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.

 

Mutations cannot be the mechanism of Evolution.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2004 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Gentlemen (I don't think any ladies have responded),

I appreciate all of your responces and all the links! I am anxious to continue this debate, however, with the great amount of information that you have presented me with the time it takes me to form a complete reply may be just a tad longer than usual but there will be a reply and it will more than likely be very long but also very complete.

Once again, Thank you (especially Byrd and Amantine)!




posted on May, 28 2004 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
noctu,

The HIV virus has not mutated. The HIV virus is becoming tolerant of the drugs the same way that you and I would become tollerent of a poison if we were administered it daily for a long while.

Something for you to read on Beneficial Mutations.

www.icr.org...

[Edited on 27-5-2004 by BlackJackal]


well look at this,
www.aegis.com...

also where do you think they get the term protease mutation?



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TenPin
Heh, I know that mutations can't make it from molecules to man either but not a single evolutionist has ever been convinced otherwise.


You "know" that, do you? Have you ever heard of something called "Sickle Cell Anemia?" This disease is caused by a double copy of a mutation in a single nucletide in beta globin. That's it. One single mutation shift, in both parents, and the "man" suddenly has sickle cell anemia. One shift in a single parent, and the "man" suddenly has a much better resistance to malaria.

Oh, and guess what? The population of people who have ancestors who come from malaria-carrying regions of the world have a much higher incidence of this gene that brings resistance to malaria. Now I wonder how that could have happened? Could it be that the people who had a higher resistance to malaria somehow tended to survive longer and therefore had more children, and therefore those carrying the gene make up a greater proportion of the population? Nawww.... after all, I believe in both God and evolution. I'm just a waste... what would I know?



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I wish there was DNA that killed stupid people who believe in creationism.



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Alex Kennedy:

Sickle cell anaemia is caused by an inherited defect in the instructions which code for the production of haemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying pigment in red blood cells. You will only develop the full-blown serious disease if both of your parents have the defective gene. If you inherit the defect from only one parent, the healthy gene from the other one will largely enable you to escape the effects of this serious condition.

However, this means you are capable of transmitting the defective gene to you offspring, and it also happens that such carriers arc less likely to develop malaria, which is often fatal. Being a carrier of sickle cell disease without suffering it (heterozygosity is the technical term) is far more common in those areas of the world which are high-risk malaria areas, especially Africa.

This is good evidence that natural selection plays a part in maintaining a higher frequency of this carrier state. If you are resistant to malaria, you are more likely to survive to pass on your genes. Nevertheless, it is a defect, not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for, and having more carriers in the population means that there will be more people suffering from this terrible disease. Demonstrating natural selection does not demonstrate that 'upward evolution' is a fact, yet many schoolchildren are taught this as a proof of evolution.

Copied from - here

This does not represent an increase in the total genetic information. Its just so happens that in this case a loss of this specific genetic information is beneficial to some.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Thank you for your pactience!

Let me start by saying I recognizes that mutations do exist, and that certain bacteria and viruses become resistant to treatments. However, no scientist in the listings you provide can give examples of any mutation that produces a net increase in genetic information, leading to a higher level of transitional development towards macroevolution (one kind of animal developing into another kind. I do not need to know how many scientists believe in evolution; I would like documentation of transitional developing life forms due to additional information in the genetic code.

Byrd this is for you, Incidentally, the ICR biologists received their degrees from reputable universities, such as Harvard (Dr. Cumming), University of California, Berkeley (Gish and Scripture), UCLA (Franks), Ball State University (Parker), Texas A & M. (Thompson), Brown University (Mastropaolo), and others. You may find this information on there webpage at
www.icr.org...

All research scientists use good scientific techniques in the lab, not evolution or supernatural creation. I make my case on the basis of good scientific evidence, not on religion or philosophy. It is how one interprets the evidence, and not what the evidence is. Both evolutionists and creationists look at the same evidences.


Often the claim is made in biology classes that evolution has been observed in certain microbes-germs that over time have developed a resistance to antibiotics. For instance, penicillin is generally now less effective than before. Stronger and more focused drugs have been developed, each with initial benefits, but which must continue to be replaced with something stronger. Now, "super germs" defy treatment.

One might ask, have these single-celled germs "evolved"? And does this prove that single-celled organisms evolved into plants and people?

