It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Mutation Variables Disprove Evolution !

page: 3
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2019 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

Marine iguanas adapted to their surrounding, but they are still iguanas.
There is no dispute about adaptation, we see it within ourselves even, if we spend lot's of time in the sun our skin gets darker.
If 30 generations spend too much time in the sun, that becomes a permanent feature of that race, Microevolution=adapatation.

My conclusion is that the genetic drifting possibilities within the limitations of the DNA code is more responsible for adaptation than mutations, which are almost always negative to the species.




posted on Aug, 5 2019 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Mutations do not result in evolution. Mutation is a tool of evolution and adaptation, but it isn't the reason things evolve.

For a species to evolve, there needs to be an environmental reason that a particular mutation would be beneficial to it -- a benefit that would allow it to live longer and/or have more offspring than a non-mutated individual.

Without that benefit, there is no reason for a mutation to go much further than just a few generations before it is diluted into the genome as just junk or background noise.


originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
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.


Not all mutations weaken an individual animal who has it, and (this is important) the original species from which another species evolved was not necessarily weaker or less adapted. A certain mutation might help a species thrive in a different way that its original species thrived. But the original species might still thrive.

For example, a certain bird species might be doing fine and be very successful eating bugs crawling on a tree. However, a bird in that species might have mutated to have a slightly longer tongue that allowed it to get more bugs from tough-to-reach spots. The individuals of that species without the short tongue are still doing fine; they generally get enough food for the long term survival of the species...

...However, the individual with the slightly longer tongue also did well, and passed his long-tongue gene onto its three chicks. These three chicks also did slightly better at getting food than the short-tongued individuals, and lived long enough to have broods of their own, and they might even live slightly longer (because they eat well) to have even more broods compered to their short-tongued cousins.

Some of the chicks from these broods might even have longer tongues yet, allowing them to find bugs hinging in holes in the tree. another mutation might have given one of these birds a pointier beak, allowing it to make the hole bigger.

These mutations allow the longer-tongued, pointier-beak birds to go find other habitats to exploit. away from the short-tongued variety of the species (who are still doing perfectly well with their short tongues), like say they go to dead trees where they can use their pointy peaks and long tongues to their advantage, unlike their cousins who find their bugs crawling along their different habitat of living trees.

After several generations of this living on different types of trees, and after several generations of the long-tongued variety mating mostly with other long-tongued members of the species (because they are nearer to them), and the short=tongued variety mating mostly with other short-tongued members of the species (because they are nearer to them), the species begin to diverge from each other until there are two distinct species with two distinct eating behaviors.

In this case, there is nothing wrong with the short-tongued species. They are well-suited for the habitat in which they live. The long-tongued new species is also well-suited to the habitat in which they live.

edit on 8/5/2019 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2019 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Double post. See below.


edit on 8/5/2019 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2019 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
I give you the animals of Chernobyl.


It seems 33 years later and despite large scale mutations the animal populations are stabilizing, even prospering.


33 years is too short a timeframe for species to diverge.

Not only that, but not all mutations result in changes that would lead to a species diverging. There would be a reason for a particular mutation to become such a benefit that would be more likely to be passed on.



But let's go back to the 33 year timeframe thing. Changes in a species that might cause a divergence into another species is a slow process. It takes many, many generations to happen. And the change is so gradual that even with the benefit of hindsight, there is no way to look back at every generation of a species to be able to pinpoint the single moment the species diverged. that's because there is no such single moment.

As the below video explains, "Every generation is the same species as its parents and the same species as its children". There is no "first" example of a particular species. The changed is so gradual and smooth that there is an overlap of sorts.




edit on 8/5/2019 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Sounds like adaptation due to the environment, which is evolution.


Bahahaha. Thread over. Another dishonest creationist fails completely at his fallacious invalid attacks on science. Shocker!



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

Bahahaha. Thread over. Another dishonest creationist fails completely at his fallacious invalid attacks on science. Shocker!


Just read all your posts that you wrote. They are all nonsense of you lol'ing and barcing at nothing.

Adapting to the environment isn't evolution. If it were evolution, then light skinned people are evolved from dark-skinned people, which is absolutely wrong. Do you see how quickly your silly theory can lead to bigotry and genocide? Adaptations work from assets that are already within an organisms genome. Take for example altitude acclimation. When we raise altitude we have a protein that helps buffer the altering oxygen content... This isn't "evolution", it is adaptation that is available in the human genome.

If you are going to respond, respond with substance. Stop barcing.
edit on 6-8-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Nope. This is in no way a disproving of the theory of evolution. Its clear you don't understand what the theory says, or your source you are using did not. I say the latter.



