Evolution: theory for the weak-minded?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr BLonDe:

​

First of all, 99.9% of mutations are NOT advantegeous at all.

---

first review some modern genetics or molecular biology and then we will talk. Here are two links that will bring you slightly more up to date.
http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/classes/s260/Week13a/week13a/node8.html
http://www.wsu.edu/~mmorgan/gencb511f98/neutraltheory/index.html

quote:

---

Well, basically I've yet to see a mutation that is TRULY benefitial, and not just a "lucky defect" like having 5 instead of 4 arms.

---

Here we go, it gives the little bug more to eat.
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
as well as dumping on the information arguement used by creaitonists.
Here is another useful mutation.
http://www.news.wisc.edu/view.html?id=5528
please note that the cell lines are non-cancerous.

quote:

---

Bacteria often already posess the trait that makes them resist certain things (in a group), and when they DO inherit their resistance through mutation..we have never witnessed evidence that there is information added in the big D.N.A bin.

---

See above, you are wrong.

quote:

---

B.)Natural Selection & Adaptation-Natural Selection is NOT proof of evolution.

---

You have it backwards, NS is the proposed mechanism of evolution, not the proof of it.

quote:

---

Natural Selection is limited to the boundaries of micro-evolution. This is, ofcourse, what we have observed today. Don't believe me?

---

Nope,please provide a biological or biochemical reason for your statement in light of the info provided to you above. Micro = macro w.r.t speciation. Macro evolution is actually the observation of larger trends in evolution, not simple speciation as you indicate. [QUOTE]bC.) Old Earth[/b] - I can't help but chuckle when my science teacher screams accross the classroom that the earth is billions (4.5) of years old. What proof has he? Carbon-14 dating you say? [/QUOTE]If they did say carbon dating for billions of years then they are as lacking in knowledge as to the real science as you appear to be.

quote:

---

Read and refute this lovely link before talking about old earth dating methods.

---

Here is one, the transfer of Ar across mineral boundires is not a concern due to essentially non-existent transfer rates. And please explain why, if against all measurement, the transfer rates are a problem that methods that deal with other radioisotopes give similar ages. Finally, ever hear of the single grain laser Ar method,it Completely trashes this guys arguement re: Ar/K dating.

quote:

---

Another thing the evolutionists try to convince the weak minded with is the "layer age" theory. Supposedly each layer of the earth represents a different age. This is simply nonsense, and it doesn't take much but a global flood to explain this.

---

The global flood is simple nonsense. No hydrodynamic model in existence can explain the deposition manner of the fossils through the geological layers. Please pick up a book on geology to see what I mean.

quote:

---

Lucy - Tree climbing chimpanzee that had slightly bigger bones, and a crushed skull.

---

I will only pick on one due to a lack of time
http://biology.uindy.edu/Biol504/HUMANSTRATEGY/16transition.htm
Not a chimp, too bad.

quote:

---

I could go on FOREVER.

---

Please do . You are only helping my arguements.

quote:

---

E.) Abiogenesis - Which I know has nothing to do with the evolution theory specifically

---

First accurate thing that you have said.

quote:

---

it definatly is closely related. I just want to point out that the odds of a cell assemblying itself by chance from a jumble of amino acids in an ocean from a lightning spark are so low, mathmaticians would consider the proability '0'.

