Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
23 online now:
Theodoric (1 member, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 58/59 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3034 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 119 of 752 (575754)
08-20-2010 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by abrown9
08-20-2010 8:55 PM


"This occurred through mutation and natural selection."

Mutation and natural selection are documented scientific processes. Dog breeders constantly 'weed' out genetic material that is undesirable to get a perfect breed look. This is micro evolution, which works on the principle of genetic loss over time. This is also a documented and observed fact.

MACRO evolution works on the opposite theory, that information over time is gained. There is no evidence for this.

"Obviously these kind of experiments would be impossible to perform on actual animal populations due to the massive evolutionary time frame we would be looking at."

No, actually, these experiments would only take millions of years if done on dogs, cats, humans, etc. There is experiments that are ongoing today, that have been for over 60 years until now, on fruit fly mutation. Since fruit flies have rapid generations, genetic mutation passed from generation to generation can be observed in a much faster timeframe.

"In 1904, Walter S. Sutton, an American cytologist, decided there might be some connection between Gregor Mendel's 1860s research and the newly discovered chromosomes with their genes. A major breakthrough came in 1906, when Thomas Hunt Morgan, a Columbia University zoologist, conceived the idea of using fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) for genetic research. This was due to the fact that they breed so very rapidly, require little food, have scores of easily observed characteristics and only a few chromosomes per cell."
http://www.pathlights.com/...opedia/Encyclopedia/10mut10.htm

"Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations."—*Maurice Caullery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by abrown9, posted 08-20-2010 8:55 PM abrown9 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 1:45 AM dennis780 has responded
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 2:13 AM dennis780 has not yet responded
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 2:22 AM dennis780 has responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3034 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. "
http://www.pathlights.com/...opedia/Encyclopedia/10mut10.htm

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)"
http://creationwiki.org/E-coli_mutation_and_evolution
(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 world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they 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 responded

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

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3034 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)."
http://www.gotquestions.org/...evolution-macroevolution.html

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 responded

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

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3034 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 yet responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3034 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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-22-2010 9:27 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3034 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 140 of 752 (575920)
08-21-2010 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by crashfrog
08-21-2010 5:36 PM


"So help me understand what is being lost in a chemical sense."

Arrangements of chemicals that contain useful information, genetic traits, etc.

No chemicals are being lost. The arrangement of chemicals that produce useful information is damaged or lost.

"Does microevolution shorten DNA sequences, and macroevolution lengthen them? I'm pretty sure that's not true at all."

Thats somewhat of a generalization, but that would occur if both micro and macro evolution are true. In most cases, incomplete information is used for a new purpose, but does nothing functional initially. Over time, by random chance, the information 'grows', and has purpose.

"I don't know what "information" is supposed to mean, but mutations that add sequence to DNA are well-documented."

The only arguement I have ever heard for any organism adding genetic sequence is Nylonese bacteria, and that subject is still being debated in another thread if I am not mistaken.

"I don't know what "information" is supposed to mean" And you are sure you are a biochem major? You do know what DNA, codons, RNA, etc. are right?

"Large-scale change is just the accumulation of small-scale change over longer amounts of time." So long as new information is being...sorry, as long as new chemical orders of base pairs are being introduced, I have no arguement with this. I just want proof this happens.

"I've never measured anything like "information" in DNA, though. Can you tell me how to measure it, or not?" I already told you in my previous message. In base pairs, chromosomes, and teaspoons.

"You can invent one, or look one up, I don't care" Good. I choose teaspoons.

"If you can't measure it how do you know what processes result in more or less of it?"

"The human genome is the genome of Homo sapiens, which is stored on 23 chromosome pairs. Twenty-two of these are autosomal chromosome pairs, while the remaining pair is sex-determining. The haploid human genome occupies a total of just over 3 billion DNA base pairs. The Human Genome Project (HGP) produced a reference sequence of the euchromatic human genome, which is used worldwide in biomedical sciences.

