Evolution Confirmed (Again); Single Celled Organism Evolves Into Multicellular

page: 9
9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i've explained a billion times, evolution requires lots of beneficial information-adding mutations. instead of finding lots of evidence for them, we find very little. they happen very, very rarely. the rate of deleterious mutations is such that the genome is shrinking over time, not getting bigger. this means that the mechanism that drives evolution doesn't actually exist, ergo nothing could have evolved.

The mechanism doesn't exist? The mechanism IS genetic mutation sorted out by natural selection. This is proven to be true.

So basically your entire argument based on all those studies is that since more harmful mutations happen than beneficial ones as observed in a few select generations of chimp and man, it means our genome is losing more information than its gaining. I still don't understand why that means we couldn't have evolved. I still insist that the research is far from conclusive, with such a low sample size from a limited time period of studying mutation rates to determine anything about evolution from it. Also, you can't determine if rate changes over time, or what external factors are involved, as I said early. It certainly warrants more study. It may be something to be concerned about, but again, it doesn't mean we couldn't have evolved, although it may mean something completely different.

It's also worth noting that humans aren't exactly driven by natural selection like they use to be. In the past, humans needed to have substantially more children in order to ensure some survive. Today we have medicine, which oddly enough uses predictions based on evolution to develop new vaccines, hence the survival rate of children and lifespan overall is greatly increased.


walter remine wrote a book and described the problem renowned geneticist J.B.S. Haldane had found elegantly. walter remine didn't do the research, he merely summed up the problem haldane found in an elegant fashion.

So why didn't the article source Haldane instead? Some guy talking about his work isn't the same as Haldane himself.


i've already shown that talkorigins uses outdated and completely wrong information. it is a biased source that constantly lies.

Say what? Where did you do this? Can you show me examples of the lies?


for "average rate of success" they want how many deleterious mutations occurs per individual. put "3". for "poisson random variable" put "0", this means that you want to know the odds of a child being born with zero deleterious mutations with the rate you've put in.

No offense, but that calculator is one of the silliest things I've seen on here. How on earth do you expect that to actually calculate the accurate odds of a child being born with zero harmful mutations, while ignoring so many factors in the equation. It is probability, not actual figures. You understand the difference, right? Also not all deleterious mutations actually harm the person in a noticeable way, and since beneficial mutations are more likely to happen in a 'less fit' creature it makes sense that we don't see that many in humans (in the extremely small sample size that is).

www.nature.com...


Breed almost any organism under conditions where it is forced to accumulate random mutations, its fitness will invariably decay. The reason is that very few mutations improve an organism's ability to survive or reproduce; the majority are harmful. But a recent study suggests that the size of this majority depends, to a surprising extent, on the contact in which the mutations occur. The same mutation occurring in a poorly adapted individual, Silander et al. (2007) argue, is more likely to be beneficial than if it occurred in a well-adapted individual.

That actually makes a lot of sense.
edit on 31-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   

the evolutionary scientists say that the evidence contradicts evolution and that their mechanism for deleterious mutations to be removed from the genome can't happen because the organisms would go extinct. then they say that extreme truncation is "unlikely" BUT it must happen because evolution MUST be correct.


First that study is from 2000. More recent studies show that organisms that are less fit receive more "beneficial" mutations. The more fit receive more deleterious ones as shown in the article I posted. Find me one quote from an evolutionary biologist that says the evidence in these studies from 12 years ago contradicts evolution. To reach your conclusions you need to assume many things, for example that mutation rates never change, that the rates aren't affected by toxins or other environmental factors, and that we have complete and conclusive data on the exact rates of our species and our ancestors.


so the U=3 rate i gave is accurate, which means that two parents must have 40 kids to replace themselves with offspring that are about at their genetic equilibrium. there is nothing wrong with the formula, nor with the scientific evidence. you seem to be unable to accept that evolution is impossible.

