Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 121 of 752 (575769)
08-21-2010 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by dennis780
08-20-2010 11:13 PM


Note on mutation rates
Since fruit flies have rapid generations, genetic mutation passed from generation to generation can be observed in a much faster timeframe.
But the rate of mutation seems more closely linked to time elapsed than number of generations.
This is because a mutation in a germ-line cell such as an ovum or a cell in the testes can happen any time; it doesn't have to happen at the moment of conception.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by dennis780, posted 08-20-2010 11:13 PM dennis780 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 122 of 752 (575772)
08-21-2010 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by dennis780
08-20-2010 11:13 PM


This is micro evolution, which works on the principle of genetic loss over time.
Genetic loss of what? Natural selection may weed out some individuals and allow other individuals to breed, but the individuals who bred had the same amount of genetics as the individuals who didn't.
It's the content of the genes, not the amount of anything, that determines differential success throughout the populations.
MACRO evolution works on the opposite theory, that information over time is gained.
How do you propose to measure genetic "information"? How much information, for instance, is in the human genome?
Be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by dennis780, posted 08-20-2010 11:13 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by dennis780, posted 08-21-2010 5:22 PM crashfrog has replied

archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 752 (575787)
08-21-2010 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by SwampDonkey
06-20-2010 2:51 AM


why do you and other evolutinists believe in something that you cannot prove exists? cannot put in a test tube and study? cannot prove is actually responsible for the so-called changes in life? that uses magic to intercept life and change it without observation of these events or verification that it really took place?
AND why do you believe in something that never existed in the first place?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SwampDonkey, posted 06-20-2010 2:51 AM SwampDonkey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 4:00 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 134 by dennis780, posted 08-21-2010 5:28 PM archaeologist has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 124 of 752 (575797)
08-21-2010 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by archaeologist
08-21-2010 3:12 AM


why do you and other evolutinists believe in something that you cannot prove exists? cannot put in a test tube and study? cannot prove is actually responsible for the so-called changes in life? that uses magic to intercept life and change it without observation of these events or verification that it really took place?
AND why do you believe in something that never existed in the first place?
You know, a lie is still a lie even if you disguise it as a question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by archaeologist, posted 08-21-2010 3:12 AM archaeologist has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 125 of 752 (575804)
08-21-2010 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by crashfrog
08-20-2010 9:14 PM


You think it was hard to understand that experiment?
What is actually hard to understand is how you see that experiment predicting a random mutation. That is virtually impossible to understand how you came to that conclusion-because that is not what happened at all-so how could one understand how someone such as you came to that conclusion?
Insanity perhaps? Myoclonus? A chronic subdural hematoma? Its anyone's guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2010 9:14 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 4:44 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 2:47 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 126 of 752 (575806)
08-21-2010 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Bolder-dash
08-21-2010 4:35 AM


You think it was hard to understand that experiment?
What is actually hard to understand is how you see that experiment predicting a random mutation. That is virtually impossible to understand how you came to that conclusion-because that is not what happened at all-so how could one understand how someone such as you came to that conclusion?
He was right, you didn't understand it.
Insanity perhaps? Myoclonus? A chronic subdural hematoma? Its anyone's guess.
And apparently you suck at medicine too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-21-2010 4:35 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-21-2010 6:50 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 127 of 752 (575820)
08-21-2010 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Dr Adequate
08-21-2010 4:44 AM


Clearly you didn't understand it, because it demonstrated the exact opposite of a random mutation, it showed a produced mutation. A not very subtle difference that you would think even a simpleton like you would get.
That is why so many of the things you say are just such complete crap. And you don't even care that what you are saying is crap, because you just enjoying making lots of schoolyard worthy ad hominem horseshit statements that have no value at all. Is there anyone on this forum who even comes close to the horseshit you say? I am sure you will say I do, but the evidence shows that I could never ever compete with the stench and grand volume of fetid rot you post here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 4:44 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 7:05 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 129 by Dr Jack, posted 08-21-2010 10:31 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 131 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 2:55 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 135 by dennis780, posted 08-21-2010 5:35 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 128 of 752 (575821)
08-21-2010 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Bolder-dash
08-21-2010 6:50 AM


