Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!

page: 9
4
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 

so instead of offering evidence that is contrary to the mutation rates i've posted, you resort to logical fallacies. since when does the title of a website void the information contained on it?

the papers are based on research done by EVOLUTIONISTS! if you want to pay for the full articles from nature.com, go ahead.

your post is obviously an attempt to cop out of the discussion without appearing that you've lost, but i'm not going to allow you that because you have butchered logic.


Michael W. Nachmana and Susan L. Crowella a Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721 Corresponding author: Michael W. Nachman, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Biosciences West Bldg., University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721., nachman@u.arizona.edu (E-mail)

this is where the U=3 rate comes from.


Using conservative calculations of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection, we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3.

www.genetics.org...
this is where the research comes from. a peer-edited publication for the genetics society of america.

it's ironic that the research you've been dismissing comes from esteemed evolutionary geneticists. it's like a double blind taste test where evolutionists discover they can't even stomach their own brand. you're admitting that evolution doesn't make sense when you're forced to view the evidence!




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 

Maybe you don't know enough biology to understand the debunking. Sorry, but it has to be said.

I see you brought up Crow again in your reply to Confusion42. A pretty sorry argument from authority, that. You don't know that Crow ever said what Hamilton claims he said. Even if he said it that does not make Hamilton's nonsense true. Don't forget that Crow provided an explanation for Hamilton's concerns – one that he and you have refused to accept – as if either of you were a geneticist and qualified to judge it! Your opinions on the subject, which is a specialized, academic one, are worthless, dear Bob.

Now, would you please stop spamming the thread with the same stupid link over and over again? It's been debunked. Take the foul-smelling thing away; try your luck elsewhere, if you must, but you're finished here.



edit on 26/1/12 by Astyanax because: I felt like it.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

if you read my last post, you'd see that the information is backed up by the article Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans written by Michael W. Nachman and Susan L. Crowell from the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona.

i've already explained why the proposed solution doesn't cut it. they provide a theory as to how 39 of the 40 children with deleterious mutations die off, however their explanation assumes that each human female still has to have 40 children just to maintain the equilibrium of the genome.

you have more faith in psudo-science evolution than i have in religion.

what would it honestly take for you to admit evolution is wrong? as evidence sure isn't the ticket.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 

First, you may want to re-read my earlier post, which I have edited to make things a little more explicit.

Second, here is the last sentence of the abstract of the paper linked to in your last post.


This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common.

This is the explanation you refuse to accept – so essentially, you're accepting the whole paper except the conclusion. What gives you the expertise to make that judgement? You are no geneticist – the sole basis of your decision is that you are a creationist and don't want to believe in evolution.

Besides, that paper is from 2000. The paper I posted was published in 2009 and explains, as mentioned in the author's summary,


that selection has played a greater role in shaping hominid genome evolution than has been appreciated and provides a better explanation for patterns of sequence differences than other hypotheses.

What will it take me to disbelieve in evolution? The debunking of a mountain of evidence for it accumulated over 150 years and more would do the job. A bunch of hopeful conclusion-twisting by creationists with axes to grind certainly isn't going to do it.

edit on 26/1/12 by Astyanax because: of more vitriol.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

i've explained synergistic epistasis half a dozen times. it is a theory that explains how the 39 other children would most likely die off, but it doesn't address the obvious problem of female humans needing to have 40 children to produce one without a harmful mutation. this has obviously not happened.

ergo, evolution is wrong.

edit on 26-1-2012 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


i've explained synergistic epistasis half a dozen times. it is a theory that explains how the 39 other children would most likely die off, but it doesn't address the obvious problem of female humans needing to have 40 children to produce one without a harmful mutation. this has obviously not happened.

Nothing in the world demands that women ('female humans'? you got a problem with women too?) need to have forty children to produce one healthy one, except Bob Hamilton's fantasies and Bob Sholz's insistence. That is a complete misrepresentation of the situation, based on a calculation substantiated by a dead link – and your ignorance of biology.


edit on 26/1/12 by Astyanax because: of biology.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

again, you offer no research of your own to disprove the calculations. "mind firmly closed" indeed. care to offer any evidence that a deleterious mutation rate of 3 doesn't result in 1/40 odds of not inheriting a harmful mutation?

i don't have a problem with "women" (got a problem with female humans?)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 

You do realize that mutation could also have occured and be fast, due to cataylsms, perhaps gamma radiation, or other such thing.
This is a very interesting area of study.
We are influenced by nature, which is the universe also.
Evolution doesn't just happen internally, there are other factors at play.
edit on 26-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Again, you offer no research of your own to disprove the calculations.

