New Mutation Variables Disprove Evolution !

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Ive never heard of any mutated animals in or around Chernobyl.
What have you got to back this up?

a reply to: sunkuong

Without backup this is just another story.
Once upon a time in a land far far away.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

You refuted your own argument. If radiation usually results in deformities then the habitat will filter them out.

Also I wasn't arguing semantics. Regardless of what causes the mutations, the "theory" never states that mutations guarantee survival, which was what the post I replied to was saying.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Ive never heard of any mutated animals in or around Chernobyl.
What have you got to back this up?

You didn't even look into this topic at all than, because one simple Google search reveals there were mutations.

National Geographic article

His research with biologist Timothy Mousseau has shown that voles have higher rates of cataracts, useful populations of bacteria on the wings of birds in the zone are lower, partial albinism among barn swallows, and that cuckoos have become less common, among other findings. Serious mutations, though, happened only right after the accident.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

In one of my biology courses in college we had a guest speaker who went and did studies at Chernobyl and brought his findings for our class to study. He had some slide shows and tons of data.

We were studying this specific topic - mutations in the wildlife due to radiation poisoning.

This was in 2000 mind you, 19 years ago.
And even then he was saying that the wildlife was doing way better than anyone expected, and of course his data showed that any serious mutations resulted in death rather than anything beneficial.

a reply to: underwerks

That's not evolution LOL, adaptation, I'd like someone to prove me wrong

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

You refuted your own argument. If radiation usually results in deformities then the habitat will filter them out.

Also I wasn't arguing semantics. Regardless of what causes the mutations, the "theory" never states that mutations guarantee survival, which was what the post I replied to was saying.

This article might be of interest, though keep in mind the authors are on one side of the debate:

A Billion Genes and Not One Beneficial Mutation

Although this article is from someone questioning evolution and aiming to disprove it, we need to analyze and consider all sides of an argument before we come to any conclusions.

a reply to: muzzleflash

You are right, all sides need to be considered. I will take a look but the title put me off a little "not one beneficial mutation" seems like a stretch. I mean something that might not look beneficial to us may have been in some circumstance, but that is just going off the title. Thanks for the link.

a reply to: daskakik

Ok took a quick look. I'm a little confused at what was the take away. They had 1.2 billion genes but why not just say they had DNA from 60.7K people. I mean they obviously went for the big number because it is big.

So they took DNA from 60.7K modern humans and found out that they are pretty similar. They then focus on the word choice (or lack there of) of the mutations since they point out that benefit, beneficial, fitness, advantage (in terms of mutation), improvement, innovation, invention, or positive selection is never used. What does that even mean? Can anyone, with current tech even guess what proteins might be beneficial to a living being. Does it give them strength, resistance, speed or even the ability to hibernate?

I'm doing a terrible job of explaining myself but it shouldn't be that hard to grasp, this genetics thing is really complicated and this mapping thing seems like a very general look at things, I think.

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Radiation does not cause evolution.

On to the next inane theory.

Actually you're wrong.

It has long been theorized that cosmic radiation has played a significant role in the evolution of species and much research has been conducted on this theory.

Google "evolution cosmic radiation" for 6.7 million results discussing this topic in depth.

That's not anywhere near what the OP is about.

Mutation is not evolution. Radiation doesn't cause it. It facilitates it.

I suspect we agree on it for the most part, but a simplistic and incomplete OP gets a simplistic answer. It's usually not worth going over finer details because they get ignored or twisted.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

The problem with the way people think about evolution today is through the goggles of molecular biology. There are other forces, "attractors", that are pulling life towards ever greater levels of organization and complexity.

It's not that evolution is wrong. Animals clearly adapt to the environment in the very best and most efficient way possible through breeding and genetics. The problem with evolution is it is incomplete. There is another piece responsible for how life is formed, shaped, and evolves over time to greater levels of complexity missing from the basic theory of evolution.

These "atttractors" and how they work still need to be discovered. Maybe these attractors work through interacting waves of energy such that the Universe has a kind of collective memory. The mind of nature also has some kind of creative element imagining new possibilities to be manifested.

Unlike computer programs that only ever do exactly what they've been program to do, the human mind is constantly inventing new ways to see and create order instead of chaos in our Universe. Our minds are drawn to the future by unknown possibilities. There's something out there giving us thoughts from the future.

a reply to: HomeBrew

There arent any kinds. Only speciation

Chernobyl makes Waterbears bigger , but doesn't give them wings.
Guess spacebears play a crucial part in evolution.

This thread is a waste of my time and effort to refute.

Believe OP if you want, what the hell do I know?

Citation: AP Biology, Biotechnology, Molecular Genetics
- - -
First Hand Experience Performing The Following Tasks Under Supervision of Doctors, Doctoral Candidates, or Experienced Teachers In The Field, Holding Master Degree Qualification And/Or Experience or Higher:

PCR, Gel Electrophoresis, Gene Splicing, Di-section Amphibians, Di-section Mammals, Multiple Bacterial Growth Projects, Protein Production, Protein Extraction, Enzyme Replication, Enzyme Utilization, RNA Extraction, DNA Extraction, Genetic Insertion

What Chernobyl proved was that humans have a worse impact on the environment than the radioactive contamination. Take away the humans and nature thrives, regardless of the radioactivity.

Other than that. I am afraid that the Chernobyl disaster does not disprove evolution at all. It reiterates what we have known all along – in that with high radiation, such as in the aftermath of the disaster, there were deadly mutations in the local population of animals. Sadly, a blind foal, or a deformed wolf won't survive to be photographed, studied by scientists and make a nature documentary.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

You have no idea what you're talking about.

So, if the environment is the driving factor in evolution, shouldn’t the animals, especially, the shorter life span insects, should show an evolution to eating food that is more radioactive and living in an area which has radioactive soil than other members of their species that live in radiation free zones?

Or

One has to make the argument that higher radiation levels is less of an evolutionary force than shapes of flowers(bird beaks)

Another example that shows organisms cannot go outside of their genetic bounds.

No organism has ever changed into another organism. over 100 years of artificial selection (trying to force evolution) in fruit flies, microbes, and mice yet there are still no examples they can evolve into something else.

I forget if it was Plato or Socrates but they hypothesized long ago that all creatures can reach certain extremes, tall, short, etc, but can never go outside of their essential form. That's exactly what we're observing in the lab.

a reply to: wheresthebody

Really.....One of the most significant limitations to the possible change to DNA is that genes in a healthy organism already perform their function, and changing the sequence of those genes often interrupts those functions, making the carrier of that DNA not able to pass those genes on, and thus for those genes to increase in abundance within a population, a mutation fail.
Random mutation result in a loss of fitness of the animal making it weaker.

Mutations do not introduce new information in the genome, but destroy existing information. Unless you believe in Marvel comics.

Well time for a new thread on RNA & DNA see all the regulars there.

Well now, let's have a look at Mr Darwins bit. Galapagos Iguanas are thought to derive from a common ancestor from South America. But in the Galapagos they adapted to feeding in the salt water. This developed over successive generation as a result of natural selection.
NOTE:- they adapted over time. Now what's the word I'm looking for?? Oh yes, they Evolved. And through this and other adaptations Mr Darwin gave us the theory of evolution.