Clearly you didn't understand it, because it demonstrated the exact opposite of a random mutation, it showed a produced mutation. A not very subtle difference that you would think even a simpleton like you would get.
A mutagen only increases the mutation rate, it doesn't actually have magical powers.
And there is, of course, a background level of his operon repair in the absence of a mutagen, as a few seconds' thought would have suggested to you and a few seconds' research would have confirmed.
That is why so many of the things you say are just such complete crap. And you don't even care that what you are saying is crap, because you just enjoying making lots of schoolyard worthy ad hominem horseshit statements that have no value at all. Is there anyone on this forum who even comes close to the horseshit you say? I am sure you will say I do, but the evidence shows that I could never ever compete with the stench and grand volume of fetid rot you post here.
Have I vexed you in some way? Tsk tsk.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-21-2010 6:50 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 129 of 752 (575845)
08-21-2010 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Bolder-dash
08-21-2010 6:50 AM


What do you think a random mutation actually is, Bolder-dash?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-21-2010 6:50 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 130 of 752 (575875)
08-21-2010 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Bolder-dash
08-21-2010 4:35 AM


You think it was hard to understand that experiment?
For a person of average intelligence, capable and willing to think it through with an open mind? No, not at all.
For you? Clearly it was.
That is virtually impossible to understand how you came to that conclusion-because that is not what happened at all
How is that not what happened? How did HisG- bacteria grow on His- media if mutation didn't occur? Remember, prokaryotes are haploid.
A chronic subdural hematoma?
I don't have a bruise.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-21-2010 4:35 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 131 of 752 (575876)
08-21-2010 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Bolder-dash
08-21-2010 6:50 AM


Clearly you didn't understand it, because it demonstrated the exact opposite of a random mutation, it showed a produced mutation.
It was produced randomly. The culture on minimal media selected for a certain mutation, but the mutagen produced random mutants.
That's how evolution works - mutation produces variability in populations, and selection hones that variability to the individuals best adapted to the environment. Phenylamine doesn't give bacteria the power to synthesize histidine, it mutates genetics. Some of those mutants had a reversion to HisG+, the vast majority did not, but culture on minimal His- media meant that only the ones with the reversion mutation were able to form colonies.
Nothing I did actually made any of the bacteria revert; phenylamine doesn't do that. It doesn't have that kind of specificity and the bacteria had no idea they were going to an environment with no histidine. (Trust me, I didn't tell them.)
The mutations were random; the selection was specific. I could have performed the exact same experiment with HisG+, ArgG- bacteria and it would have worked. How could that be, if the mutations weren't random? How would the Ames bacteria know to revert to HisG+ in the presence of phenylamine, if the same chemical tells ArgG- bacteria to revert to ArgG+?
And if that's what phenylamine does, why didn't it happen to all the Ames bacteria in my sample? Why were there so few colonies? I must have inoculated the plate with billions of individuals, trillions maybe. Why did I only get 80 colonies and not an entire lawn?
Of course the mutations were random. The proof of that is how rare they were. (Phenylamine is not a strong mutagen.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-21-2010 6:50 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4777 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 132 of 752 (575900)
08-21-2010 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dr Adequate
08-21-2010 1:45 AM


