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.
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.
i've already shown that talkorigins uses outdated and completely wrong information. it is a biased source that constantly 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Say what? Where did you do this? Can you show me examples of the lies?
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.
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)
First that study is from 2000. More recent studies show that organisms that are less fit receive more "beneficial" mutations.
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.
Well, unfortunately it far less likely that an intelligent designer would create life to mutate itself into oblivion.
Evolution DID happen
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
i debunked that source.
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.
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
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.
The new rate means each child inherits somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 to 50 new mutations.
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.
You don't understand our genome. Do not pretend to be a seasoned scientist....
Take a look at this. More evidence for Evolution addressing your issue. Again, you are debunked.
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.
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
More evidence for Evolution addressing your issue. Again, you are debunked.
Treating scientist as a religion is something you, and only you, are doing. You just described religion, not scientist.
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.
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.
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.
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.