As is frequently the case, we must first distinguish between variation, adaptation, and recombination of existing traits (i.e., microevolution) and the appearance of new and different genes, body parts, and traits (i.e., macroevolution). Does this acquired resistance to antibiotics, this population shift, this dominant exhibition of a previously minority trait point to macroevolution? Since each species of germ remained that same species and nothing new was produced, the answer is no!


For More Information Click Here!

As for this link:
www.gate.net...:

Six examples were given as follows:

1. Gene variants of PAI-1 and ACE account for a significant portion of the between-individual variability of circulating PAI-1 antigen concentrations in a general population without clinical evidence of atherosclerosis.

2. A third frequent mutation in this gene, the Ser447-Stop, is reported by some investigators to underlie higher HDL cholesterol levels and would represent a beneficial genetic variant in lipoprotein metabolism.

3. The LPL Ser447-Stop mutation therefore should have a protective effect against the development of atherosclerosis and subsequent CAD.

4. These associations provide evidence for a common mutation that appears to confer beneficial lipid and lipoprotein profiles amongst an adult male population with regard to risk of CAD.

5. This is a rare example of an inherited functional human disorder in which a mutation affecting splicing still permits some correct splicing to occur and this has a beneficial effect to the phenotype of the patients.

6. Gbeta3-s appears to be associated with enhanced immune cell function in humans.

Rebuttal:

Let us define our terms. We are not talking about built in variations in the genome but mistakes that are made when one or a few nucleotides within the DNA molecule are incorrectly copied which causes a single amino acid substitution in a protein. This can be benign at the least and at the most, lethal. Mutations are ultimately harmful to the normal life cycle of any living organism beyond the bacteria stage. Another possible definition for mutation is a deficiency in DNA repair (cf. Genomes 2nd Edition by T.A. Brown. p.418). We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.

However, a general rule to consider in evaluating such statements is that mutations do produce novel genetic changes, but never has a mutation seen known to add coded information to an already complex DNA system. on the contrary, it usually and easily causes a deterioration of the information present in the DNA. Never has a helpful mutation been observed, yet trillions are needed. Therefore, the small changes that we see do not add up to the big changes evolution needs.

Did a single-celled organism become a marine invertebrate, then a fish, then an amphibian, then a reptile, then a mammal, then an ape-like ancestor then a person? The ratio of good to bad mutations is not the point. A cell doesn't have the genes needed to produce even a nodal chord, nor does a fish have the genes to produce legs. This extra genetic information must be added from some external source, but science knows of no such source (cf. BTG # 161 at the ICR web site, www.icr.org). Other helpful articles are asfollows:

1. "Words: Genetic and Linguistic Problems for Evolution"
www.icr.org...; URL:
www.icr.org...

2. "Production of Therapeutic Proteins by Genetic Engineering,"
www.icr.org...; URL:
www.icr.org...

3. "Why Can't Geneticists See the Obvious Evidence for Creation in the
Genetic Code?" www.icr.org...; URL:
www.icr.org...

4. Refuting Evolution (Series 2) - Lesson 2: Chapter 2 - "Variation and
Natural Selection Versus Evolution"

"Refuting Evolution (Series 2) Q&A: Mutations. Q&A: Speciation. Discussion questions: 1. Briefly outline and critique the 'general theory of evolution' (in the molecules-to-man sense) Discuss the role of 'natural selection' and 'mutations'...." found at www.answersingenesis.org...


5. "Hox Hype - Has Macro-evolution Been Proven?" found at
www.answersingenesis.org...

[Edited on 29-5-2004 by BlackJackal]

[Edited on 30-5-2004 by BlackJackal]



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 10:43 AM
link   
In evolution, new enzymes are never formed from scratch. Other proteins are mutated and get new functions. There are a lot of copies of the same gene in DNA, many of those not functional because of small errors. This means getting a new enzyme doesn't automatically mean losing another enzyme.

B.G. Hall did an experiment where he completely deleted a gene coding for galactodiose, a enzyme that breaks one of the products of lactose digestion, galactose, into two usable monosacharides. I repeat: the gene was completely deleted, lost for the bacteria. When he put the galactodiose-deficient bacteria in a culture with lactose, some strains developed the ability to digest galactose. They got a new function, a new enzyme (the original one was deleted). This happened without the enzyme being formed from scratch, because it was a mutated enzyme that originally didn't work or coded for another enzyme. This means organisms can get new functions without adding genes from scratch. New information was added without the intervention of humans or a creator. (source)

BTW, today I read an overview of human/chimpansee DNA comparison in a (and my opinion the best) dutch newspaper. It explained the 1.5% and 30% differences in the Japanese research (Yakasuma or something) we discussed earlier, where I didn't know the difference between BAC and BAS analysis. The 1.5% difference is when your compare only the pure protein coding part of the DNA and the 30% is when you look at difference protein functioning. A different aminoacid gives a different enzyme function. This gives a higher number.