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Ummmmmmm can you cite where "humanity" lost its fur during the Ice age (which one? There have been several)



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33




So what happened, the badly effected just died, but those that got dosed just enough to mutate but not die did not pass there exact mutations onto the next generation, the damaged DNA was either too damaged to pass to the next generation as in they couldn't reproduce. Or in succeeding generations it self-corrected. So you might get bigger catfish but they are still catfish.


What you have described is a change in environment that has caused a rapid expansion of the gene pool due to radiation caused mutations. Many of those mutations that are detrimental to the organism have been quickly 'washed out' of the gene pool - which is exactly what is predicted by the MES theory - EXACTLY. If this was NOT what happened would have been evidence AGAINST the MES.

That is a successful confirmation of a central tennant of the MES: natural selection effectively deletes detrimental mutations in short order.

The reverse is not necessarily true: mutations that are neutral when they occur do not necessarily disappear. Furthermore, such neutral mutations may remain neutral FOREVER, or may become positively beneficial at any time in the future. This is also a prediction of the MES: we don't see animals changing radically from exposure to radiation, even though we know that mutation rates have gone up.

What is required by the MES for evolution is (1) a sufficiently large gene pool to provide for "options" (this is provided by mutations, for example by radiation exposure or DNA mistakes at conception), (2) a change in the environment of a nature that something in the gene pool gives some individuals better survival chances than other individuals.

For speciation to occur, there is (3) a separation between two (or more) sub-groups of the population for long enough for their gene pool to have developed differently and their responses to environmental change to have moved in different directions.

In the case of Chernobyl, animals and plants have been exposed to radiation that has no doubt increased the options in their gene pool. However, nothing else in their environment has changed. There is still the same amount of rainfall, sunlight, seasonal changes. No earthquakes damning rivers or volcano's creating mountains to separate populations. The only change is a faster mutation rate. And that, by itself, is not enough for natural selection to favor some over the other - mutation is NOT evolution, mutation is a change in the gene pool.

You have mentioned that some are getting bigger. So maybe there is an advantage there that is being selected for. There is no (known) rule that dictates what changes a population experiences. But 'getting bigger' may be an evolutionary change, or may just be a result of not having to compete with human pressure. Maybe they were actually in the process of evolving smaller in response to human pressure, and now that that has been lifted, they are returning to the pre-human norm because that mutation has "moved" back into the neutral category.

In any event, what you have described is EXACTLY what the MES has predicted would happen in this situation for over 100 years.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 02:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33



So you might get bigger catfish but they are still catfish.


You are sounding like a broken record: your needle is stuck.

The MES does NOT claim that a catfish will ever become a non-catfish in such a short time, or necessarily ever. It is a straw man argument, because NOBODY (other than opponents of the MES) makes that claim, not even close.

The MES says that populations of catfish MAY, over time, become populations of different kinds of catfish. And given enough time and changes different populations of different catfish MAY differentiate enough that they are completely different catfish from all the other populations of catfish. And given enough time some populations may become so much different from other catfish that God MAY demand of Adam that a new name be selected (that is some group of humans will decide that it has changed enough that it is something new altogether). Adam may call this new group 'Bandersnatchfishes' instead of Catfish, for example.

But a catfish isn't going to turn into a bandersnatchfish within a few generations though, no. If it did that would be evidence AGAINST the MES. You are arguing about a controversy that does NOT EXIST.



Mutations do not support evolution, and the animals of Chernobyl prove that.


More stuck record noise.

Mutations provide the raw material for evolution. You continuously claim that what the MES calls evolution is "only" adaptation made possible by "pre-existing" options available in the gene pool. That is correct as far as it goes.

What you refuse to acknowledge is that those options "pre-exist" in the gene pool PRECISELY BECAUSE they are the result of mutations.

Of course mutations support evolution: they provide the options that natural selection can operate over.
edit on 9/8/2019 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/8/2019 by rnaa because: spelling / grammer

edit on 9/8/2019 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 02:54 AM
link   
thread says less about evolution than it does about the general state of ignorance in the populace towards radiation.
edit on 9-8-2019 by continuousThunder because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

...
The MES says that populations of catfish MAY, over time, become populations of different kinds of catfish. And given enough time and changes different populations of different catfish MAY differentiate enough that they are completely different catfish from all the other populations of catfish. And given enough time some populations may become so much different from other catfish that God MAY demand of Adam that a new name be selected (that is some group of humans will decide that it has changed enough that it is something new altogether). Adam may call this new group 'Bandersnatchfishes' instead of Catfish, for example.
...
Mutations provide the raw material for evolution.

"Mutations are a reality and while most of them are of no consequence or detrimental, one cannot deny that on occasion a beneficial mutation might occur [in relation to a certain environment, but usually not for a gene's function per se; Anmerkung von W.-E.Lönnig; vgl. Diskussion]. However, to invoke strings of beneficial mutations that suffice to reshape one animal into the shape of another is not merely unreasonable, it is not science." - Christian Schwabe

Schwabe earned his PhD in 1965 in biochemistry. He was a professor of biochemistry at Harvard Medical School up until 1971.

