Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!, page 10

reply to post by chr0naut

---

A genome sequence (for a human being) costs about $1000.00 US and takes less than a week.

That is because the human genome has already been sequenced, an effort that took years and millions of dollars. However, I see that the yeast genome has also been sequenced, so perhaps the experimenters should have sequenced their yeasts and compared the sequences, just to make you and other creationists happy. Somehow, I don't think you're their main target audience, though.

Your excursion into probability theory fails to take into account the fact that deleterious mutations are removed from a gene pool, while those that increase selective fitness are preserved. In other words, it fails to take natural selection into account.

Your argument about environments turning genes on? That's exactly what the experiment was aiming at.

*

reply to post by chr0naut

---

How many 'generations' does it take for humans to 'evolve' from blue-eyed to brown-eyed?

Usually, it takes just one: two brown-eyed parents have a blue-eyed child.

Changing colour is not a particularly hard trick, especially when birds are eating moths of the wrong colour off the trees.

Here's some interesting reading for you on the subject of how fast evolution can work: 'Instant' evolution seen in Darwin's Finches.

Next!

reply to post by Astyanax

---

The article you linked to specifically mentions that the change in Finch species was too fast, calling it "instant".

Even if we just look at things from a natural selection only viewpoint, you will see that the drought placed the Large Ground Finch under higher selection pressure (they died off in higher numbers) than the Medium Ground Finch, yet it is the Medium Ground Finch which is noted as having changed.

This is yet another example of evolutionists seeing change and saying it proves their theory but the actual mechanics of the process is contrary to it.

Change does not necessarily equal evolution. There can be other reasons that fall outside of the processes required for evolution.

reply to post by Confusion42

---

ah, a study that does nothing to debunk the mutation rates i gave.

first problem: the study deals with hermaphrodites. from the article:

Mating systems dictate the way in which mutations are partitioned among offspring and therefore can have a profound influence on mutation accumulation from generation to generation. Organisms that reproduce through self-fertilization are thought to be at a lower risk of accumulating mutations as compared to outcrossing or asexual organisms because selfing promotes the expression of recessive alleles, which in turn makes these alleles more visible to natural selection, allowing them to become “purged” from the population

so they picked an organism that already has a lessened risk of accumulating deleterious mutations. what's more is that this only applies to self-fertilizing organisms.

Given the deleterious effects of most mutations, we would predict that increasing the mutation rate should generate progressively larger reductions in fitness, assuming that the mutations accumulate in the genome and that the effects of the mutations are additive or act synergistically [8]. This prediction is generally upheld by most studies that have examined the fitness effects of elevated mutation rates [2], [14], [18]–[20]. However, if selfing facilitates efficient purging, then selfing organisms may be capable of absorbing increased mutation rates with few fitness consequences.

and then there is this lovely part of the article:

As evidenced by the loss of fitness at all EMS concentrations, we see that purging in obligate selfing C. elegans populations is easily overwhelmed by elevated mutation rates (Figure 3). In fact, even marginal increases in mutation rate are capable of overwhelming purging in obligate selfing populations under strong selection against mutation accumulation [14]. Therefore, the efficacy of purging as a mechanism for preventing mutation accumulation may be quite limited, particularly when dealing with mutations of small to moderate effect size at multiple loci.

www.plosone.org...:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0014473
your article does nothing to debunk the evidence i presented.

How Are Plants Aware of the World Around Them?
  Posted 5 days ago with 5 member flags

The Genesis Code
  Posted 11 days ago with 4 member flags

Explain Diversity Reloaded
  Posted 12 days ago with 3 member flags

Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge
  Posted 7 days ago with 3 member flags

The carrot (chicken or egg , vegetable version)
  Posted 6 days ago with 3 member flags

A theory of proof of a God
  Posted 13 days ago with 2 member flags

Eden: The Double Sided Coin
  Posted 7 days ago with 2 member flags

We are all connected with nature and The Universe IMO
  Posted 6 days ago with 2 member flags