The haploid human genome contains ca. 23,000 protein-coding genes, far fewer than had been expected before its sequencing.[1][2] In fact, only about 1.5% of the genome codes for proteins, while the rest consists of non-coding RNA genes, regulatory sequences, introns, and (controversially named) "junk" DNA."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome

"The prokaryotes – bacteria and archaea – typically have a single circular chromosome, but many variations do exist.[3] Most bacteria have a single circular chromosome that can range in size from only 160,000 base pairs in the endosymbiotic bacterium Candidatus Carsonella ruddii,[4] to 12,200,000 base pairs in the soil-dwelling bacterium Sorangium cellulosum.[5] Spirochaetes of the genus Borrelia are a notable exception to this arrangement, with bacteria such as Borrelia burgdorferi, the cause of Lyme disease, containing a single linear chromosome."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome

Humans = 3 billion (ish) base pairs and 22 chomosomes (23 if you count determining sex)
Bacteria = 160,000 to 12,200,000 (in the examples used).

Humans have more chemical information than bacteria. I'd try to quit while your behind.

You should consult Dr. Adequate, he's exellent in his responses, and usually beats me. He's on your team too, Team Evo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 5:36 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 7:40 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3034 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 141 of 752 (575921)
08-21-2010 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Coyote
08-21-2010 5:52 PM


Re: Macro evolution
"No, this is not correct. There is only microevolution."

See previous post on definition of micro evolution.

"If you set out to walk to the opposite coast you do it through a series of single steps." Only if along the way you get feet to walk with. If you start walking then lose your fingernails, then toenails, then toes, then eyes, then feet, you don't make the journey. You die along the way.

"Evolution of, for example, the primates operates through a series of small steps that over time add up to a large step." If you want to talk about how walking upright, losing fur (increased heat loss), among other things are somehow advantages for apes, then I'm game, but I'm pretty there is no scientific information in your entire response other than:

"Look at them! They look like us!"

"Information changes at each small step, sometimes added, sometimes subtracted, but always changed." Evidence please. Subtracted and changing, yes. Added?? I don't think so.

In fact, apes require upper body strength to defend their troop from outside apes that attempt to mate with the females (since apes are polygamous). They are faster and more agile as quadrupeds, and their fur acts as an excellent insulator from the sun (water loss due to sweat from sunlight). Quadrupeds have better access to food in trees, as well as safety from predators there are well.

Which advantages were your refering to?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Coyote, posted 08-21-2010 5:52 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Coyote, posted 08-21-2010 7:11 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3034 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 142 of 752 (575922)
08-21-2010 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by jar
08-21-2010 6:34 PM


"Huh?

I'm sorry but that is just silly."

I'm with you homeslice. evolution is silly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by jar, posted 08-21-2010 6:34 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by jar, posted 08-21-2010 7:40 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3034 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 146 of 752 (575928)
08-21-2010 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Blue Jay
08-21-2010 6:35 PM


Re: Macroevolution at work
"Then, behold macroevolution at work:"

I love when evolutionists point to antibiotic resistance as evidence of evolutionary change. However, bacteria aquire this information through plasmids, from a process called horizontal gene transfer.

Mutations can potentially account for the origin of antibiotic resistance, but involve mutational processes that are contrary to evolution. These mutations usually eliminate transport genes, and regulatory control systems. While the mutations (in this example) are regarded as beneficial, because they allow the bacterium to survive, some other functions of relative fitness are effected negatively (though sometimes such processes make a recovery afterwards).

This topic is actually talked about in regards to nylonese bacterium in another thread. Although the defence mechanism is available to bacteria, gene transfer usually comes at a cost to some other process, and this process does not demonstrate natural, gradual change over time, but rather a spontaneous response, in which many bacteria have natural reactions to.

Horizontal transfer does not provide a mechanism for the origin of those genes. And evolution is defined as common descent with modification. Horizontal gene transfer does not explain the origin, but provides a mechanism for transferring pre-existing resistance genes.

