Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Role of Mutations
PetVet2Be
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 62 (326251)
06-26-2006 12:23 AM


My bad..... Didn't state my phrase too well. In order to support evolution these mutations need to add information to genes. These mutations do not. You did teach me something, but not what you thought. Your right some mutations may be "beneficial". But they still cotradict evolution in that mutations steal genetic information; evolution requires the addition of information. http://www.answersingenesis.org/...ea/feedback/2003/0221.asp
Hemoglobin C Disease: Overview, Clinical Presentation, Laboratory Studies
urate oxidase pseudogenes: results in high uric acid levels: Patient Education on Blood, Urine, and Other Lab Tests - Testing.com
CCR5-delta-32 causes hepatitis C to be more deadly
Quote Coragyps: I've got news for you - in parts of Africa where malaria is endemic the increased resistance to malaria outweighs the downside of the mutation, so guess what?
It's a positive mutation after all in the right environment.
END QUOTE
Right environment huh? That is evolution's greatest weakness you know. It is mathematically impossible for all the circumstances to happen right.

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by arachnophilia, posted 06-26-2006 12:29 AM PetVet2Be has not replied
 Message 33 by DrJones*, posted 06-26-2006 12:29 AM PetVet2Be has not replied
 Message 35 by MangyTiger, posted 06-26-2006 12:59 AM PetVet2Be has not replied
 Message 39 by ramoss, posted 06-26-2006 9:35 AM PetVet2Be has replied
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2006 5:24 PM PetVet2Be has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 32 of 62 (326253)
06-26-2006 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by PetVet2Be
06-26-2006 12:23 AM


In order to support evolution these mutations need to add information to genes.
nonsense. this whole "information" thing is creationist mumbo-jumbo. "mutation" need only be variation.
Right environment huh? That is evolution's greatest weakness you know.
environmental conditions are a selection factor. that helps determine which variations are kept, and which are discarded.
It is mathematically impossible for all the circumstances to happen right.
law of large numbers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 12:23 AM PetVet2Be has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 33 of 62 (326254)
06-26-2006 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by PetVet2Be
06-26-2006 12:23 AM


But they still cotradict evolution in that mutations steal genetic information; evolution requires the addition of information
Says who?
It is mathematically impossible for all the circumstances to happen right.
Care to show your work?

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 12:23 AM PetVet2Be has not replied

  
PetVet2Be
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 62 (326265)
06-26-2006 12:57 AM


Mutations are not variation. They are changes in the genetic code.
As for the probability its all done up already.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v1/i1/figures.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/chance.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i1/monkeys.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i2/chance.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i1/skeptics.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter9.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i1/enzymes.asp
I suppose thats enough. Just remember though that all this probability stuff means nothing if you dont have anything to start with. i.e. Where did the original matter come from? You figure it out.

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by arachnophilia, posted 06-26-2006 1:05 AM PetVet2Be has not replied
 Message 42 by RickJB, posted 06-26-2006 10:15 AM PetVet2Be has replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6354 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 35 of 62 (326267)
06-26-2006 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by PetVet2Be
06-26-2006 12:23 AM


Quote Coragyps: I've got news for you - in parts of Africa where malaria is endemic the increased resistance to malaria outweighs the downside of the mutation, so guess what?
It's a positive mutation after all in the right environment.
END QUOTE
Right environment huh? That is evolution's greatest weakness you know. It is mathematically impossible for all the circumstances to happen right.
Actually it was me, not Coragyps who said that.
Well yes of course in the right environment.
The environment can be a major selection factor. As an imaginary example suppose there is a population of some animal living on an island. There are two different mutations existing in the population, one of which causes the animal to have thicker, warmer fur while the other causes the animal to have thinner, cooler fur. Initially the island has mild winters so neither mutation is selected for. The climate then changes so that the winters become much harsher and colder. The animals with the thin fur mutation will be strongly selected against (i.e. more of them will die in winter), those with neither mutation will also be selected against (but not as strongly) while those with the thick fur mutation will be selected for. The long term result of this selection pressure from the environment will be that the thick fur mutation will become universal through the population.
Right environment huh? That is evolution's greatest weakness you know. It is mathematically impossible for all the circumstances to happen right.
Well I'm sure you'll have no trouble showing us the maths to demonstrate this then (in accordance with rule 4 in the Forum Guidelines).
Edit: I see while I was typing this you put in some AIG links purporting to 'do' the probability. I dare say others will refute them while I'm offline (which I will be in a few minutes until late today or tomorrow). Suffice to say for now they're about the quality you'd expect from AIG.
In order to support evolution these mutations need to add information to genes.
Groan....
There are seemingly endless threads on this subject on this site. If you can substantiate your assertion you should post in one of them. All you will need to do is provide a meaningful definition of information and describe how we can measure it so we can tell if it has been added or removed.
You're the latest in a long line of creationists spouting this drivel - not one of them to date has been able to back up what they say.
Edited by MangyTiger, : Added comment on AIG probability calculations.