---

Care to share the stats with me. I just got off of another board last night and trashed them and I have done so here earlier.Oh well, time to get back to the lab------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr BLonDe: http://evolution-facts.org/c07.htmI'd say that link does a nice job explaining why the possiblilities are pretty slim.[/B][/QUOTE]Actually w.r.t. the stats it does not explain them at all. Fortunately I am quite aware of Hoyles arguement. I copied this from anothger board that I post on (it is mine so there is the atribution.
They appear to be using as a basis the types of numbers that Sir Frederick Hoyle has used in "Evolution from Space" and other books. There have been numerous articles demonstrating the erros in the assumptions behind these numbers so I will only name a few.
1) In Evolution from Space Dr. Hoyle starts be comparing gorilla and human hemoglobin as a basis for his assumptions in the allowability of mutations in proteins, and eventually for his abiogenesis calculations. He could just as well have chosen the hemoglobin from yeast or from bacteria. Yes, some bacteria and other unicellular life contain hemoglobins, which have certian structural, sequence and functional similarities to the gorilla and human protein but have are a very large number of amino acid differences from humans (or gorillas). The point is that he chose a protein which, in most mammals, has a great deal of environmental selection which results in the maintainence of a specific population structure for his calulations. He uses this faulty comparison as a basis for most of his subsequent claims.
He then makes a jump, sans data other than a vague reference to his faulty hemoglobin calculation, to defining a 200 amino acid protein and then says that the odds of the backbone structure being correct are 10^15 and the odds of the active site being correct are 10^5. ANOTHER big error, actually two errors. He then said that the odds of the two forming together were 10^20 (another error here, give me a minute ). Finally, he said that there were ~ 2000 basic proteins in nature giving a grand value of 10^40,000 (10^20 to the 2000). Hooo boy, that really big number MUST mean something, ....and yes it does. It means that Dr. Hoyle should stick to astrophysics because w.r.t. biology and biochemistry he is a bust.First, he is assuming one structure to one function. It is an a priori assumption that has no basis in fact and actually goes against facts in molecular biology and protein chemistry. In fact, his error is even more fundamental than this because he is assuming a single end point (life as it currently exists) before he even starts, which is statistical nonsense. It is like laying down a sequence of 52 cards. The odds are 8 x 10^67 for that sequence, but you just did it. Now, if you had said that you were going to lay down that sequnce BEFORE you started dealing that would be something . The second error in his first number(s) is that the backbone structure and active site structure are BOTH dependent on the primary structure (ie the sequence), you can not break them down the way that he was. In fact, many changes can be made to the amino acid sequence of a protein without changing the structure or the function at all. Especially in areas that are NOT part of the active site. For example, 5% of the amino acids in a small protein that I work with are not part of the original structure (they were added in) and they do not effect the activity of the protein AT ALL.Next, the error with the 10^20 was that he was making his base calculations as if the backboen and the active site were not related, that would yield a value of 10^75 (in non-related the powers are multiplied, in related they are added). I will admit that Hoyle, when he did his 10^20 calculation, said that the two were related but then he should have gone back and correct his first two numbers!Finally, in real abiogenesis no one talks about pure chance, which is what he is using in his calculations here. Abiogenesis (which is separate from evolution) is based on the laws and probabilities of chemcistry and physics. This substantially changes the real probabilities and is another reason why pretty much all of these calculations are bogus.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

​

---

Do you think it was inevetable? For a cell to pop into existance?

---

​

You were replying to Dr_Tazimus_maximus, but if I could step in since I addressed the same topic, no one thinks the first cell just "popped" into existence. It had to come about naturally and gradually following the laws of physics and chemistry, which is what I think Dr_Tazimus_maximus was saying.

---

Actually that is part of what I was saying, the main thrust w.r.t. Hoyles stats though was that he assumed that each protein must have formed into EXACTLY the primary, secondary and tertiary sequence that it did, ie the exact same amino acid sequence ect ect. This is not the case as has been shown by many a molecular biology experiment. There is a great deal of wiggle room w.r.t. amino acid usage in proteins (the amount depends very much on the protein). While there are many reasons that Hoyles calcs are bogus that is one of the most obvious and wide ranging goofs. Another other the goofs in his site was on optical rotation, the D vs L has been shown to be a kinetics issue w.r.t. the polynulceotide sequence propogation ie the rate of formation of homo strands is faster than the rate of hetero strands (I will try to post the paper later).And the beat goes on ------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

ARGGHHH, damn copy post
Had to delete it

​

[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 04-10-2002]