Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Favorable Mutations? Help me!!
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 13 of 56 (54588)
09-09-2003 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by JustLearning
09-06-2003 4:20 PM


Nylon is just pantyhose
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!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by JustLearning, posted 09-06-2003 4:20 PM JustLearning has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Coragyps, posted 09-09-2003 3:44 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 16 by John, posted 09-09-2003 9:45 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 17 by MarkAustin, posted 09-10-2003 4:42 AM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 41 by Joralex, posted 09-26-2003 6:52 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 55 by Theus, posted 11-22-2004 11:42 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 14 of 56 (54589)
09-09-2003 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by JustLearning
09-06-2003 4:23 PM


More
quote:
Also, that link had a link at the bottom of the page with information on "pos mutations"
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
of growth and as such can be regarded as a fitness component,
it is clearly not equivalent to Darwinian fitness when genotypes
compete with one another for resources. Indeed, in a
mass-action environment, there is no direct selection on
growth efficiency, only on growth rate (Vasi et al. 1994).
However, it is possible that increased biovolume yield might
be advantageous under conditions other than those measured
here. For example, given opportunities to colonize stressful
but uninhabited environments, populations with greater total
biovolume may be better able to establish new populations.
Alternatively, greater biovolume may make populations better
able to survive more extreme environmental challenges
than those used in our experiments. However, these possibilities
are merely speculative.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by JustLearning, posted 09-06-2003 4:23 PM JustLearning has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 18 of 56 (55115)
09-12-2003 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by MarkAustin
09-10-2003 4:42 AM


Re: Nylon is just pantyhose
quote:
In any case, now that the enzyme exists, I confidently expect that evolutin will fine-tune it for increasing efficiency.
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:
It's also interesting to note that the mutation in question is a frame-shift mutation, adding (as I recall) 1 base to the sequence and thus scambling all the subsequent 3-base "words", a mutation type that creationsists have long claimed to be impossible.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by MarkAustin, posted 09-10-2003 4:42 AM MarkAustin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Rei, posted 09-12-2003 6:57 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 26 by MarkAustin, posted 09-13-2003 4:42 PM Fred Williams has replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 20 of 56 (55135)
09-12-2003 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Itzpapalotl
09-12-2003 3:44 PM


This is a very interesting post Itzpapalotl.
Here's the problem:
quote:
"If a substantial fraction of nonsynonymous mutations are beneficial, however, the average rate of nonsynonymous evolution can be higher than the neutral rate."
Itzpapalotl, do you agree that the data could also cause the above to be worded this way:
quote:
"If a substantial fraction of nonsynonymous mutations are non-random, however, the average rate of nonsynonymous evolution can be higher than the neutral rate."
This is not te only problem with your argument, but it's a good place to start.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Itzpapalotl, posted 09-12-2003 3:44 PM Itzpapalotl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Rei, posted 09-12-2003 6:45 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 30 of 56 (57502)
09-24-2003 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by MarkAustin
09-13-2003 4:42 PM


Most mutations are harmful
quote:
Indeed many creationsist sites claim that virtually all mutations are harmful.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by MarkAustin, posted 09-13-2003 4:42 PM MarkAustin has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 31 of 56 (57503)
09-24-2003 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Itzpapalotl
09-22-2003 3:41 PM


A big goose egg
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:
"Such different evolutionary patterns may be largely due to different functional constraints on the two copies."
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Itzpapalotl, posted 09-22-2003 3:41 PM Itzpapalotl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Itzpapalotl, posted 09-24-2003 4:54 PM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 33 by Coragyps, posted 09-24-2003 5:34 PM Fred Williams has replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 34 of 56 (57550)
09-24-2003 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Itzpapalotl
09-24-2003 4:54 PM


Re: A big goose egg
quote:
Actually evidence of positive selection does prove the mutated type is more viable than the ancestoral genotype in the environment that it is currently in.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Itzpapalotl, posted 09-24-2003 4:54 PM Itzpapalotl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Mammuthus, posted 09-25-2003 4:52 AM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 40 by sfs, posted 09-26-2003 4:56 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 35 of 56 (57554)
09-24-2003 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Coragyps
09-24-2003 5:34 PM


Re: A big goose egg
quote:
Most people with hemoglobin C never know it - some have mild anemia, gallstones, or spleen problems.
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:
Is West Africa, with its high incidence of malaria, a "normal environment?"
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Coragyps, posted 09-24-2003 5:34 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Loudmouth, posted 09-24-2003 8:35 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 37 by Rei, posted 09-24-2003 9:10 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 39 by Coragyps, posted 09-25-2003 1:04 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 43 by Coragyps, posted 09-29-2003 8:19 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024