"Needless to say, I did not succeed in producing a higher category in a single step; but it must be kept in mind that neither have the Neo-Darwinians ever built up as much as the semblance of a new species by recombination of micromutations. In such well-studied organisms as Drosophila [fruitflies], in which numerous visible and, incidentally, small invisible mutations have been recombined, never has even the first step in the direction of a new species been accomplished, not to mention higher categories." - Richard B. Goldschmidt (geneticist, considered the first to attempt to integrate genetics, development, and evolution.)

"Mutations are merely hereditary fluctuations around a medium position…No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." - Pierre-Paul Grassé (French zoologist, author of over 300 publications; He occupied the Chair of Evolutionary Biology of the Faculty of Paris.)

(On evolutionary novelties by chance mutations: ) "I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations." - Lynn Margulis (American evolutionary theorist and biologist, science author, educator, and popularizer, and was the primary modern proponent for the significance of symbiosis in evolution. Historian Jan Sapp has said that "Lynn Margulis's name is as synonymous with symbiosis as Charles Darwin's is with evolution." President Bill Clinton presented her the National Medal of Science in 1999. The Linnean Society of London awarded her the Darwin-Wallace Medal in 2008. In 2002, Discover magazine recognized Margulis as one of the 50 most important women in science.)

The extra information about these scientists is mostly from wikipedia, with "symbiosis" above they are referring to the following subject:

What do many scientists claim? All living cells fall into two major categories​—those with a nucleus and those without. Human, animal, and plant cells have a nucleus. Bacterial cells do not. Cells with a nucleus are called eukaryotic. Those without a nucleus are known as prokaryotic. Since prokaryotic cells are relatively less complex than eukaryotic cells, many believe that animal and plant cells must have evolved from bacterial cells.

In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them. Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.9 *

*: No experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible.

9. Encyclopædia Britannica, CD 2003, “Cell,” “The Mitochondrion and the Chloroplast,” subhead, “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis.”

Source: QUESTION 2: Is Any Form of Life Really Simple? (The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking)

Of course you have other "symbiosis" storylines as well concerning other machinery or systems of machinery (+other ways these systems are structured or organized) in the cells of different organisms between which an evolutionary link is claimed.

Not that it really matters, cause they all share the same issue bolded in the footnote at the end there. Enough with the bedtime stories already, designed to sound plausible only in the eyes of sufficiently indoctrinated biased beholders (and then publishing and marketing them as "science", or under that marketinglabel).

No need to bother responding with the usual set of ad hominems and attempts at discrediting the quotations above, or the usual quote mining accusations and paintjobs. Or red herrings about them still holding to evolutionary teachings in spite of these acknowledgements regarding mutations, since that is already obvious from the additional information about them that I added from wikipedia and just distracts from what they acknowledge about mutations in relation to "evolution" (as Grassé uses the word for example) compared to what you said about it. It'll save you and/or others some time making useless comments that just rub it in what's going on here in terms of propaganda and marketing techniques and how they have affected many commenting here.

Just ignoring the inconvenient facts acknowledged in the quotations above seems to be the more popular modus operandi here anyway. Anything to avoid having to acknowledge them or how they relate to the topic of evolutionary storylines.

Acknowledge: accept or admit the existence or truth of. (google dictionary, definition 1)

Of course synonyms for "truth" as used in that sentence are "certainty/factuality/reality".

Agnosticism is also a popular mode of thinking here when trying to avoid having to acknowledge inconvenient facts as certainties (in spite of those words being synonyms). It's basically a form of:

No need to bother promoting that way of thinking either, plenty of other people are already doing so. It'll save you some time again.

I suspect you and others on the same side of the fence here, are not inclined to try something truly novel, acknowledging the same facts/realities/certainties/truths that were acknowledged in the quotations at the start of this comment. Nevertheless, I still recommend it, what's the harm in being honest about it one day, or just for one single moment in your life to abandon the Baldrick-routine regarding any fact/certainty that is inconvenient? Pardon the cynicism. Just calling 'm as I see 'm.

Mutations provide the raw material for evolution.


Myth 1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species. The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.

Evolution—Myths and Facts
edit on 9-8-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2019 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

"Mutations are a reality and while most of them are of no consequence or detrimental, one cannot deny that on occasion a beneficial mutation might occur [in relation to a certain environment, but usually not for a gene's function per se; Anmerkung von W.-E.Lönnig; vgl. Diskussion]. However, to invoke strings of beneficial mutations that suffice to reshape one animal into the shape of another is not merely unreasonable, it is not science." - Christian Schwabe

Schwabe earned his PhD in 1965 in biochemistry. He was a professor of biochemistry at Harvard Medical School up until 1971.