[Edited on 29-5-2004 by amantine]



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Even though deletious mutations can prove to be beneficial it does nothing to help evolutions case. Evolution is based upon a very simple organism evolving into a more complex organism. This cannot be done through deletions because either the first organism was extremelly complex and we have been moving downhill ever since or evolution is not possible.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 04:34 PM
link   
In the B.G. Hall experiment, bacteria gained a new enzyme with a new function. I think this contradicts the statement that evolution is a down-hill process only.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by amantine
They got a new function, a new enzyme (the original one was deleted). This happened without the enzyme being formed from scratch, because it was a mutated enzyme that originally didn't work or coded for another enzyme.


No new information was added to the genetic code. The enzyme was already present.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 07:08 PM
link   
(responding to you in small munches)


Originally posted by BlackJackal
Byrd this is for you, Incidentally, the ICR biologists received their degrees from reputable universities, such as Harvard (Dr. Cumming), University of California, Berkeley (Gish and Scripture), UCLA (Franks), Ball State University (Parker), Texas A & M. (Thompson), Brown University (Mastropaolo), and others. You may find this information on there webpage at
www.icr.org...

Let me counter by explaining that the "reputable journals" that some of them claim to have been published in appear to be religious journals only and specifically on creation science. In fact, they appear in the journals they publish.

Some say they don't support evolution and then (like Lester) promote some sort of Lamarckian process by which they say changes occur. This is evolution by another name, but if they don't CALL it evolution...
www.geocities.com...

This is basic smoke and mirrors because the truth is that they HAVE seen changes in species and they need to explain it somehow. So they say it's "not evolution" but it's "macroevolution."

... a rose by any other name.

(oh.. not to assume, please, that I somehow think everyone with a science degree believes in evolution when this is evidently not so. But I will point out that 99.9999999% of the scientists find the evidence very convincing.)



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Let me start by saying I recognizes that mutations do exist, and that certain bacteria and viruses become resistant to treatments. However, no scientist in the listings you provide can give examples of any mutation that produces a net increase in genetic information....


You're actually laboring under a bit of a misconception here.

Errors in cell division cause increases in genetic information. But not all mutations are errors in cell division and wouldn't cause an "increase" in genetic information.

And it's easy to see, in fact. Species that are less intelligent than humans can have more genes than humans can. The amount of genetic material doesn't mean an organism is more sophisticated -- though it can mean that there's a lot of garbage DNA in the genes.

And this is what we'd expect from evolution. The amount of garbage is an indication about how long the species has been around.

There's another misconception going on, and that's how a species is determined. One small change does not a species make It takes a lot of differences to make a genetic difference that large -- of a magnitude where the original population probably can't successfully breed with the child population. While biologists do have a good idea of what a species is, the creationists don't. They invent a group called "kind" and say the Ark was stocked with "kinds" and if you prove to them that the ark was too small for everything, then they say that Noah took along a pair of each "kind" (neglecting the verses where it says he took seven pairs of the clean beasts and one pair of the unclean beasts, making the fit a lot tighter.)

Then they claim that the "kinds" got off the Ark and somehow traveled tens of thousands of miles and suddenly started developing into different "sub-kinds."

...so that the original "canine kind" would have hopped off the ark (and presumably gotten right to the duty of making puppies on the spot), and their puppies romped all the way to Australia (making litters along the way but not stopping to raise them?), leaving litters in their wake that became the various fennics, desert foxes, dholes, dingos, and dogs and skipped north to become various fox and wolf species and swam over to South America to become maned wolves and to Africa to become hunting dogs and hyenas, finding adequate food along the way so that they and their diverse different kinds of puppies didn't die out and established large and stable populations.

...and distinct genetic differences.

Now... that's evolution, actually, taken to an absurd level (I just don't see any dogs rushing down to Australia in a month, getting food to eat, and leaving puppies all over the place. And I sure don't see them living on a diet of grass as some creationists claim.) But it's evolution.

But they tell you it's not evolution and wrap it up in a flag of religion. They then propose some very silly mechanisms such as the "water canopy theory" that eventually got knocked down by other creation scientists and end up presenting you with a world that could only happen with a deity violating all of the natural laws he set up... and violating it many times.