"Are you with me?" Yeeeeeesssss.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Blue Jay, posted 08-21-2010 6:35 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 7:45 PM dennis780 has responded
 Message 150 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 7:58 PM dennis780 has not yet responded
 Message 167 by Blue Jay, posted 08-22-2010 4:28 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3034 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 151 of 752 (575939)
08-21-2010 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Dr Adequate
08-21-2010 7:20 PM


"No, I did. 'Cos it's obviously true." So any and all genetic mutations result in a GAIN in information?? Is that what you are getting at Dr claw?

BTW, feels good to be beaten again. Sure missed you and Dr. Jones...lol.

"have more information in the gene pool, because you have two alleles where previously you had one." No. When offspring is born, both alleles (from parents) share 50% (give or take) of their information to offspring. So where there were two alleles, now there are one. I get what you are saying, but once two of that species give birth, you would have a completely new allele (supposing half information from each), that would contain some mutated information, and some not.

Damaging DNA can result in mutation, as well as disease, which causes information to be lost, not gained.

"It is manifestly the case that dog breeding has increased the information in the gene pool of Canis lupus, because the information to make wolves still exists, but has been supplemented by the information to make dalmatians and dachsunds and poodles and bulldogs and Old Enlish sheepdogs ... and so forth ..."

OH. At first it didn't make sense. You are saying that OVERALL, all species of dogs have resulted in more information than the previous wolf had originally. I get it. Although genetic information has changed (which is a documented process, that is clearly visible in this case), no species of dog has devised any new information, so much to the point that they cannot be classified as a dog. variation within a species is entirely possible, and VISIBLE in all life today. I'm missing the question here Doc.

"But this is not true."

Your right. You win.

""The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics were done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.

The mutated creatures die out, when placed out in nature with normal hardy specimens."

"Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 70."
http://www.pathlights.com/...opedia/Encyclopedia/10mut10.htm

Can I say it? BOOM shacka laka. Mutants, almost without exception became sterile, and inferior. I win.

"Also, they were not selecting for mutations which conferred an advantage, but for any mutation which was visible." This is not entirely accurate, but to some extent. Since the scientists specifically added and removed hairs from the flies face to document advantages.

HOWEVER. The majority of the experiment was random. But isn't evolution random, or are you implying that it was unfair for the scientists to allow organusms to mutate on their own, even in favourable mutation environments. God didn't guide evolution, why should you get that with this experiment?

" And they still did not all go sterile and die, you made that up." See above quote. boomshackalacka.

"Your claim of 400 mutations makes it plain. If you take the natural mutation in primates and do the math, you find that since the divergence of humans and chimps (for example) there must have been about 35 million mutations fixed in the two gene pools: which agrees with observation of the genomes."

Wierd, because I have this experiment, as well as another, that say in one million human years, less than 400, and all bad...

"Rifkin has simply misunderstood the fly experiments."

Really? What about the guys that wrote these books:

Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (1955),
Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (1983),
Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984),
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964),
H. Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildng (1957),
"Evolutionists Still Looking for a `Good Accident,' " Battle Cry, July-August, 1990

Are all these people wrong too? Since they referenced the scientific findings in their books. They must all be wrong too. It's okay. You win. Your right.

"I've come across him before, he used to write for the Guardian." I get it doc, you've come across all these guys. They're all wrong. It's all good. I have no idea how they got published without your personal review.

"That would be two mutations, that's why they happened at different times."

Hence why I said, at 20,000, and 32,000. was that confusing?

"But this is not true. That's just all you've heard about. " OH, I believe that completely. I'm going to assume that thousands of documented mutations occurred, and that they decided to leave out the negative ones...or the ones that did not support the theory of evolution.

"As for human mutation, as I say, we can measure the mutation rate." Possibly. I'm not debating whether that is true or not. My question is, of these mutations, how many bring about start of new and beneficial processes. However, I'm going to assume that this rate depends on diet, smoking, alcohol and drug use, etc.

