Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 283 of 851 (555088)
04-12-2010 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Percy
04-11-2010 11:12 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
Hi Faith!
Rest assured that everyone understands what you're proposing.
RAZD for one has shown that he hasn't a clue.
It isn't complicated. Your scenario is not impossible, it could really happen, but it is an unlikely scenario among many with much higher probability, most of which include mutations, including beneficial ones.
Even with mutations, the selecting-reducing-isolating processes will still lead in the direction of genetic depletion as speciation is approached.
That's why everyone has been trying to help you understand the reality of beneficial mutations. See, for example, my so far unremarked upon Message 258.
You can't help me "understand a reality" that you can't demonstrate IN reality but only assume based on some highly questionable oddball examples.
Finding beneficial mutations in higher organisms is extremely difficult. The larger the impact of a mutation the less likely it is to be beneficial, because the likelihood of a positive effect goes down the more widespread the changes. Beneficial mutations usually have a very tiny, indetectable impact, indetectable because higher organisms are the result of complex interactions between many different cell types. Finding beneficial mutations in humans shortly after they happen is especially difficult because not only are we complex, we have long generation times (coincidentally, just as long as the experimenters ) and experimentation on humans is frowned upon.
Right, so you can get away with not having to prove any of it, simply declare it a FACT based only on your assumption-- that is really fraudulent! Evolution NEEDS mutations -- you can't just declare they are there with no evidence.
Consider the elite athlete. For all we know some elite athletes may owe their abilities to beneficial mutations, but the kind of experimentation that might uncover such possibilities can't be done on people. But it has been done on other animals. For example, the whippet was found to have experienced a mutation that increased muscle mass and therefore speed (e.g., Why athletes should look to the whippet).
Found how? By assumption simply because the whippet turned out to have the genetic stuff for increased speed? Yes, I'll go read your references after I write this.
Many genetic studies use bacteria because of their very short generation times, as short as 20 minutes in some cases. BlueJay provided a couple examples of beneficial mutations in E. coli in the other thread:
Novel quinolone resistance mutations of the Escherichia coli DNA gyrase A protein: enzymatic analysis of the mutant proteins
gyrA and gyrB mutations in quinolone-resistant strains of Escherichia coli
Yes, but for reasons I've given I'm not accepting anything about bacteria. They are too different in ways I've specified from the rest of creation.
The eventual product of DNA is proteins. A random genetic change can affect the resulting protein. In multicellular organisms that protein is released by the cell and travels throughout the rest of the body where it may or may not have a modified effect. Any modified effect could be deleterious or beneficial. It can be deleterious because at worst the protein's ability to function could be destroyed. And it could be beneficial because proteins are unlikely to be optimal, plus changing environmental conditions can turn previously satisfactory proteins into underperformers.
A lot of speculative assumptive stuff going on in all these things.
If evolution depends on such an iffy process as mutation, that alone ought to doom evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Percy, posted 04-11-2010 11:12 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Percy, posted 04-12-2010 9:47 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 285 of 851 (555090)
04-12-2010 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by DevilsAdvocate
04-12-2010 7:50 AM


What is a normal allelle?
One that produces a normal trait, not a disease and not a dead gene.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-12-2010 7:50 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2010 7:58 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 293 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-12-2010 8:12 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 289 of 851 (555094)
04-12-2010 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Percy
04-11-2010 6:31 AM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
This is the post you said hadn't been addressed.
No mutations that make real alleles. Wherever there is a real allele it's been there from the beginning. Mutations only make disease and junk, that's my conclusion.
Imagine a very simple gene whose alleles are all just a single codon. One of those alleles is TAG. This allele experiences a mutation during reproduction and becomes TCG in the offspring. It turns out to be mildly deleterious. The offspring survives and reproduces but does not thrive, meaning it contributes fewer offspring to the next generation than is average for its species.
A few generations later one of its descendants experiences a mutation in the same allele in the same gene and the TCG allele by chance becomes once again TAG. If the previous mutational change from TAG to TCG was mildly deleterious, this reverse mutational change from TCG back to TAG has to be mildly beneficial.
So now that you see that beneficial mutations *can* happen, let's take it a step further. Assume this gene has never had the TAG allele. It's had the TCG allele and some others, but never the TAG allele. There's nothing to prevent a mutation in the TCG allele from transforming it into the TAG allele, which is a beneficial mutation.
You see, Faith, beneficial mutations are possible.
Based on a totally fantasy scenario you want me to accept that mutations are possible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Percy, posted 04-11-2010 6:31 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2010 8:28 AM Faith has replied
 Message 309 by Percy, posted 04-12-2010 9:36 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 290 of 851 (555095)
04-12-2010 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Wounded King
04-12-2010 7:58 AM