Research of my own?


I'm not a biologist, and I do not share a creationist's arrogant, uneducated assumption that my ideas and opinions of biology are of a value equal to those of professional biologists.

The calculation you are brandishing is not scientific. It is based on a 'reproductive cost' formula Hamilton attributes to J.B.S. Haldane, but which is fact taken from a creationist treatise by someone called Walter J. Remine. In other words, the calculation is pseudoscientific guff produced by a creationist crank, and misattributed, in the usual dishonest creationist fashion, to a great twentieth-century biologist.

If the mutation rate in humans was so high that women needed to have forty babies to ensure one healthy one, then (rather obviously) we would see the consequences of that all around us. We don't. Therefore your pal Hamilton, and you, are dead wrong. End of argument. You can continue it one-sided if you want to – but nobody in this thread, apart from a few dyed-in-the-wool creationists, is buying it.

edit on 26/1/12 by Astyanax because: of multiple replies.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   


I'm not a biologist, and I do not share a creationist's arrogant, uneducated assumption that my ideas and opinions of biology are of a value equal to those of professional biologists.

well obviously YOU'RE unqualified, but you present no research that proves me wrong. you cite no articles, nor research. assuming that my "arrogant, uneducated assumption" is of lesser value than anyone elses based solely on my beliefs and education is an argument from authority logical fallacy.


The calculation you are brandishing is not scientific. It is based on a 'reproductive cost' formula Hamilton attributes to J.B.S. Haldane, but which is fact taken from a creationist treatise by someone called Walter J. Remine. In other words, the calculation is pseudoscientific guff produced by a creationist crank, and misattributed, in the usual dishonest creationist fashion, to a great twentieth-century biologist.

you've already stated that you're unqualified to offer your opinion on these subjects, but then you go ahead and say it's "psudo-science" and wrong. again, the source of information doesn't make it invalid. if there is "a mountain" of evidence, it shouldn't be so hard for you to disprove the 1/40 odds of not inheriting a deleterious mutation.


If the mutation rate in humans was so high that women needed to have forty babies to ensure one healthy one, then (rather obviously) we would see the consequences of that all around us. We don't. Therefore your pal Hamilton, and you, are dead wrong. End of argument. You can continue it one-sided if you want to – but nobody in this thread, apart from a few dyed-in-the-wool creationists, is buying it.

again, more "you're dead wrong" with no articles or research backing your claims. i though evolutionists were supposed to be about evidence?
jk, i've discussed this subject with enough to know that is not true. your statement actually debunks the evolutionist's response. if there were evidence of all harmful mutations interacting to have a multiplicative effect instead of a simple cumulative effect we would see people with much more debilitating genetic disorders. you're right, we don't, which further supports the idea that evolution is incorrect.

why do you think evolutionists came up with synergistic epistasis in the first place if you don't think the 1/40 odds are correct? it was a direct answer to that problem, an answer that is unsupported and ineffective, but an answer nonetheless.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 



You do realize that mutation could also have occured and be fast, due to cataylsms, perhaps gamma radiation, or other such thing. This is a very interesting area of study. We are influenced by nature, which is the universe also. Evolution doesn't just happen internally, there are other factors at play.

yes, it was taken into account. radiation cannot cause beneficial information-adding mutations. think of radiation as very small bullets puncturing cells and going through strands of DNA.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   

if there were evidence of all harmful mutations interacting to have a multiplicative effect instead of a simple cumulative effect we would see people with much more debilitating genetic disorders. you're right, we don't, which further supports the idea that evolution is incorrect.


So 1 + 1 now equals 45? How does your first statement indicate the 2nd? What does that have to do with evolution at all? We can see in the world around us that children survive at a much higher rate than 1 in 40. That fact alone debunks the 1 in 40 chance, which is based on a faulty formula that cannot be verified scientifically. I'll give you specific examples when I get home later.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Confusion42
 

so instead of offering evidence that is contrary to the mutation rates i've posted, you resort to logical fallacies. since when does the title of a website void the information contained on it?

the papers are based on research done by EVOLUTIONISTS! if you want to pay for the full articles from nature.com, go ahead.

your post is obviously an attempt to cop out of the discussion without appearing that you've lost, but i'm not going to allow you that because you have butchered logic.


Michael W. Nachmana and Susan L. Crowella a Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721 Corresponding author: Michael W. Nachman, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Biosciences West Bldg., University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721., nachman@u.arizona.edu (E-mail)

this is where the U=3 rate comes from.