And then they say that God does not lie or decieve.

It's a tad hard to swallow.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Even though deletious mutations can prove to be beneficial it does nothing to help evolutions case. Evolution is based upon a very simple organism evolving into a more complex organism.


But not with one gene tweak. With a bunch of them. And you're assuming that the DNA is not full of garbage DNA.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Ok boys and girls, it's time for me to put in my two cents and debunk some of the common claims of creationists:

1: Positive mutations HAVE in fact occured, a well known one is the super-rat in NYC. These mutated rats have grown up to 30% in size, become markedly more voratious and evolved resistances to many poisons. This took place through generations of rats and proved the theory of survival of the fit.

2: Evolution was never ment to describe the original creation of life on earth, it does not explain how "humans came from rocks" and was never ment to. Also, a growing number of scientists now believe that life did not originate on Earth, instead out single-celled ancestors came on an asteroid.

3: Micro-evolution DOES prove macro-evolution. What is macro-evolution except a series of smaller mutations that are described by micro-evolution.

4: You are not guilty of blaspheming for believing in evolution! The Catholic Church has come out in support of evolution and it is in every textbook of every Jesuit university on earth.

Also if I may editorialize a bit, you conservitive Christians really need to let this issue go. Of all the things that you people rant about I think this is among the worst. Anyone who takes the Christian Bible as a perfect document of history needs their head examined. Jesus told parables and most of the old testament is parable as well.

Every culture has their own creation myth! The fact that fundamentalist Christians try to pass theirs off as historical fact just shows how closed minded they have become.

But, more people than I have said even more convincing arguments, and I will probably just be passed over as another pagan who won't see the "truth of god." OI! FREE YOUR BLOODY MINDS!

~Astral



posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
But not with one gene tweak. With a bunch of them. And you're assuming that the DNA is not full of garbage DNA.


No I am not Assuming that DNA is not full of garbage, I am telling you that it is not full of garbage.

Junk DNA has been going by the wayside for the last 20 years in the debate for evolution. The new thrust is in the field of proteomics but thats saved for another day. About Junk DNA take a look at this article here dated May 7, 2004

www.nature.com...


If you thought we had explored all the important parts of our genome, think again. Scientists are puzzling over a collection of mystery DNA segments that seem to be essential to the survival of virtually all vertebrates. But their function is completely unknown.

The segments, dubbed 'ultraconserved elements', lie in the large parts of the genome that do not code for any protein. Their presence adds to growing evidence that the importance of these areas, often dismissed as junk DNA, could be much more fundamental than anyone suspected.


Also Take a lookie here:

www.psrast.org...


Some studies have found that noncoding DNA plays a vital role in the regulation of gene expression during development



Over 700 studies have demonstrated the role of non-coding DNA as enhancers for transcription of proximal genes.



The idea that a major part of our DNA is "garbage" ignored the fact that a key feature of biological organisms is optimal energy expenditure. To carry enormous amounts of unnecessary molecules is contrary to this fundamental energy saving feature of biological organisms. Increasing evidence are now indicating many important functions of this DNA, including various regulatory roles. This means that this so-called non-coding DNA influences the behavior of the genes, the "coding DNA", in important ways. Still there is very little knowledge about the relationship between non-coding DNA and the DNA of genes. This adds to other factors making it impossible to foresee and control the effect of artificial insertion of foreign genes.


And Here

www.abc.net.au...

www.genomenewsnetwork.org...

www.arn.org...

And I have also covered the topic before right here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As Far as Noah and the Ark argument you can take that up with a creationist.



posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Astral City
1: Positive mutations HAVE in fact occured, a well known one is the super-rat in NYC. These mutated rats have grown up to 30% in size, become markedly more voratious and evolved resistances to many poisons. This took place through generations of rats and proved the theory of survival of the fit.


Really, I have not read about this super rat that you speak of but I would love to read about it do you have a link?


2: Evolution was never ment to describe the original creation of life on earth, it does not explain how "humans came from rocks" and was never ment to. Also, a growing number of scientists now believe that life did not originate on Earth, instead out single-celled ancestors came on an asteroid.


Yes I am well aware of the theory of Panspermia but what does that add to the debate of whether or not mutations are the mechanism of the theory of evolution.


3: Micro-evolution DOES prove macro-evolution. What is macro-evolution except a series of smaller mutations that are described by micro-evolution.


Yes that is the belief held by evolutionists yet it has not been proven yet.


