prevents the HIV virus from entering a cell.
4- Lactose intolerance is not beneficial, yes it is change. However people who are lactose intolerant are NOT "evolving". Otherwise we'd say people who are born with extra legs / arms are evolving or how about Downs Syndrome or all the other genetic DISORDERS out there.
I never said they were evolving. I was talking about mutations. Lactose intolerance makes it easy to wean the young.
5- As mentioned before genetic disorders are NOT benefitical. Your example would be neutral at best. Though in comparison to a healthy person, your example is detrimental.
Not all genetic disorders are beneficial, obviously. My example was beneficial if it was heterozygous - which is more likely. There was a slight disadvantage, but nothings perfect. An increased resistance to malaria in tropical or sub-tropical regions is beneficial.
My question is how did these functions "evolve" over millions of years via benefitial mutations.
Just like in bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics. Once a random mutation occurs that offers a slight advantage, it spreads throughout the population. The population then has that gene - and the process occurs again. Anyway, that's a different discussion and I suggest we don't overload this thread.
For example- Our stomach digests the food we eat, after this the mushed food is sent to the small intestine, however not before telling the pancreas to produce NaOH to counter the acids from the stomach that are being passed down with the food... Also the pancreas adds other digestive fluids into
Also the glucose and minerals that are extracted from the food are sent to the Liver... Why?... Because the liver allows for a gradual intake of these molecules into the blood. As my lectuer said, if we dumped all the glucose into the blood at once it would cause MAJOR problems with our body. Since our brain is built to keep everything regular a gradual intake is necessary...
So which of these "evolved" first??
Irreducible complexity can evolve.
Hope you don't mind me linking.