"This is not only false, but contrary to your admission that mutation is a "documented scientific process". Clearly a new mutation adds information to the gene pool."
I never claimed that a mutation added information. Existing information can cause mutation many different ways (disease, copying error, etc.).
""These restrictive breeding practices reduce effective population size and increase overall genetic drift among domestic dogs, resulting in the loss of genetic diversity within breeds and greater divergence among them," writes Ostrander, who participated in a landmark study of the genomic relationship of 85 different dog breeds. "For example, variation among breeds accounts for 27% of total genetic variation, as opposed to 5-10% among human populations" (Parker et al., 2004). "
http://www.nature.com/...icpage/genetics-of-dog-breeding-434
"And we have in fact observed novel mutations in fruit flies." I'm not disputing this. Since the observed mutation of fruit flies has been ongoing for over 100 years now. Should we hug?
My point is, and if you read the link a little more (I'll post some below), that of all the documented 400 mutations, none added new information, and none of the species survived. ALL went sterile and died. This is a complete 180 to evolution, which suggests that over time, mutations that offer any sort of advantage, increase in numbers.
"According to evolution, man has lived on the earth for a little over a million years. Yet experiments on fruit flies have already exceeded the equivalent of a million years of people living on earth. Here is a clear statement of the problem: "The fruit fly has long been the favorite object of mutational experiments because of its fast gestation period [twelve days]. X rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly by 15,000 percent. All in all, scientists have been able to "catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process, such that what has been seen to occur in Drosophila is the equivalent of the many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution."
"Even with this tremendous speedup of mutations, scientists have not been able to come up with anything other than another fruit fly. Most important, what all these experiments demonstrate is that the fruit fly can vary within certain upper and lower limits but will never go beyond them. For example, Ernst Mayr reported on two experiments performed on the fruit fly back in 1948.
"In the first experiment, the fly was selected for a decrease in bristles and, in the second experiment, for an increase in bristles. Starting with a parent stock averaging 36 bristles, it is possible after thirty generations to lower the average to 25 bristles, "but then the line became sterile and died out." In the second experiment, the average number of bristles were increased from 36 to 56; then sterility set in. Mayr concluded with the following observation: Obviously any drastic improvement under selection must seriously deplete the store of genetic variability . . The most frequent correlated response of one-sided selection is a drop in general fitness. This plagues virtually every breeding experiment."*Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 134. "
2021, 10
I have another link to a similar study done on E-coli using citrate as food, instead of glucose. This is a process that E-coli is actually already capable of, but just under different conditions. Give me a sec, I'll see if I can find it.
"Dr. Richard Lenski (Blount, Borland and Lenski) at Michigan State University has been experimenting with E. coli bacteria in the lab for over 20 years starting in 1988."
"The culture was a mixture of glucose and citrate with 10 times more citrate than glucose which caused the quick consumption of glucose and starvation after that. Having saved specimens from every 500th generation, Lenski went back to the 20,000th generation and found that only by beginning again at or after that population, could he reproduce this same capability after 31,500 generations. Apparently there was a mutation at generation 20,000 that opened the door for a second mutation at generation 31,500. Note that E-coli reproduce once in every 20 to 40 minutes and produce over 50 new generations per day. One E-coli cell can produce several billion descendants per day."
"A huge breakthrough in understanding how proteins control DNA and life came with the work of Francois Jacob and Jacques Monod in the 1960s. It was known then that bacteria could digest different types of sugars, including the most common kind, called glucose, as well as another, much less common sugar, called lactose, which is found in milk. Intriguingly, when bacteria were grown in the presence of glucose, they couldn’t use lactose. Only in the absence of glucose and the presence of lactose could they digest the milk sugar. When glucose was missing, the bacteria made proteins that could pull lactose into the cell and metabolize it, but when no lactose was around, the bacteria didn’t make those proteins. This was a very clever trick that made great biological sense, since in normal conditions the bacterium would waste energy if it manufactured proteins that could metabolize only a rarely encountered sugar. The interesting question was, how did the bacteria know when to switch on the genes for making the proteins?
Jacob and Monod discovered a defective mutant bacterium that made lactose-using proteins all the time, even in the absence of lactose. It was lacking a control mechanism. The French scientists reasoned that the bacteria contained another, hidden protein, which they called a repressor. They conjectured that the repressor would ordinarily bind to a specific sequence of DNA near the genes that generated the lactose-using proteins, switching them off. In the presence of lactose, the milk sugar would bind to the repressor itself, changing the protein’s shape enough to make it fall off the DNA, switching back on the previously blocked genes. Jacob and Monod surmised that the mutant bacteria had a broken repressor.
Their model turned out to be exactly correct, earned them a Nobel Prize, and blazed the path for understanding how the genetic program contained in the DNA of all organisms is controlled (Behe 174)"
E-coli mutation and evolution - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
(All three quotes above are from this source)
I've heard mention of the E-coli evolution miracle. Since all that happened was a group of e-coli lost control of the switch that allows them to metabolize citrate in low or no oxygen environments, it's fair to claim that whether information was gained or lost genetically is irrelevant (even though it was not gained), the one mutation that occurred at 20,000 and 32,000 generations does not give enough time for evolution. Over "10 trillion E-coli have been produced over the 22 year old experiment", equalling 1 million years of human life, and ONE genetic mutation has occurred.
How many years have humans been here?? By this documented timeclock, as well as the one above, it would take BILLIONS of years just to get apes to humans, supposing genetic changes (or chromosomal differences) do not cause sterility.
"No-one supposes that a single point mutation is at all likely to produce speciation." No, but evolutionarily speaking, one should suppose that a mutated family not become sterile, and of the 1 in 400 documented cases, 1 would have an advantage of some kind over the others (and not become sterile of course).
"It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the worldflies which produce a new generation every eleven daysthey have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme."*Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 48.
Anyways, the initial point here was to address the confused blogger who thought that experiments of this nature do not take place, when in fact, they do worldwide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 1:45 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 7:20 PM dennis780 has replied
 Message 201 by bluegenes, posted 08-29-2010 6:16 AM dennis780 has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4777 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 133 of 752 (575902)
08-21-2010 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by crashfrog
08-21-2010 2:22 AM