4: You are not guilty of blaspheming for believing in evolution! The Catholic Church has come out in support of evolution and it is in every textbook of every Jesuit university on earth.


Ok, Well I am not a Catholic or a creationist and I have no way to verify that every "Jesuit" university teaches evolution (But I highly doubt it, unless it is taught alongside creationism)? My point is that I am not going to believe in something just because someone (Church or some Scientists) says that it is the whole truth.


[Edited on 1-6-2004 by BlackJackal]



posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I fail to see the problem. The process of new information being added to the DNA is simple:
- A gene is duplicated. PubMed has more than 3400 entries about this and it has been documented (Raes, 2003, Shimizu, 2004)
- The genes mutates to form a new different enzyme

New information is added overall.

More information about new genetic information can be found in Lynch & Conery, 2000 and Talk.Origins.



posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Thank You for the links!

The problem with Gene duplication is that yes it represents an increase in DNA material but not new functional genes. Evolution needs new and improved genes to function and this is not a viable answer for several reasons.

The idea behind Gene Duplication is that a gene in an organism gets an extra copy of itself during cell division, reproduction, etc. The main idea is that one gene will carry on day to day operations as usual while the second doesnt do anything and is free to mutate with a get out of natural selection free card (this way the Gene is not disgarded). After a while the gene mutates into something that is useful is somehow turned on and thus fine tuned by natural selection at that time. Well thats the theory.

So lets review what has to happen to make this a reality

1. The Gene has to be copied by some copying event which is not a science by any stretch of the imagination, still just chance.
2. The copied gene has to be switched off somehow to prevent damage to the organism.
3. Randomly mutate to something that gives the organism a new function.
4. Somehow become switched on to be fine tuned by natural selection.

Now another problem with gene duplication is that the mutation does not just occur in the target gene it occurs throughout the entire genome. Point mutations in the target gene are extremely rare representing around 1 part in 30,000 and the larger the genome the more remote the possibilities. The reason why is because as you increase genome size the mutation rate goes down because of the increased chance of catastrophic errors. In laymans terms this means the larger the genome the longer you have to wait for a mutation to occur in the copied gene much less a beneficial mutation. Even the 4.5 billion years is not enough time to account for this form of particle to man explanation. Thats plenty of time you may ask but no its not it may start out quickly with a smaill genome but after you reach the genome of an amoeba the time between helpful mutations increases exponentially.



posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 04:05 PM
link   
The problem with your argument that copied genes being mutated into a gene coding for a new enzyme happens too rarely to play a real part, is that you don't take into account that selection works at steps 2 and 4. The chances are therefore a lot higher than random chance. A organism with an harmful gene duplication will die more quickly. This shifts the chances into the realm of possibility.

The rate of mutation per site per generation doesn't change when the size of the genome increases. The mutations are caused by high energy photons, radicals and other particles that do not care whether the genome is large or not.

We have seem to pinned this debate down to a single question: benificial chances can occur, increased information in the DNA can also occur, but do these events happen enough to explain macroevolution? I haven't done the math, because I couldn't find good figures for mutation rates, but I think it'll probably work out, especially if we take natural selection into account.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Alright lets think what will happen if natural selection is turned on at step two. If natural selection works like it is supposed to it will completely get rid of the non functioning gene since it serves no purpose and is just extra baggage. Thats the problem with gene duplication it requires so many ifs ands or buts that it is not viable.

As for rate of mutation slowing as the genome increases it is very much a reality. The correlation was first discovered in 1987 and since that time several other studies have backed it up. The original Study

Sessions, S.K., and Larson, A. 1987. Developmental correlates of genome size in plethodontid salamanders and their implications for genome evolution. Evolution, 41: 1239-1251

I agree that high energy photons dont care how large the genome is but the larger the genome the more likely that photon will mutate a needed gene not the target gene.

I believe the discussion is far from over with several holes left to be filled.

1. Beneficial Mutations- There have been a handful of these discovered but they have all been deletious and not one has ever added more information to the genetic code. For example in the BG Hall experiment pointed out by Amantine the mutated enzyme was already present.
2. Junk DNA- the supposed left over from Eons of evolution aint junk but useful DNA
3. Gene duplication Theory has too many exceptions to work in the real world making it just a theory. Even if it was viable there simply isnt enough time in Earths history to make it work.
4. The original question posed as well has yet to be answered If Mutation is the mechanism of evolution then why does DNA work hard to repair mutations?


[Edited on 2-6-2004 by BlackJackal]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join