Well, unfortunately it far less likely that an intelligent designer would create life to mutate itself into oblivion. So your hypothesis negates that. Unfortunately it doesn't have much to do with evolution. U=3 is an estimate, and the calculations are probability, not exact determined figures. I'm more interested in how many other mutations occur along with the 3 harmful ones. Isn't that 3 out some 25,000+ genes? You are making it seem like 39 out of 40 kids is going to be growing an extra arm out of its back, when the change isn't really that big. So what is likely to happen, is humans will go through many generations before the deleterious mutations make us less and less human. At one point the mutations will begin to balance out again and become more beneficial and this is where we move in a different direction. There's honestly way too much research to still be done in the field to make such a conclusion as you.


on the contrary. such mutation rates confirm that we were created a finite time ago. we were created as completely human, and ever since then, or genetic code has been wearing down. the rate of mutations has everything to do with evolution. if humans haven't had over 40 kids per pair of humans, then evolution hasn't happened. it can't happen.

That doesn't mean evolution hasn't happened. That is assuming a crap load of factors and ignoring the more recent studies on genetic mutations that I posted. Evolution DID happen, regardless of the our current mutation rate estimates based on a pretty small sample size overall.
edit on 31-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 



The mechanism doesn't exist? The mechanism IS genetic mutation sorted out by natural selection. This is proven to be true.

genetic mutations come in a few varieties, for evolution to work, we would need far more beneficial mutations than deleterious mutations. this is not the case. ergo we could not have gotten to where we are through evolution.


So basically your entire argument based on all those studies is that since more harmful mutations happen than beneficial ones as observed in a few select generations of chimp and man, it means our genome is losing more information than its gaining.

it's all my argument has to be, because it shows that evolution couldn't have occurred. our genome IS losing more information than it is gaining.


I still don't understand why that means we couldn't have evolved.

evolution requires an upward slope over time in terms of genetic information being added. for there to be a neutral slope (straight line) every two parents would have to produce 40 kids, then kill off 38 of them.


I still insist that the research is far from conclusive, with such a low sample size from a limited time period of studying mutation rates to determine anything about evolution from it. Also, you can't determine if rate changes over time, or what external factors are involved, as I said early. It certainly warrants more study. It may be something to be concerned about, but again, it doesn't mean we couldn't have evolved, although it may mean something completely different.

i knew you were going to make this argument. it was inevitable. consistent mutation rates were found from multiple studies all saying roughly the same thing. i'd call that damn good evidence.

your only defense is to say that for some reason, evolution has stopped and is going backwards precisely at the time that we attempted to measure it. this conclusion is a laughable attempt to keep evolution floating with no evidence to support it, only hopes and dreams.


Say what? Where did you do this? Can you show me examples of the lies?

www.abovetopsecret.com... this thread, page 5, i debunk several "examples" of evolution. the beetles was the most pathetic attempt.


No offense, but that calculator is one of the silliest things I've seen on here. How on earth do you expect that to actually calculate the accurate odds of a child being born with zero harmful mutations, while ignoring so many factors in the equation.

it's statistics. the U=3 rate is a perfect variable to plug in. with that calculator you can calculate the odds of many things happening. there is absolutely nothing wrong with that formula.


Also not all deleterious mutations actually harm the person in a noticeable way, and since beneficial mutations are more likely to happen in a 'less fit' creature it makes sense that we don't see that many in humans (in the extremely small sample size that is)

not all beneficial mutations actually help enough to do anything either. the odds of a beneficial mutation is around 1/1000. some say less. these mutations are based on random damage caused to the genome. fitness has little to do with it.


First that study is from 2000. More recent studies show that organisms that are less fit receive more "beneficial" mutations.

i debunked that source.


To reach your conclusions you need to assume many things, for example that mutation rates never change, that the rates aren't affected by toxins or other environmental factors, and that we have complete and conclusive data on the exact rates of our species and our ancestors.

those assumptions are made to simplify things, just as i assumed the population was staying the same for the 1/40 odds when it isn't. i don't think mutation rates can improve for the better.