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 12:23 AM PetVet2Be has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 36 of 62 (326270)
06-26-2006 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by PetVet2Be
06-26-2006 12:57 AM


Mutations are not variation. They are changes in the genetic code.
change = variation.
quote:
5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
Forum Guidelines

Just remember though that all this probability stuff means nothing if you dont have anything to start with. i.e. Where did the original matter come from? You figure it out.
evolution is the study of life after it appeared on this planet. it has nothing to do with how it got there. it's a biological principle -- and conflating it with abiogenesis (or the big bang for that matter) is a rather class creation pratt (point refuted a thousand times). it is off topic here, but if you'd like, there are probably a number of threads where the "probability" argument can be addressed that are still open. and if not, feel free to start one in proposed new topics.
i think you also find that a good many of members here do believe in a god, and that god is resposible (in some form) for creation. we have a number of members here who are christians, too. (you're talking to one, btw)
and yes, we've all read aig. personally, i find their analysis of the bible about as wanting as their reinterpretation of science. i do not consider them a reputable source, though admittedly they are far more honest than most creationist sources. *coughkenthovindcough*
Edited by AdminAsgara, : changed long link to dboard version


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 12:57 AM PetVet2Be has not replied

  
PetVet2Be
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 62 (326274)
06-26-2006 1:27 AM


My bad on the misquote. Sorry for any confusion or annoyance this may have caused. Well MangyTiger, what you used as an example of a mutation is basic genetics. Hair length is something already determined by genes. If there is hair there are genes that govern the length. What you are promoting here is natural selection. And I agree with the outcome. Long hair wins in cold weather.
Information is what is in the genes. AKA: DNA. As DNA is altered by mutations information is taken out or switched around in the DNA strand. The information is the code and the ability to read it. Which brings out another problem for evolution. The DNA is the code. DNA is also the code breaker. In other words DNA produces the material required to translate itself. A perfect balance extremely unlikely to occur in the chaotic environment evolutionists say caused it.
Quote arachnophilia: Quote petvet2be:Mutations are not variation. They are changes in the genetic code. END QUOTE
change = variation.END QUOTE
I permanently change my statement "Mutations are not variation. They are changes in the genetic code." to "Mutations are not variation. They are permanent changes in the genetic code." i.e. they cant be reversed.
those links were supporting my "As for the probability its all done up already." statement.
Quote arachnophilia: evolution is the study of life after it appeared on this planet. it has nothing to do with how it got there. END QUOTE
So you are saying that this supposedly very scientific "theory" is not based on a foundation. Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by arachnophilia, posted 06-26-2006 1:36 AM PetVet2Be has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 38 of 62 (326282)
06-26-2006 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by PetVet2Be
06-26-2006 1:27 AM


What you are promoting here is natural selection.
do you agree that natural selection happens?
do you agree that variation happens?
I permanently change my statement "Mutations are not variation. They are changes in the genetic code." to "Mutations are not variation. They are permanent changes in the genetic code." i.e. they cant be reversed.
sure they can. you just use one gene to modify the others. for instance, birds no longer have feathers on their feet.
So you are saying that this supposedly very scientific "theory" is not based on a foundation. Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
i'm saying that one has nothing to do with the other. it's not grand unification, or the theory of life, the universe, and everything. it's a description of the history of variation of life on this planet -- and that's it.
this notion of yours comes from a fundamental misunderstand of what science is. it is not an alternate mythology, designed to remove any need for god. and not all people who understand science are athiests. science in general does not need to explain all of life's mysteries, nor does any one particular field of study need to be all-encompasing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 1:27 AM PetVet2Be has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 10:03 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 39 of 62 (326371)
06-26-2006 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by PetVet2Be
06-26-2006 12:23 AM


No, you don't need mustations to 'add information' to the genes. All that has to happen is that there is a change in alleles over time.
That also include the removal of information. For example, man does not have the ability to synthsesis vitamin C on his own. Other primates do.
Cave dwelling species no longer have the ability to sense light. Their ancestors did.
As for the mathematics of it happening are.. just exactly how ARE you calcuating it? Are you taking into account that it is many tiny small steps, and not one big one?
I would say that the chance of SOMETHING happen chemically is 1.
Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 12:23 AM PetVet2Be has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 10:08 AM ramoss has not replied

