A) Nylon is just a fancy patented recipe for plastic and plastic has been around as long oil has been oozing out of or onto the ground from animals or plants. B) DNA doesn't transmit inheritance information. Nobody knows what DNA does for sure or what the mechanism is for transmitting inheritance information.
14 comments
Sounds like someone is talking out their ass. It's amazing that people will hear something from someone else, or incorrectly reason something and then when given the opportunity will readily disgorge their information as if there is no way that they can be wrong about it. This is simply another example why basing knowledge on belief or faith is just a bad thing.
The truly sad thing is how many people will read that and then incorperate it into THIER knowledge base as fact.
a) Plastic needs to be combined with petrol, estrogen and a few other things before it.
b) DNA is a blueprint for the cells of an organism. Scientists don't know everything about genes, (the dominant/recessive genes stuff doesn't work out anymore) but if you ever observed cells multiplying under normal conditions, they pass on an exact copy of the DNA. I'll give you a few points for b), but I'll have to subtract an equal amount for the contradictions you've stated.
Thanks for playing, trueheretic, we have some neat parting gifts for you.
Actually.. Dominant and recessive are still valid, if not accurate. Some things like eye color will always be X, even if the gene also exists for Y. What differs in modern understanding is that at some point in early development the entire DNA chain is unwrapped and run through, with the RNA then triggering a refolding of more or less random sets of genes. If you have Chromosome 200 with gene sequence A and sequence B, then you have three possible situations:
1. One sequence is non-viable at all, so if picked the fetus never develops.
2. One sequence contains defective code, but the other doesn't, you have a 50-50 chance that the conditions that produced you will result in the right one being picked.
3. One sequence has an as yet unknown marker which makes it *always* the active gene.
Also, current estimates are that about 70% of all children form as twins, *based* on evidence of incompletely formed twins found in something like 7 or 8 out of every 9 births, or some such. My own guess is that 100% of all births start as twins, to double the chance that functional genes are expressed, but that in the other 1-2 out of every nine successful births, errors in the genes prevent the twin from ever reaching a sufficient number of cells to be noticable. And there are odd case where the living twin ends up encapsulating the unborn twin too, meaning that a very small cluster of twinned cells wouldn't even be obvious in such cases, since they would have been incorporated into the body of the living twin.
One of the most extreme cases of this sort of encapsulation was presented in an episode of CSI, where the vilian actually have his sperm being generated by the failed twin. Though in that case it may have been the incorporation of a non-identical twin, since the genes differed, not just their expression.
So, no. He got (B) complete wrong too. ;) Well, they don't know *how* the DNA gets unravelled, then re-folded, but likely this is something as simple as the purely chemical/mechanical process that causes symetry differences that determine which side of the body is the left and which is the right, as well as where the head will be, instead of the feet. I.e., the mechanism may be no more complex that something similar to what we use to unwrap the DNA for PCR testing, combined with a bit of RNA that recognizes the change and automatically started reading the sequences and refolding them. In any case, we know more that this twit claims and even I, a mere computer programming whose only biology consists of a lot of reading and *one* required basic biology/psychology course in college, can somehow come up with a theory that is plausible, while this idiot probably can't even figure out how to spell the word well enough to find it in a dictionary. lol
... WOW, Kagehi. I mean... wow. I'm surprised you took that much time to type that, and I'm glad you did. It was really informative.
And, yeah, that guy's an idiot. He doesn't seem to know anything about what he's talking about but just wants to be heard.
Kagehi: Very interesting stuff, makes a lot of sense when I read it over a bit more than once. There was a lot of material, after all.
And as for a) what was I on when I wrote that? Plastic is petrol mixed with estrogen and some other stuff before it becomes plastic.
Plastic is a word that covers many products, Plastic mean change. They don't occur in nature as they are highly specialized materials made up of many elements that have to be refined from many other materials.
Nylon has only existed since man developed it in 1935. Words represent things. While derived from petrochemicals both nylon and plastics are products nature never made or could make. you can have all the ingredients for an apple pie and still end up with a disgusting mess.
I guess this refers to the nylon eating bacteria and he's suggesting this bactria is just an oil eating bacteria. No. They tested this. It has specialized. evolved to eat only nylon, that's the key point. It can't metabolise rawer products anymore.
Since nylon has only existed since 1935 the nylon eating bacteria has only existed recently and i believe only at that long producing nylon plants remnant dump.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.