Well, unfortunately it far less likely that an intelligent designer would create life to mutate itself into oblivion.

wrong. i could make the same claim of a house. "no one will build a house because it will deteriorate into oblivion" yet we still make houses.

here is the real problem


Evolution DID happen

you've already decided that what you believe is 100% correct. nothing i say, nor evidence i present will change your beliefs. you are in a religion, and you will not tolerate the possibility that you are wrong.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Furthermore:

Here is one from 2011:

Mutation rate slower than thought


The study, published online June 12 in Nature Genetics, also shows that some individuals mutate faster than others. That means it may be fairly common for people to inherit a disproportionate share of mutations from one parent.


Now there's a pretty important factor in the equation. You need to also take into account VARYING rates of mutations in different individuals. That should pretty much end the 1 in 40 claim right here.


Combined with the results of three similar recent studies, the rate indicates that, on average, about one DNA chemical letter in every 85 million gets mutated per generation through copying mistakes made during sperm and egg production. The new rate means each child inherits somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 to 50 new mutations.

I found this bit interesting.

Here's an older one that also shows how beneficial mutations are actually relative depending on how well adapted the organism is:

www.sciencemag.org...


We have shown that bacterial mutation rates change during the experimental colonization of the mouse gut. A high mutation rate was initially beneficial because it allowed faster adaptation, but this benefit disappeared once adaptation was achieved. Mutator bacteria accumulated mutations that, although neutral in the mouse gut, are often deleterious in secondary environments. Consistently, the competitiveness of mutator bacteria is reduced during transmission to and re-colonization of similar hosts. The short-term advantages and long-term disadvantages of mutator bacteria could account for their frequency in nature.


Again, it shows that beneficial mutations are much less likely when a creature is well adapted. There is no reason for it to change. So essentially they are controlled by the environment. "Beneficial" mutations in a well adapted creature would not be useful, but in a species that just lost its habitat due to natural disaster or whatever else, going through a transition that same mutation could save the species.

So that should pretty much do it for the "1 in 40 children won't have a harmful mutation". We now know that mutation rates vary from person to person, and also that "beneficial" can be relative depending on how well adapted the creature is. There are way too many factors involved to calculate accurately, plus it doesn't come close to debunking evolution. Case closed.
edit on 31-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz


genetic mutations come in a few varieties, for evolution to work, we would need far more beneficial mutations than deleterious mutations. this is not the case. ergo we could not have gotten to where we are through evolution.


Your interpretation / definition of beneficial, and of deleterious, mutations is not current. First, the original article proved that individuals cells sacrificed themselves for the benefit of the of the colony, which directly shows mutations happening that is turning individual single celled yeast into multicellular yeast.


it's all my argument has to be, because it shows that evolution couldn't have occurred. our genome IS losing more information than it is gaining.


You don't understand our genome. Do not pretend to be a seasoned scientist....






evolution requires an upward slope over time in terms of genetic information being added. for there to be a neutral slope (straight line) every two parents would have to produce 40 kids, then kill off 38 of them.


Take a look at this
From Mouse to Elephant in 24 million generations

More evidence for Evolution addressing your issue. Again, you are debunked.



i knew you were going to make this argument. it was inevitable. consistent mutation rates were found from multiple studies all saying roughly the same thing. i'd call that damn good evidence.

your only defense is to say that for some reason, evolution has stopped and is going backwards precisely at the time that we attempted to measure it. this conclusion is a laughable attempt to keep evolution floating with no evidence to support it, only hopes and dreams.


You are the only person that is saying that evolution has stopped and that is it going backwards. We are all laughing at you for believing that evolution is going backwards.

[quote this thread, page 5, i debunk several "examples" of evolution. the beetles was the most pathetic attempt.


Nah, I see more you getting owned...




it's statistics. the U=3 rate is a perfect variable to plug in. with that calculator you can calculate the odds of many things happening. there is absolutely nothing wrong with that formula.


Take a look at this
From Mouse to Elephant in 24 million generations

More evidence for Evolution addressing your issue. Again, you are debunked.


not all beneficial mutations actually help enough to do anything either. the odds of a beneficial mutation is around 1/1000. some say less. these mutations are based on random damage caused to the genome. fitness has little to do with it.