"It is indeed strikingly in line with the predictions of evolution that a lineage will not produce a new species every sixty years." Not humans. You've missed the point of experimenting on fruit flies entirely, in that a new generation comes about every 12 DAYS or so. Human rate of genetic mutation is much slower, because even if you had some new information (which you don't), you would need a child to give it to. And it would take him 25 years (about) to give it to his offspring.

Since fruit flies can pass mutations much faster, rates are increased. PLEASE tell me you follow.

I'm surprised Doc, usually you kill me with your responses...when this site went down you took a vacation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 7:20 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 9:32 PM dennis780 has responded
 Message 155 by abrown9, posted 08-21-2010 9:47 PM dennis780 has responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3034 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 152 of 752 (575940)
08-21-2010 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by crashfrog
08-21-2010 7:45 PM


Re: Macroevolution at work
"Transfer from what?"

Plasmids are found IN E. coli. They are just independent of the chromosome, hense horizontal transfer. NEXT.

"but if having such a transport system is maladaptive then isn't it an increase in "information" to remove it?"

No. Many organs and bacteria have the ability to repair themselves.

"The origin of those genes was random mutation and natural selection, which is the origin of all genes."

You have in no way demonstrated this.

Who are you. The wizard of Oz? Why do you always go back to it's where it all happened man. It's past, and we're on our way to the future...the world is a pea in a soup of love.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 7:45 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 8:51 PM dennis780 has responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3034 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 160 of 752 (575997)
08-22-2010 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by crashfrog
08-21-2010 8:51 PM


Re: Macroevolution at work
"The genes being transfered have to come from somewhere"

They do, they come from the E. Cole, either during cell division, or by some sexual process. But the information is taken from within the cell.

"they couldn't have come from resistance already present in the population" And yet, it does.

"So, again - transfer from what?" I already said. From genetic material inside (or possibly outside, but unlikely) the chromosome, usually at a cost to some other process.

"then isn't in an increase in "information" to be rid of it altogether?" No, and no. It takes existing information. And no, it is not rid of it altogether. It is simply (in this case) 10x more resistant to it.

"How mutations can add sequence as well as subtract?" Oh, I must have missed your scientific evidence. Reference please?

"Science is best understood with one's sober mind" Agreed. Now I'd like some references.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 8:51 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by crashfrog, posted 08-22-2010 8:33 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3034 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 161 of 752 (576003)
08-22-2010 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Dr Adequate
08-21-2010 9:32 PM


"A DNA sequence or genetic sequence is a succession of letters representing the primary structure of a real or hypothetical DNA molecule or strand, with the capacity to carry information as described by the central dogma of molecular biology."
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&rlz=1R2SNYO_en&defl=en&...

I'm running with that.

"And your secret method of measuring information is?" mentioned above. Loss mutations are found in the hundreds, that result in a non-functional genetic sequence, protien, or structure. For example:

The Ancon Sheep - Short legged sheep that couldn't produce enough cartilage, and had smaller legs (but are widely used because it reduces the need for higher fences). beneficial to humans (farmers), but harmful in it's natural environment.

Eyeless fish in the Ozark caves - because there is no light, copying errors that would normally have been an extreme disadvantage in lighted environments, do not affect the organism one way or the other. So eyeless fish (scars where the eyes once where), are not affected by this change. Though copying errors occur of this nature everywhere, the caves' absence of light prevented these fish from being at any sort of disadvantage.

Sickle-cell anemia - which in itself is a disease, but has saved millions of lifes in Africa since Malaria will not attack carriers. Though the disease has negative effects...

There are more examples if you want them. All of these genetic changes are a result of genetic loss.

"And the information in the gene pool has increased." Reference please. I'm not debating your opinions.

"This quotation does not support your original claim." Sure it does. Maybe you misread it. Mutations were almost without exception at a disadvantage. That was my claim.