"Genetic loss of what?"
Let me help you.
"Microevolution is an uncontroversial, well-documented, naturally-occurring, biological phenomenon. It happens every day. It is the process whereby preexisting genetic information is rearranged, corrupted, and/or lost through sexual reproduction and/or genetic mutation producing relatively small-scale (micro) changes within a population. Two long-haired dogs producing a short-haired puppy would be an example of microevolution (we’ll look at why in a moment)."
What is the difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution? | GotQuestions.org
Micro evolution works on existing information. Macro evolution works on the introduction of new information. With me now?
"It's the content of the genes, not the amount of anything, that determines differential success throughout the populations."
As long as you are talking about variation within a species, you have a good understanding of microevolution. Information NEEDS TO HAVE BEEN ADDED, by any possible process for macro evolution to be true. If this were not the case, the first organism would have required the information for the building blocks of all species alive today, which would only further complicate the theory of evolution, and make it far more impossible than it already is.
"How do you propose to measure genetic "information"?"
In teaspoons? I didn't know I was allowed to invent a measuring system. I like teaspoons.
This depends on what you are asking. Humans have some 3 billion base pairs, and that are arranged into 24 distinct chomosomes, that arrange molecules ranging from 50 to 250 MBP (that would be million base pairs...I shortened it).
"Be specific."
I am.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 2:22 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 5:36 PM dennis780 has replied
 Message 137 by Coyote, posted 08-21-2010 5:52 PM dennis780 has replied
 Message 138 by jar, posted 08-21-2010 6:34 PM dennis780 has replied
 Message 139 by Blue Jay, posted 08-21-2010 6:35 PM dennis780 has replied
 Message 145 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 7:29 PM dennis780 has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4777 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


(2)
Message 134 of 752 (575904)
08-21-2010 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by archaeologist
08-21-2010 3:12 AM


"why do you and other evolutinists believe in something that you cannot prove exists?"
Arch...I'm on your side here, but you are making this difficult, even for me. Why do you believe in something that you cannot prove exists? How is it possible to accept truth from a being you have never met, and even if you are correct, NEVER WILL MEET until the last day.
Why didn't God leave a big ass sign the size of a mountain saying in every language, "I'm God, I did all this, evolution is wrong"
I'll tell you why. Because guys like you make God look bad. This is a science forum, not the finger-pointers association. And I'm going to guess that if you ask why evolutionists believe in something they cannot prove, odds are you will get some really funny responses (to which I cannot wait for).
Next time, present a case, or rebuttal an arguement. And bring some evidence. You wouldn't give your Bible to a bank to get money. They want proof (your cheque), just like the rest of us.
Evidence, or beat it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by archaeologist, posted 08-21-2010 3:12 AM archaeologist has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4777 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


(2)
Message 135 of 752 (575905)
08-21-2010 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Bolder-dash
08-21-2010 6:50 AM


Bolder, be nice. We're all trying to reach an unattainable verdict. Besides, BOTH of the experiments posted above in a response to someone with intelligence, gives examples of random mutation.
In the case of the fruit flies, every possible condition was explored to cause or increase genetic mutation, from temperature changes to radiating. This experiment has been ongoing longer than your parents have been alive. If you have something to say about it, I suggest you read one of the eight books written by the scientists who conducted the experiments over the years. The E-coli experiment is ongoing 22 years as well, and shows very similar results.
Which experiment, or research, are you rebuttalling with? Because if you are here to cut down, get out.
CAN SOMEONE GET DR. ADEQUATE down here please. At least he wins debates...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-21-2010 6:50 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-22-2010 9:27 PM dennis780 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