Take a look at this
From Mouse to Elephant in 24 million generations

More evidence for Evolution addressing your issue. Again, you are debunked.


i debunked that source.

Take a look at this
From Mouse to Elephant in 24 million generations

More evidence for Evolution addressing your issue. Again, you are debunked.

those assumptions are made to simplify things, just as i assumed the population was staying the same for the 1/40 odds when it isn't. i don't think mutation rates can improve for the better.


Take a look at this
From Mouse to Elephant in 24 million generations

More evidence for Evolution addressing your issue. Again, you are debunked.

wrong. i could make the same claim of a house. "no one will build a house because it will deteriorate into oblivion" yet we still make houses.

here is the real problem

More you getting owned.


you've already decided that what you believe is 100% correct. nothing i say, nor evidence i present will change your beliefs. you are in a religion, and you will not tolerate the possibility that you are wrong.

Treating scientist as a religion is something you, and only you, are doing.

You just described religion, not scientist.





posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 

LMAO! 30 to 50 new mutations PER individual isn't lower than U=3, its much, MUCH higher. U=3 simply meant that every child on average get three new deleterious mutations.

your right, it wouldn't be 1/40 anymore. i'm too lazy to do the math right now, but it would be 10-17 times higher. you should try and find the article they're referencing.


The new rate means each child inherits somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 to 50 new mutations.

wow. that would be something.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   


Your interpretation / definition of beneficial, and of deleterious, mutations is not current. First, the original article proved that individuals cells sacrificed themselves for the benefit of the of the colony, which directly shows mutations happening that is turning individual single celled yeast into multicellular yeast.

from what i read, it seemed that some cells had become damaged, and so the damaged ones clumped together with undamaged ones so that they could keep going. it wasn't that the cells gave up anything, but that they were unable to produce, so they began working together in clumps. i have no problem with this, as it is still the same yeast. no new organism or DNA has been introduced.


You don't understand our genome. Do not pretend to be a seasoned scientist....

i know a fair bit. care to show me how i used the word wrong?


Take a look at this. More evidence for Evolution addressing your issue. Again, you are debunked.

that article is completely unscientific, and if you had read it, it begins by assuming evolution is correct, then bases everything off of fossil size. the size of an organism has little to do with how much information is in it's genome.


This calculation is based on the most rapid increase in size seen in the fossil record after a mass extinction wiped out their much larger competitors, the dinosaurs.

in other words, they assume evolution is true, then base the size changes on elephants and mice. they show transitional forms, nor is the article backed by any scholarly sources.
the article does nothing to confirm evolution in the slightest.


You are the only person that is saying that evolution has stopped and that is it going backwards. We are all laughing at you for believing that evolution is going backwards

i'm saying that it is the only argument YOU could make as an evolutionist, given the evidence. evolution has never happened, and mutation rates prove it.


More evidence for Evolution addressing your issue. Again, you are debunked.

that article isn't science. they're comparing the size of mice to elephants, then saying the change rate must have been "X", though they offer no evidence that mice came from elephants or vice versa.


Treating scientist as a religion is something you, and only you, are doing. You just described religion, not scientist.

really? so you've accepted the evidence i've presented without a problem and intend to ditch evolution for the failed theory it is? of course not. you're a religious fanatic

what happened to all the evidence?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 


I'm undecided between evolution and creationism. I know they are both widely accepted but the theory of evolution has too many flaws and the theory of creation needs more of an explanation. I can't accept either theory at this point in time. Unfortunately no one has come up with a better theory, so at some point I am going to have to choose between the two.

This story doesn't really "confirm" nor "prove" that evolution is fact. The single cell organism didn't become multicellular on it's own, it happened after being put "under artificial pressure to become larger" -somebody helped it along.

What this does prove is that a single cell organism can become multicellular under laboratory conditions. Would it do the same thing out in nature on it's own? I doubt it.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by fatalcharm
 

There's biocentrism.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by fatalcharm
reply to post by Confusion42
 


I'm undecided between evolution and creationism. I know they are both widely accepted but the theory of evolution has too many flaws and the theory of creation needs more of an explanation. I can't accept either theory at this point in time. Unfortunately no one has come up with a better theory, so at some point I am going to have to choose between the two.