And vice versa, no one has ever said that deleterious mutations don't outnumber beneficial mutations, you are the one consistently claiming that beneficial mutations don't even really exist.
They aren't exactly "beneficial" when you take a look at them, they're just odd genetic events, but in any case evolution needs thousands upon thousands if its claim that all the alleles that now function normally in producing traits derived from mutations and that this process is continuing. There is no evidence for this WHATEVER.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Wounded King, posted 04-12-2010 7:58 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Wounded King, posted 04-12-2010 8:28 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 292 of 851 (555098)
04-12-2010 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Wounded King
04-12-2010 8:04 AM


You need to bear in mind that you could easily have a beneficial mutation, or a neutral one given the redundancy in many gene networks, which is the result of a 'dead' gene, i.e. a mutation which obliterates a transcriptional start site or radically truncates the transcript so the protein product no longer functions.
Yeah, "beneficial" by the back door as it were, nothing like the kinds of alleles that already exist in all species that produce all the variations. You're describing what is essentially a disease process and assuming it's something normal. That's what I encountered in Bluejay's descriptions also. Just shows to me that evolution is in the business of making up loads of BS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Wounded King, posted 04-12-2010 8:04 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2010 8:34 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 294 of 851 (555102)
04-12-2010 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by DevilsAdvocate
04-12-2010 8:12 AM


What is a 'normal' trait?
You are using subjective anthropomorphic terms i.e. "normal" to describe biological functions. What standard are using this "normal"/"abnormal" from? In other words, "normal" based on what?
Normal based on what we actually see in nature that is the product of genetic variation that couldn't possibly be the result of the kinds of mutations that are observed and described. The mutations are all destructive, all mistakes, all abnormal with respect to what has to be the normal function of the genetic system if living things could ever existed at all. And it's only because you don't have any other source of alleles to keep evolution running that you try to make so much out of these deformed genetic events.
As far as disease. Most organisms have some type of reoccurring diseases (disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors). They just differ in severity.
.
And your point is? These are disease processes, and mutations produce thousands of diseases, yet it is claimed / assumed that somehow evolution chugs along on stuff that maims and sickens. Really, it's DESPITE the evidence that this is ALL mutations do that evolutionists nevertheless talk about all life having developed from this EVIDENTLY basically deforming process that only occasionally produces some kind of fluke that you all pounce on as if it proved your fantasy about how it fuels evolution.
So in other words, you would have to say the vast majority of organisms (except maybe those kept in very sterile conditions with very little disease agents or mutational factors) are abnormal because they are diseased.
Disease is an interference with normal. There's plenty of both in reality, but to any sane mind there is no problem telling the difference. But evolutionists try to blur the two and claim that a process -- mutations -- that is ONLY actually KNOWN to produce genetic deformities -- could actually produce normal healthy life. All based on assumption. The evidence is against such a claim in the thousands upon thousands.
and not a dead gene.
A dead gene is just an inactive or non-functioning gene. It may or may not be harmful to the organism. In many cases they are neutral and have no affect on the organism as is the case with most mutations in the genome. Dead gene does not equal dead organism.
A dead gene is evidence of a disease process in the organism.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-12-2010 8:12 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2010 8:30 AM Faith has replied
 Message 311 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-12-2010 10:40 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 299 of 851 (555108)
04-12-2010 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Dr Adequate
04-12-2010 8:28 AM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
BENEFICIAL for cripes' sake. Get the CONTEXT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2010 8:28 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Huntard, posted 04-12-2010 8:39 AM Faith has replied
 Message 305 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2010 8:41 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 300 of 851 (555109)
04-12-2010 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Dr Adequate
04-12-2010 8:30 AM


Oh it produces NOVEL stuff, sick novel stuff plus miles of dead DNA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2010 8:30 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2010 8:36 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 303 of 851 (555113)
04-12-2010 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Wounded King
04-12-2010 8:28 AM