"Needless to say, I did not succeed in producing a higher category in a single step; but it must be kept in mind that neither have the Neo-Darwinians ever built up as much as the semblance of a new species by recombination of micromutations. In such well-studied organisms as Drosophila [fruitflies], in which numerous visible and, incidentally, small invisible mutations have been recombined, never has even the first step in the direction of a new species been accomplished, not to mention higher categories." - Richard B. Goldschmidt (geneticist, considered the first to attempt to integrate genetics, development, and evolution.)

"Mutations are merely hereditary fluctuations around a medium position…No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." - Pierre-Paul Grassé (French zoologist, author of over 300 publications; He occupied the Chair of Evolutionary Biology of the Faculty of Paris.)

(On evolutionary novelties by chance mutations: ) "I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations." - Lynn Margulis (American evolutionary theorist and biologist, science author, educator, and popularizer, and was the primary modern proponent for the significance of symbiosis in evolution. Historian Jan Sapp has said that "Lynn Margulis's name is as synonymous with symbiosis as Charles Darwin's is with evolution." President Bill Clinton presented her the National Medal of Science in 1999. The Linnean Society of London awarded her the Darwin-Wallace Medal in 2008. In 2002, Discover magazine recognized Margulis as one of the 50 most important women in science.)


Enough said, great quotes! Evolution has never been observed, despite constant attempts (through tax-payer dollars too) to try to prove it in a lab. In theory, you wouldn't need much time if you were using artificial selection. Despite attempting to breed organisms into another organism, we cannot. Proven by the quotes above^

This is usually when barcs comes in, barcing and ignoring any of the substance you provided, calls it quote mining, and buries his head back in the sand. Or maybe noinden comes and discusses his degree in Chemistry, calls you dumb, and leaves. Or phantom comes and drops off 500 papers irrelevant to anything that was said, makes a condescending remark, and leaves. Petervlar will come in with some unholy indignation and maybe insult your mom, but will definitely insult your intelligence.

The war is already over, evolution is disproven, it's just a matter of getting the information to the infantry at the front line.
edit on 10-8-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2019 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
Humankind supposedly lost their fur during the Ice Age whereas most animals retained their "changing" of fur due to the seasons.


Actually, it’s 1.2 Ma based on calculating the mutation rate and establishing a molecular clock for the MC1R gene, which specifies a protein that serves as a switch between the two kinds of pigment made by human cells. Eumelanin, which protects against the ultraviolet rays of the sun, is brown-black; pheomelanin, which is not protective, is a red-yellow color, it would appear that our Genus lost its body hair early on in Africa approximately 1.2 Ma. So quite a bit earlier than the LGM




Was this evolution ?


Yes , this was a positive mutation (at least it was when the climate changed enough
To make it beneficial) that allowed us to cool down more easily after the cooling Forrest’s gave way to more arid Savannah with less shade and fewer hiding spots. This also allowed us to begin running long distances which made us apex predators when we could outlast and tire prey and it also allowed us to rid ourselves of body lice as well. A nice added bonus I don’t complain about!

In fact, one of the early tests to get a rough idea of when we lost most body hair, was to calculate mutation rates in public life, head lice and body lice to try to figure out at least when we started wearing clothes.


Or a rampant gene caused by some form of radiation ?


Is that possible? Yes. Though I’m inclined to think that given the set of circumstances regarding the rapid shift in ecological niches of our genus at the time in question coupled with the genetic data, it’s far more likely to be (and this is only my opinion) a case of a neutral mutation that already existed within the population as a recessive gene. Again, just my personal opinion as a paleoanthropologist based on the evidence I’ve seen and the papers that I’ve read.


The question has yet to be answered definitively .


The problem there is the subjectiveness of “definitively” as it would seem that depending on the thread and context, the same words or phrases have wildly differing definitions and understandings from one person to the next.

If we’re being honest, there are very few things that can safely be considered factual when utilizing the scientific method. That’s not remotely the same thing as having falsified the material in question either, but I digress...

It hasn’t been answered anymore definitively than gravity or cell theory ( that our bodies are comprised of cells) either. Just for the sake of context.


Remember , evolution is defined as a natural progression .


Actually, evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency over time. A natural progression implies that there is some sort of linear process when evolution is anything but linear.
edit on 10-8-2019 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Yes , this was a positive mutation (at least it was when the climate changed enough
To make it beneficial)


Perer,
Can I get your thoughts on this?
edit on 11-8-2019 by Quadrivium because: Trouble with link



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33




This is a 3 minute informative video, it seems human occupation is more dangerous to the animal population than high doses of radiation, and that is sad and ironic.

That applies, unfortunately, in very many places.



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium


If you can bare with me until tonight when I have more time to properly read through your citation, I'm always happy to check something out and I dont even charge extra if I manage to stick my foot in my mouth in the process.



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

No hurry.
Appreciate your time.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join