|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Favorable Mutations? Help me!! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4856 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
The pertinent question to ask is, what evidence exists where the mutated type is more viable than the parent type in a normal environment?
Does the nylon example qualify? A quick read of the link and you will see it doesn’t. A huge cost is incurred in efficiency, and thus in a normal environment the mutated strain could not last long (AiG also argues plasmid xfer, but the enzyme effeciency loss alone in the article cited by zephyr is sufficient to dismiss mr. nylon as a hero of the evolutionary faith). Does sickle-cell qualify? Of course not. I really can’t believe the number of evolutionists who use a DISEASE as evidence of evolution!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4856 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: I need not go further than Robert Williams' first citation (why bother with the rest when the first one out of the gate is specious). Robert's source claims: By the end of the experiment, the lines cultured at 32 C were shown to be 10% fitter that the ancestor population (at 32 C), and the line cultured at 42 C was shown to be 20% more fit than the ancestor population. This is in reference to this article: Bennett, A.F., Lenski, R.E., & Mittler, J.E. (1992). Evolutionary adaptation to temperature I. Fitness responses of Escherichia coli to changes in its thermal environment. Evolution, 46:16-30. Let’s check what the article actually states: Within Abstract: In the novel environments, the 42 group generally produced yields higher than the 37 group (and marginally higher than the ancestor), but we found no differences in competitive fitness among the 37 and 42 groups and the ancestor. Within conclusion (emphasis mine): It appears that, whereas biovolume yield provides a measure of the efficiency Uh, where in this study is compelling evidence that the mutated type is more viable than the wild type in a normal environment? Missing in action again. Yet evolution demands a virtually countless number of these mutations if we truly share a common ancestor with a banana!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4856 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: Yes, I know, you have a very strong faith. If evolution were true, you should be able to document for me a myriad of examples where a mutated enzyme undergoes additional mutation to increase its efficiency. What do you have to offer?
quote: Hmm, I don’t recall reading in any of the creation science literature of this. Can you provide an example? Methinks a retraction is in order
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4856 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
This is a very interesting post Itzpapalotl.
Here's the problem:
quote: Itzpapalotl, do you agree that the data could also cause the above to be worded this way:
quote: This is not te only problem with your argument, but it's a good place to start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4856 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: Virtually all random mutations would be harmful in a creationist model. How harmful is the question. Even Futuyma in his graph admits that most random mutations are probably at least slightly harmful: (Evolutionary Biology, Futuyma, 1998)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4856 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
Itzpapalotl, none of your citations provided even a hint that the mutatated type is more viable than the wild type in a normal envirnonment. For example:
quote: Just becuase one copy is resistant to change compared to the other does not demonstrate that the net effect is positive for the organism in the parent population in a normal environment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4856 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: But that isn’t what I asked. I agree that mutations can have a positive effect on populations in stress environments. This is very well established. What I am asking for is evidence for positive selection where the mutated type is more viable than the parent type in a normal environment. I’ve only seen a handful of examples, and none of them were provocative. The problem is that there should be scores of examples, millions, if evolution is true. We don’t have the evidence; we get essentially a big goose egg. Conclusion? Molecules-to-man evolution has been falsified, or is unfalsifiable, take your pick!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4856 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: ROTFL! Need I say more? Evolution at its finest, folks! Let’s take a poll. How many here wish they would evolve the hemoglobin C type? Come on, don’t be shy! OK, I’ll make this a little easier. Who here will say with a straight face that if given the choice, they would choose to have either Hemoglobin C or sickle-cell if forced to live the rest of your lives in West Africa?
quote: NO! Did anyone see Caddyshack? Was the swimming pool with the Baby Ruth in it a normal environment? (pretend the Baby Ruth was the real thing).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024