They aren't exactly "beneficial" when you take a look at them, they're just odd genetic events
Well that is your repeated assertion, but since you repudiate the evolutionary concept of beneficial, a mutation which confers upon its posessor an increase in evolutionary fitness in terms of reproductive success,
The EVIDENCE for this is the occasional oddball fluke and otherwise nothing but treating as fact what is only assumed because you need it for evolution to work. This makes me madder than anything else, that you will talk about assumed mutations AS IF they were fact and confuse people who think you've actually SEEN them.
and refuse to provide your own definition of beneficial ,beyond that you will know it when you see it, there isn't really any way to determine whether this is true or not.
Sorry, but it's just as good as YOUR methods of making your case.
It certainly isn't true going by the scientific definition,
And "science" in the case of evolution is turning out to be nothing but reified hypotheses, not science at all.
but going by the 'Faith' 'definition' it will probably always be true since you are the only arbiter of what constitutes a beneficial mutation in that respect and you wont let the rest of us know what your criteria are.
Sorry, I do expect to find something in human beings that recognizes the differences between truth and BS, fact and fiction, but evolutionists have apparently lost the function.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Wounded King, posted 04-12-2010 8:28 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2010 8:46 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 308 by Wounded King, posted 04-12-2010 9:13 AM Faith has replied
 Message 321 by Taq, posted 04-12-2010 2:47 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 307 of 851 (555123)
04-12-2010 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by Huntard
04-12-2010 8:39 AM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
So, what you are saying is that in Percy's example, the TCG to TAG could happen, yet the TAG to TCG couldn't?
No, it doesn't matter to me, flukes happen, so what.
Mutations are clearly a disease process, that's the conclusion I've come to beyond any doubt in the last few days, whatever result they produce. They're a mistake in the DNA duplicating process. Evolutionists try to make the entire machinery for evolution out of this mistake. "Well, we have no other source of alleles." You don't say. How about CREATION? Anyway, you see all these mistakes being made and you leap to the conclusion that this is what produced all those alleles in all those species. Leap, assumption, no evidence. Nope, it's a mistake, it's a disease process. It takes something functional and turns it into garbage, either a protein that makes a genetic disease, or a big fat nothing that simply displaces a formerly functioning allele. Mutation is a huge delusion used to prop up evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Huntard, posted 04-12-2010 8:39 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-12-2010 11:35 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 316 of 851 (555151)
04-12-2010 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Wounded King
04-12-2010 9:13 AM


There is an inference that existing genetic variation is the result of historical unobserved mutational events, but it is an inference consistent with what we see occurring every day throughout the natural world in terms of mutations creating genetic variation.
This is the point. You "SEE" no such thing. This is completely inferred from your theory, and YET you talk about it as if it were fact. This is DECEIT!
What is actually SEEN is better explained on the basis of pre-existing alleles. You have NO evidence that a normal allele was ever created by mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Wounded King, posted 04-12-2010 9:13 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-12-2010 3:13 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 317 of 851 (555154)
04-12-2010 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by DevilsAdvocate
04-12-2010 11:35 AM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
A mistake implies a deviation (usually unintentional) from its originally designed process.
... How do you know what this 'originally designed process/gentic code' is supposed to look like?
Perfect DNA replication, obviously. This can be judged without reference to the Creator. Even evolutionists call mutations "mistakes" in this process.
But despite evidence galore that these mistakes have produced thousands of genetic diseases in human beings as well as apparently only incoherent effects otherwise --that only destroy a previously functioning allele -- you all PRONOUNCE them the means of making functioning alleles (functioning meaning producing something coherent that isn't harmful) and then you call it FACT and talk as if every variation is the result of mutations -- you actually DESCRIBE variations as mutations -- and again, this is DECEIT.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-12-2010 11:35 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Taq, posted 04-12-2010 2:49 PM Faith has replied
 Message 331 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-12-2010 3:26 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 332 by Admin, posted 04-12-2010 3:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 318 of 851 (555163)
04-12-2010 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by ZenMonkey
04-12-2010 11:05 AM


Re: Dominant and recessive and so forth.
OK by me to discuss it with you on the other thread. Please don't spend time on mutations though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-12-2010 11:05 AM ZenMonkey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by Admin, posted 04-12-2010 2:43 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 323 of 851 (555173)
04-12-2010 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by Admin
04-12-2010 2:43 PM


changing debaters
OK. Zen Monkey will have to begin over there, from where he left off here.
If beneficial mutations truly don't exist then you should have little difficulty demonstrating this during the discussion.
How can one be expected to demonstrate the nonexistence of something for starters? As well as something that exists only in the minds of evolutionists that they adamantly and automatically insist is real? What a task!
The simple fact that alleles exist already AND that you only have bacteria and a few fluke type events along with thousands of genetic diseases and otherwise a lot of coding gobbledygook is plenty of evidence, and about all that is practically possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Admin, posted 04-12-2010 2:43 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by hotjer, posted 04-12-2010 3:07 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 324 of 851 (555177)
04-12-2010 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Taq
04-12-2010 2:47 PM


There is nothing assumed about the differences between humans and chimps. The DNA differences are a fact.
What I'm saying is ASSUMED is that mutations are the source of (all normal) alleles.
Those differences add up to 2% for homologous sequences and 5% if you consider insertions and deletions. If memory serves there are about 60 million differences at the nucleotide level. So are you really telling us that humans are suffering from 60 million genetic diseases?
Excuse me? I'm talking about the KNOWN number of genetic diseases in human beings that you can find listed in various places on the internet.
Are you really expecting us to believe that none of those differences are beneficial to humans? It doesn't matter how those differences go there for your argument, by random mutation or by design. The fact still stands that changes in DNA are beneficial and do not necessarily cause disease.
Not a fact, an assumption.
Or perhaps you can tell us which differences between humans and chimps could not have been produced by random mutation. How does one determine this?
If it causes disease or simply nullifies an existing allele it's a mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Taq, posted 04-12-2010 2:47 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2010 11:42 PM Faith 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