Using conservative calculations of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection, we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3.

www.genetics.org...
this is where the research comes from. a peer-edited publication for the genetics society of america.

it's ironic that the research you've been dismissing comes from esteemed evolutionary geneticists. it's like a double blind taste test where evolutionists discover they can't even stomach their own brand. you're admitting that evolution doesn't make sense when you're forced to view the evidence!


You and your bias sources have been proven wrong. I won't waste my time repeating the faults, and falseness of what your saying because other's have already pointed it out repeatedly. You refuse to read the faults people are pointing out.

You even refuse to read your own sources; Picking and choosing which sections of your own bias sections to use, and which sections to disregard.

You are treating a science like religion. Your treating experiments like line's of scripture. But, you see, experiments are experiments are experiments.

If your scripture told you that flipping a coin 100's results in 100 heads (and 0 tails), you would disregard any experiment where a coin is actually flipped 100 times and the results are 50/50. I can imagine it now!

Creationist: Hey, guess what? If you flip a quarter 100 times, it will pop up heads 100 times and tails 0 times. It says so in the scripture!

Normal Person: Really? Let's prove that...

Creationist: Proof? How dare you proof my scripture with your "experiments!"? Your "science" is magic Satan evil!

Normal Person: Well, I just spent a whole day experimenting. I ran five experiments, and when flipping a coin, my five experiments show that head's only pop's up approx. 50% of the time.

Creationist: How DARE YOU? Your results are ARTIFICIAL! Recant now, or else....


... Of course, the above is hypothetical... But reading it now, the above is very similar to what Galileo had to go through...



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


A genome sequence (for a human being) costs about $1000.00 US and takes less than a week. Sequencing the genome of yeast would be significantly faster and cheaper. Yet this step was never done.

You'd think that someone researching genetic change would "put the nail in the coffin" and identify the specific changed sequences. But they never did it. Probably because it would have been a waste of time and money.

60 days is insufficient time.

(Unless, of course, there is the degree of genetic fragility the Bob Sholtz has been talking about).

But even looking at mathematical probability, if the ratio of benign to malign genetic mutations was about 50/50, then we would expect to see genetic changes for the better sometimes. If the likelihood that malign changes are higher than benign, then the longer you play, the more you loose. It is simple mathematics and it argues against evolutionary genetic change because the successful mutations would be swamped by those that cause the death of the organism.

Also, the experimenters claimed that the yeasts were isogenic at the start of the experiment, yet very early on, they were able to separate the two different phenotypes, those cells that adhered after cell division, and those that didn't.

It would appear to me that not only did the experimenters not sequence the yeast, but they were also unaware of the genetic variation in their source population and just assumed it.

Additional to that, as you are aware, environmental conditions can activate non-functional "junk DNA" and deactivate other specific genes. Geneticists often speak of "switching on" and "switching off" particular genes. In this way a truly isogenic genome can express in different ways. This variable expression is already inherent in the DNA and does not indicate genetic change.

They also claimed that the cells within the clumps differentiated in function, an indication of true multicellularity. The only differentiated function they saw was apoptosis (premature cell death), which they called cell suicide. They implied that the adhered cells functionality as a colony was enhanced because certain cells "sacrificed themselves". Yet they also noted that at all stages, the apoptosis rate was always 2% of population throughout the experiment. That is NO CHANGE at all, yet they use it to suggest that this is an indication of future diversification of function? Similarly, with the wording that they used, it implies that the apoptopic yeasts made a concious decision and intentionally gave themselves up for the sake of the colony, which is antropocentric nonsense.

In short, I believe that this paper does not demonstrate genetic change, or evolutionary process. It is entirely the product of the preconceived beliefs of the authors.

edit on 27/1/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 



o 1 + 1 now equals 45? How does your first statement indicate the 2nd? What does that have to do with evolution at all? We can see in the world around us that children survive at a much higher rate than 1 in 40. That fact alone debunks the 1 in 40 chance, which is based on a faulty formula that cannot be verified scientifically. I'll give you specific examples when I get home later.

ugh. the 1+1=45 is what EVOLUTIONISTS are claiming happens with deleterious mutations. it is an attempt to explain how the 39 other children would be prevented from reproducing. you're right, we don't see it happening. this means "synergistic epistasis" doesn't exist.

see the other thread. i explain the math behind the 1/40 chance. it isn't my fault you don't understand statistics.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 



But even looking at mathematical probability, if the ratio of benign to malign genetic mutations was about 50/50, then we would expect to see genetic changes for the better sometimes. If the likelihood that malign changes are higher than benign, then the longer you play, the more you loose. It is simple mathematics and it argues against evolutionary genetic change because the successful mutations would be swamped by those that cause the death of the organism.