This story doesn't really "confirm" nor "prove" that evolution is fact. The single cell organism didn't become multicellular on it's own, it happened after being put "under artificial pressure to become larger" -somebody helped it along.

What this does prove is that a single cell organism can become multicellular under laboratory conditions. Would it do the same thing out in nature on it's own? I doubt it.


This experiments support evolution regardless if it's "under laboratory conditions" or not. And also, creationism is not widely accepted by any means whatsoever.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Wouldn't this be more like ancient alien theory or evocreation. Where a higher power ( god/ aliens in this case humans) promoted evolution to occur and speed up by adding new conditions



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Barcs
 

LMAO! 30 to 50 new mutations PER individual isn't lower than U=3, its much, MUCH higher. U=3 simply meant that every child on average get three new deleterious mutations.

The reason I posted the article wasn't to show that the rate is slower than thought. It is to show that rates vary from individual to individual as well as less other various important factors that would matter in an equation such as the one listed on your website. We are talking total mutations in this article, not just deleterious. If U is still being estimated as 3 (even though the rate varies so wouldn't always be 3), then 5-15% of the of the total amount mutations are deleterious, which in all reality is not that much.


your right, it wouldn't be 1/40 anymore. i'm too lazy to do the math right now, but it would be 10-17 times higher. you should try and find the article they're referencing.

I sourced every article I quoted, but no it wouldn't because they aren't all deleterious mutations.


that article is completely unscientific, and if you had read it, it begins by assuming evolution is correct, then bases everything off of fossil size. the size of an organism has little to do with how much information is in it's genome.


Erm, you are calling an article unscientific because it accepts the consensus of the scientific community that evolution is true?
You do realize that there is tons of tangible physical evidence behind evolution. Oh but wait, talk origins is wrong because they source some older experiments, even though they are still testable and repeatable to this day. LOL at assuming its true. Doesn't your wonderful "evolutionfairytale" site assume ID is true? If not, I'll be shocked out of my mind. It is at the very least, unscientific even though it sources experiments, it makes its own conclusions off it that have nothing to do with what the scientists who did the experiments reported.

Sorry dude. The claim is now completely debunked, so please stop distracting people with stuff that has nothing to do with this experiment on multi-cellularity, which is solid evidence of evolution. The whole mutation rate thing is nothing but a red herring. You have not debunked anything on talk origins, you've only claimed its outdated, with no science to back it up. Don't debunk the website, debunk the science behind evolution. If you can't do it, you have no case. Also, I'll agree that talkorigins is biased toward scientific facts, which is a GOOD thing.

Evolution = backed by facts based on experiments
Creation = backed by nothing
edit on 1-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Oh man. I'll give you credit for one thing, and one thing only.... You do have stamina.

Granted your arguments, sources, etc. have been debunked, but you keep on going.

A person can only prove that 1 + 1 = 2 so many times. If in a debate, I am proving that 1 + 1 = 2, and the other person insists 1 + 1 = 5, how long should the debate go on?

Anyhow, let me ask you this.

Hypothetically, let's say Creationism is correct Do you have any evidence that "your God" is the creator?

Why not the DEVIL creating the universe?

Furthermore, let's see, there are approx. 1billion+ muslims, 1billion+ christians, hindu, etc.

So, if the Christians are right, all non Christians go to hell?

If the Islamist are right, do all non Muslim's go to hell?

What if there is a creator, and it's NOT any God that human's have thought of yet... Does everybody on Earth go to hell?


What if intelligence life exists outside of Earth.... do all beings not born on Earth go to hell?

Shucks, if intelligent life, actually, if ANY life exists outside of Earth, where does this place creationist beliefs based on any scripture?

Please do answer the questions.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Considering you havn't responded to the post of mine directly above this one, than it seems like

Another +1 for Evolution and 0 For Creationism





top topics
 
9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join