Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there any proof of beneficial mutations?
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 37 of 166 (579784)
09-06-2010 1:16 AM


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: 05-11-2010


Message 38 of 166 (579787)
09-06-2010 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dogmafood
09-06-2010 1:09 AM


Re: Cause of mutation?
quote:
So the environment never causes a particular mutation to occur? Or, any mutation may occur in any environment?
Not true, since wingless beetles on islands are a perfect example of the environment effecting mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dogmafood, posted 09-06-2010 1:09 AM Dogmafood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-06-2010 1:21 AM dennis780 has replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 61 of 166 (579992)
09-07-2010 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Adequate
09-06-2010 1:21 AM


Re: Cause of mutation?
quote:
Not true, since wingless beetles on islands are a perfect example of the environment effecting mutation.
Oh good, the doc is here. Please, explain how the environment did not affect which beetles would survive. I'm interested.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-06-2010 1:21 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Huntard, posted 09-07-2010 8:10 AM dennis780 has replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 63 of 166 (579998)
09-07-2010 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Adequate
09-06-2010 1:33 AM


Re: Cause of mutation?
quote:
The reason is that the copying mechanisms in the cell can't think --- they can't say to themselves ... hmm, the environment is like this
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-06-2010 1:33 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by greyseal, posted 09-07-2010 11:04 AM dennis780 has replied
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2010 12:03 PM dennis780 has replied
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 09-07-2010 12:50 PM dennis780 has replied
 Message 69 by ICANT, posted 09-07-2010 8:42 PM dennis780 has not replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 64 of 166 (579999)
09-07-2010 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Huntard
09-07-2010 8:10 AM


Re: Cause of mutation?
read post directly below the one you just sent me. Or I can copy and paste it for you...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Huntard, posted 09-07-2010 8:10 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Huntard, posted 09-07-2010 8:29 AM dennis780 has replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 82 of 166 (580196)
09-08-2010 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Huntard
09-07-2010 8:29 AM


Re: Cause of mutation?
Which is not random.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Huntard, posted 09-07-2010 8:29 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2010 10:15 AM dennis780 has not replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 83 of 166 (580197)
09-08-2010 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by greyseal
09-07-2010 11:04 AM


Re: Cause of mutation?
quote:
but if you ascribe conscious thought or even specifically directed mutation for the results you mention, then everything in your post is wrong.
My points are directed to a form of instinctive behaviour, rather than conscious thought persay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by greyseal, posted 09-07-2010 11:04 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by greyseal, posted 09-08-2010 11:55 AM dennis780 has replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 84 of 166 (580198)
09-08-2010 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog
09-07-2010 12:03 PM


Re: Cause of mutation?
quote:
Bacteria mutate all the time. Constantly.
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:
Aerobic bacteria avoid the twin dangers of too little oxygen or too much oxygen by utilizing their electron transport system as the sensor for a positive behavioral response to oxygen (aerotaxis) and a different receptor for negative aerotaxis.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=...
quote:
It's literally the result of chance that any bacteria are initially resistant to an antibiotic when it's added.
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:
They don't affect bacteria as a whole; otherwise every bacteria would instantly mutate as soon as the antibiotic was added.
This would entirely depend on the bacteria, since different defence mechanisms are have better responses than others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2010 12:03 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2010 10:13 AM dennis780 has not replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 85 of 166 (580209)
09-08-2010 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Taq
09-07-2010 12:50 PM


Re: Cause of mutation?
quote:
they demonstrated that these mutations occurred in the absence of antibiotics.
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 would describe it more as bacteria acting like automatons . . . like robots.
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:
Would you consider giving children deadly and painful diseases an "intelligent" decision?
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 09-07-2010 12:50 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Taq, posted 09-08-2010 11:32 AM dennis780 has replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 92 of 166 (580552)
09-09-2010 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Taq
09-08-2010 11:32 AM


Re: Cause of mutation?
quote:
As the Lederberg's put it, they were pre-adapted and that adaptation occured in the absence of antibiotics.
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:
And at the same time, some adapation requires mutations in the DNA.
That is true.
quote:
So it may be part of God's plan to give children horrific genetic diseases that kills them before they ever reach adulthood? Yikes.
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 can't call it "genetic breakdown" when it does something bad and "intelligent design" when it does something good.
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:
If Santa Claus did not have flying reindeer would he be able to deliver presents to all the children across the world?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Taq, posted 09-08-2010 11:32 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Coyote, posted 09-10-2010 12:21 AM dennis780 has replied
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-10-2010 6:34 AM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 115 by Taq, posted 09-10-2010 11:38 AM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 09-11-2010 12:28 AM dennis780 has not replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 93 of 166 (580554)
09-10-2010 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by greyseal
09-08-2010 11:55 AM


Re: Cause of mutation?
quote:
if your are suggesting that "instinctive behaviour" can change genetic code deliberately to produce a specific outcome, then you are still wrong.
So bacteria do not respond to their environments? Because even Crashfrog proved you wrong.
quote:
That's not evolution
Darn tootin.
quote:
it's an adaptation like any other that came about through chance and mutation.
I like your word choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by greyseal, posted 09-08-2010 11:55 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by greyseal, posted 09-10-2010 3:01 AM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 98 by Percy, posted 09-10-2010 7:30 AM dennis780 has not replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 164 of 166 (582506)
09-21-2010 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Coyote
09-10-2010 12:21 AM


Re: Creation "science" on display
This post is off topic. --Admin
quote:
Undisputed? By who? Creationists?
No, the scientists themselves disagree with each other:
quote:
Some paleontologists think the extinction was caused by a catastrophe such as a meteorite or comet hitting the earth or a gigantic volcano erupting. Others believe that a more gradual process was responsible. Some theories are that competition between dinosaurs and mammals was the cause, or possibly climate changes. Scientists also disagree about the amount of time it took for the extinction to take place. Some think it happened in several days. Others say it took from hundreds of generations to over half a million years.
Dinosaur Extinction | HowStuffWorks
quote:
The fossil record is something that Darwinists have had to explain away, because what it shows is the sudden appearance of organisms that exhibit no trace of step-by-step development from earlier forms. And it shows that once these organisms exist, they remain fundamentally unchanged, despite the passage of millions of years-and despite climatic and environmental changes that should have produced enormous Darwinian evolution if the theory were true.
http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/citmag92.htm
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:
The "teach the controversy" nonsense we get from creationists means nothing in terms of science.
Evolution is contraversial. If it were fact, we wouldn't be having this discussion, now would we.
quote:
Have you ever studied the fossil record?
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:
You should be embarassed!
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:
and other forms of radiometric dating that can be applied to rocks.
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:
That is what your religious belief teaches you.
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:
because there are two sides doesn't mean both sides are of equal merit.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Coyote, posted 09-10-2010 12:21 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 09-21-2010 6:52 PM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 166 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-21-2010 9:23 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