"And naturally if you select for things other than viability, fertility, and longevity then you are unlikely to increase these and likely to decrease them." So evolution selects with some sort of intelligence certain aspects of an organism to benefit it? I was under the impression that eovlution was random selection...in fact, I'm sure of it. This experiment represents natural evolution. If selection is required by a higher power for evolution of advantageous genes to come about, then doesn't that require a 'God' of some kind?

"A creationist saying something is, if anything, evidence that it isn't true." This is an opinion. Not a fact.

"Again, your point is obscure." Since evolution is random, and so was the majority of this experiment, isn't this a perfect documented experiment to prove that even over a million human years, there cannot be enough advantageous genetic mutations to take us from apes to humans? Or for that matter, any of the species on earth?

"You mean the quote that does not in any way say that they all became sterile?" Hmm, I'm going to guess...you didn't read it. AGAIN:

""The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics were done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, FERTILITY, longevity."

"In practice mutants die, are STERILE, or tend to revert to the wild type."
http://www.pathlights.com/...opedia/Encyclopedia/10mut10.htm
(my caps)

"That depends on what they said. If it was some gibberish about all mutant becoming sterile, then yes." So it doesn't matter if they are right. If they are against evolution, then they are wrong. I get it.

"I've come across Rifkin, and you shouldn't treat a moron as an authority. Unless you want to be wrong." What about you? You refuse to accept my evidence, an ongoing evolutionary experiment for over 100 years. You come up with this response:

Don't trust him...

Hmmm. Well...I'm going to have to, since you have no logical response (yet).

"No you don't. You do have some stuff that creationists made up, but that is not an "experiment" except insofar as it explores the limits of human gullibility." Oh your good. No rebuttal. I like.

"If you ever find yourself drawn to reality, you could read up on Lenski's experiment." I already brought that up in this discussion, as evidence for me. Horizontal gene transfer does not explain the origin of the cells, as well as crippling the organism in some way or another. This reaction is HARMFUL to the organism, other than allowing it to survive in it's present condition or environment (though sometimes the organism does recover, it returns to normal, instead of retaining any new useful genetic information).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 9:32 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2010 6:14 PM dennis780 has responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3034 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 162 of 752 (576005)
08-22-2010 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by abrown9
08-21-2010 9:47 PM


"I would argue that it is totally irrelevant whether the mutated organism survives in the wild or reverts to wild type. The environment of the organism exerts selective pressure, directing mutations. It would seem fairly obvious that a WILD environment would exert selective pressure towards the WILD type.
I would argue that it is totally irrelevant whether the mutated organism survives in the wild or reverts to wild type. The environment of the organism exerts selective pressure, directing mutations. It would seem fairly obvious that a WILD environment would exert selective pressure towards the WILD type."

So evolution works, as long as there is a lab. The entire world is wild, depending on the definition of the word, or context. Natural selection states that animals with any slight advantage can out compete those with less, and spread more genetic material. Animals with genetic mutation should, if evolution is true, at times have a distinct advantage in the wild.

The experiment documents many mutations, including wing changes, hairs on the face, clear eyes, etc. But none of the groups were at an advantage compared to the original fruit flies. Being able to survive in the wild is EXACTLY what is required for evolution to be an accurate theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by abrown9, posted 08-21-2010 9:47 PM abrown9 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by abrown9, posted 08-22-2010 5:44 PM dennis780 has responded
 Message 171 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2010 6:43 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3034 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 163 of 752 (576008)
08-22-2010 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Dr Adequate
08-22-2010 3:07 AM


Re: Can I have some too?
"The way to test any theory is to compare its predictions against reality. The results stated above, in conjunction with the fossil record, allow us to predict the amount of genetic difference between two species, where the fossil record is reasonably good."
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Molecular_Clocks
(your source)

I just wanted to drop in here quick. I find it amusing that evolutionist thinking to check evolution is to compare the fossil record...to the fossil record. Instead of comparing it with any sort of documented observable facts.

Thats it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2010 3:07 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2010 5:36 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019