|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there any proof of beneficial mutations? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4776 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
I dont know who started this tread, but I'm quite sure both IDists and Evoists are in agreement as to whether or not a mutation can bring about advantageous function in it's environment. Though most all examples of these are due to genetic loss, there are plenty of examples of these, as well as some debatable ones for genetic gain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4776 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: Not true, since wingless beetles on islands are a perfect example of the environment effecting mutation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4776 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: Oh good, the doc is here. Please, explain how the environment did not affect which beetles would survive. I'm interested.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4776 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: I disagree. But what would it be like in here if I didn't...lol. Many bacteria are physically designed to be adaptable (I know, designed is a God word, but bear with me, I have a point). Their surrounding layers and the genetic information for these and other structures associated are capable of alteration. Some alterations are temporary, disappearing when the particular environment or situation changes. Other alterations are perminent and can be passed on through generations of bacteria. I perfect example of this is penicillin. After it was brought to market in the 1990's, over 80% of strains of Staphylococcus aureus were resistant. There have also been documented examples of bacteria changing to adapt to differing levels of temperature, pH, and concentrations of ions such as sodium. Some bacteria (including E. Coli) have instant responses to heat shock, which changes the growth temperature of the bacteria. Bacteria can, and DO respond to their environment intelligently (I know, the God word). Though I agree with the good Dr. that the cell copying mechanisms themselves do not have a 'brain' of their own, they are controlled by an intelligent source, that makes decisions that effect the bacteria as a whole.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4776 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
read post directly below the one you just sent me. Or I can copy and paste it for you...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4776 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
Which is not random.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4776 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: My points are directed to a form of instinctive behaviour, rather than conscious thought persay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4776 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: Though this is true, it is also not my point. My point was, and is, that bacteria have the ability to respond to different conditions not by random chance, but by understanding conditions:
quote: quote: Again, though this may be true, many bacteria have the built in capacity to respond to their environment without mutational change, or have built in genetic ability to respond to their environment causing mutational change.
quote: This would entirely depend on the bacteria, since different defence mechanisms are have better responses than others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4776 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: Firstly, I can't open the file, because it is Adobe. I am using a work computer, and it's locked, so I can't download it either...can you copy and paste just this particular info, or private message it to me?
quote: I agree, I used the word instinctive earlier, but your word choice is much better. It is more than likely an uncontrollable response, but the response is beneficial. However, the particular point I am trying to make is that bacteria do have the ability to adapt to their environment without any mutational change.
quote: Whoa, this is a topic changer. I'll respond. First, I have no idea what God's plan is, only what is taught in the Bible. I cannot speak to God's mindset or reasoning for anything, only that, if I am correct, everything that happens he has planned (again, only if I am correct). Second, natural genetic breakdown over time occurs because of sexual reproduction (minus an individuals mutations within their life). If (AND again, only if I am correct) Adam and Eve had not eaten from the forbidden tree, they would not have reproduced, and lived forever. Although I am sure this is a topic for another thread, genetic breakdown from sexual reproduction would have been eliminated. But that just brought an interesting question to my head...if Adam and Eve did not eat from the tree and lived forever, would their dna have mutated eventually to the point where they would die? I should start a thread...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4776 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: Oh I see. Thanks for posting it. You are saying that ABR is not always a response to a hazardous environment, and mutation of this sort occurs randomly?
quote: That is true.
quote: First, saying that God gave it to them would mean that they contracted the virus through no explainable way, a sort of opposite miracle. All children get diseases due to environmental conditions, from their parents, etc. Though God may or may not DO anything about it, is all in his plan. Since neither you or I do anything to help these children, we are just as much to blame for their death as anyone else (though I have done many missions trips, but not nearly enough). Blaming a God for problems that could be solved is a blame-shift, a mutation in the human brain that feels they are not responsible for helping other people because 'God' could easily do it, and does not.
quote: You are right. I am simply using the Biblical explanation of the beginning of life for this particular topic, since it is very religious orientated. But the mechanisms that cause either mutation are the same (though it is still under debate if new functional genetic sequences can arise this way, theoretically, they are the same).
quote: Ohhh, so you are not interested in being civil, even though my question is actually one that I am interested in. Considering all your evolution stories sound like the books my dad used to read me when I was a kid, "A long time ago, in a land far, far away." Give me a break. The fossil record is a joke, a 30 pieces to a million piece puzzle, a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms (missing links) required for evolution to be true. Radiocarbon dating methods that constantly contradict each other. The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions, and an even worse explanation for the first living organism (abiogenesis) that would require a complexity that you couldn't devise if you spent your entire life on it, but it happened by chance. You are no more believer than I, other than your beliefs are naturalistic. If evolution were 100% true, then there would not be HUNDREDS of books published to the contrary, and this forum would be dead fuckin quiet. You never hear people argue gravity. Next time you feel like taking a shot, rent a gun and lay on the towels so you don't get blood on the carpet. Just because I'm a christian, doesn't mean I HAVE to like you. God may love you, but I'm pretty sure your just a fuckin idiot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4776 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: So bacteria do not respond to their environments? Because even Crashfrog proved you wrong.
quote: Darn tootin.
quote: I like your word choice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4776 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
This post is off topic. --Admin
quote: No, the scientists themselves disagree with each other:
quote: quote: The fossil record (or lack thereof) shows more gaps than 'fills' in information over time. There is not ONE documented 'transitional' fossil that is undisputed, many times by evolutionists themselves.
quote: Evolution is contraversial. If it were fact, we wouldn't be having this discussion, now would we.
quote: Oh, good. Then give me an undisputed transitional fossil. Give me any 'transitional' fossil. I'll find scientific evidence against it within a week, guaranteed.
quote: And so should these scientists: http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm and these ones: Scientists Speak Out Regarding Evolution and these: Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net Trust me, we are embarrassed. That evolution is still taught to our kids. Oh, and I read books. Though I do find the internet an easy access to information, I read books. Thats right, there are WHOLE BOOKS that argue ID. Imagine that.
quote: In case you missed grade one, there was a period after my point on radiocarbon dating. The following sentence starts, quite clearly, with "The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon", which is a plural, and refers to the parent-daughter dating methods, aside from carbon dating. Remember, periods start a new sentence, commas carry on a thought.
quote: A simple cell would require most, if not all, of the following mechanisms (since these are what we see today, even in 'simple' organisms): 1. complex protein molecules,2. long-chain DNA RNA and molecules to store and transmit information, 3. six or eight different nucleotide molecules, 4. various lipid molecules, 5. sugar 6. twenty different amino acid molecules 7. chemical machinery to assemble proteins, RNA and DNA molecules from the building block molecules 8. a very accurate, information transmission and translation system 9. efficient error correcting systems to correct errors(mutations) that occur when DNA is copied during cell division 10. chemical machinery to capture energy from outside the cell 11. a cell membrane to hold the parts together and separate the inside from the outside 12. supplies of phosphorous, calcium, sodium, potassium and other inorganic elements, 13. chemical and physical conditions suitable for the accumulation and proper chemical combination and structural arrangements of all of these parts It's not simple, no matter how you look at it.
quote: So what makes you think that your side MUST be right, no matter what? As technology gets better with time, so does our understanding of past and present in biology and evolution. So if evidence mounted over time against specific points on the theory of evolution, you should reject those points, because you are not allowed to question a scientific theory? If thats the case, why are you even on here? Scientific fact - an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final). The very definition of a scientific fact argues against your belief that two sides should debate to accept one as factually true. Edited by Admin, : Add comment.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024