  
PetVet2Be
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 62 (326384)
06-26-2006 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by arachnophilia
06-26-2006 1:36 AM


Of cource I believe in natural selection and variation. I'd be a fool not to. What I am saying is even with mutations every species produces more of its own kind. For example have you ever heard of a dog giving birth to anything other than a dog? Or a cat anything other than a cat? No you have not because it does not happen. Over the last several thousand years we should have at least seen one instance where one species gave rise to another. And as far as variation is concerned "purebred" animals hgave much less variation than their ancestors. Take dogs for example. Purebred dogs are prone to so many different problems from bones to organs. And purebreds only produce purebreds. You cannot take two poodles and breed them and their offspering to get a wolf. They have lost the original variation. While their ancestor which was probably very much like the typical wolf and had much variation.
And your belief that I do not believe in science is rediculous and unfounded. As a verterinarian to be I deal with science everyday and the complexity demands intelligence not random chance. Order cannot come from disorder.... unless Someone had a hand in it. There are two choices God made it from nothing or it came from nothing all by itself and since something cant create itself.... I'll let you figure that part out. The Bible does not allow for millions of years. It does not work. You must use irrational reasoning (an oxymoron?) to place anything other than a 6 day creation in there. Dr. Richard Dawkins himself laughs at Christians who try to put evolution into the Bible. He wants no compromises either. As a side note AiG has movie called From a Frog to a Prince. Dr. Dawkins was interviewed in this movie and his reasoning almost had me convinced. I reccomend looking into it.
Edited by PetVet2Be, : Stupid 'puter thinks its smarter than me and tryed posting before I was ready.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by arachnophilia, posted 06-26-2006 1:36 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by arachnophilia, posted 07-03-2006 9:16 PM PetVet2Be has not replied

  
PetVet2Be
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 62 (326386)
06-26-2006 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by ramoss
06-26-2006 9:35 AM


Yes the chance of "something" happening is 1. But because of all the different somethings happening the odds of that one "good" something happening is very unlikely. 2 makes it even worse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by ramoss, posted 06-26-2006 9:35 AM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Wounded King, posted 06-26-2006 10:28 AM PetVet2Be has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 42 of 62 (326392)
06-26-2006 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by PetVet2Be
06-26-2006 12:57 AM


Do you read anything OTHER than AiG?
Seeing as you are making scientific arguments you might want to find some articles from scientific journals..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 12:57 AM PetVet2Be has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 10:22 AM RickJB has not replied

  
PetVet2Be
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 62 (326397)
06-26-2006 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by RickJB
06-26-2006 10:15 AM


AiG has the same foundation I do. A faith in the Bible and its author. The scientific journals you are talking about that you would use as referance have the same foundation you do. A faith in evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by RickJB, posted 06-26-2006 10:15 AM RickJB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by EZscience, posted 06-26-2006 1:22 PM PetVet2Be has not replied
 Message 46 by Chiroptera, posted 06-26-2006 3:55 PM PetVet2Be has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 44 of 62 (326401)
06-26-2006 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by PetVet2Be
06-26-2006 10:08 AM


The mistaken assumption here is that ther is only one possible good 'something' that will do. In order to produce a measure of probability that is anything more than just make believe you need to have a very clear and releiable set of basic assumptions in place.
If your assumptions are out then the figures that are produced are next to worthless.
The key flawed assumption you show here is the supposition that only a specific mutation will do to produce some 'good' effect and that only a second specific mutation will be able to build on that.
As Ramoss so cogently asks, where are your calculations coming from.
Your AIG links also make the most common of mistakn creationist assumptions which is that to calculate the chances of something evolving you should calculate the chances of it being formed spontaneously from a jumbled assortment of amino acids, nucleotides, molecules or atoms.
Such an assumption also renders the calculation worthless except perhaps if one were discussing some very specific areas of abiogenesis where the assumption of a combination of free chemicals might conceivably be relevant.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 10:08 AM PetVet2Be has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 45 of 62 (326476)
06-26-2006 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by PetVet2Be
06-26-2006 10:22 AM


I can't help but wonder what sort of useful insights Creationist thinking has provided for your vet-med learning experience. Surely as a vet in training, you are exposed to some biological theory. Ever wonder where all that understanding of how animals function came from? It sure wasn't the bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 10:22 AM PetVet2Be 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