YES!!!! SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS! star for you, my friend. the rate of deleterious mutations is over 1000 times higher than the rate of beneficial mutations. look it up. this means the more organisms reproduce, the worse the genome becomes. it deteriorates MUCH faster than beneficial mutations occur, so that it is mathematically impossible for evolution to have happened.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 



You and your bias sources have been proven wrong. I won't waste my time repeating the faults, and falseness of what your saying because other's have already pointed it out repeatedly. You refuse to read the faults people are pointing out.

i've asked for you to provide some sources to back up your claims, but you haven't. you've SAID my sources were wrong, but i've showed you the research came from evolutionary scientists, and their own research shows that evolution can't have happened.

where is all the evidence you claim exists? nowhere. it all falls apart on closer inspection.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


... continuing my examples of "too fast" genetic change.

The classic evolution example is of the European Peppered Moth (it is in nearly every text book on evolution) so I'll just link it on Wikipedia: Peppered Moth Evolution

The life cycle of the Peppered Moth is 1 year, so 1 generation = 1 year.

In 200 years the Peppered Moth changed from light colored, to dark colored, then back to light colored again.

We are told that these were genetic changes.

So a genetic change arose in less than 100 generations and then arose a second time in less than 100 generations.

Genetic mutation rates are available for us to compare with and can be calculated mathematically Wikipedia: Mutation rates and also, Wikipedia: Population Genetics

Then there's these from the Genetics Society of America:

The Cellular, Developmental and Population-Genetic Determinants of Mutation-Rate Evolution

Rates of Spontaneous Mutation

Measuring the Rates of Spontaneous Mutation From Deep and Large-Scale Polymorphism Data

My calculations (which concur with J.B.S. Haldane's) are that we could expect a very minor genetic change every 300 generations or more.

To quote Haldane:


If two species differ at 1000 loci, and the mean rate of gene substitution, as has been suggested, is one per 300 generations, it will take 300,000 generations to generate an interspecific difference.


So we see the Peppered Moth "evolving" at a rate at least three times the rate at minimum that it should (or more likely, closer to 30,000 times faster).

I will restate my thesis: In EVERY case where we have seen apparent genetic change, over the last 150 years, it has happened too rapidly to be explained by a combination of genetic drift and natural selection.

The most obvious example of this historically is the Cambrian Explosion (but that also is argued against by evolutionists when they feel the paradigm of their existence beginning to wobble. Funny how they will use it as an example of biodiversity through evolution, then deny its existence when someone points out how it argues against their pet theory).

Astyanax, like you, I am not an evolutionary biologist or geneticist by profession but my best friend's wife IS a professional Genetic Biologist. She does not believe that Evolutionary theory as it stands is capable of explaining the observed biodiversity. In her words: "Something else is going on".

edit on 27/1/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Hi guys n gals!

I don't know how to convince you that this is a terminal, go no where, useless argument where the no solution light keeps blinking.

Consult William James about this, if you are inclined to.

It seems to me that the best approach is to grant each other's position in a sense of intellectual generosity, and simply allow the other party it's position, for better or worse.

If this sort of discussion only leaves broken toys on the floor, then it is a primary indicationthat it is a useless and insensible argument. No such argument is worth making enemies out of the interlocutors.

By nature, this is all that argument ever does, unfortunately.

It would be best to understand that "this camp believes this", without some how making "evil demons" out of them and simply understand that the other party may be mistaken. But that is no excuse for name calling and other childish out cries, which none of us REALLY want to participate in. Or do you?

For if that is your goal, you simply aren't worth giving attention to.

These two dogmatic approaches simply cannot fit together properly , no matter how much "wiggle waggle" is done by either side.

Just be good to each other people! Please. There are bettr things in this world to "fight" over.

Don't forget... we only have each other in this world. The rest is illusory and ever changing.

Grin at each other, don't throw hammers. ...please.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Confusion42
 



You and your bias sources have been proven wrong. I won't waste my time repeating the faults, and falseness of what your saying because other's have already pointed it out repeatedly. You refuse to read the faults people are pointing out.

i've asked for you to provide some sources to back up your claims, but you haven't. you've SAID my sources were wrong, but i've showed you the research came from evolutionary scientists, and their own research shows that evolution can't have happened.

where is all the evidence you claim exists? nowhere. it all falls apart on closer inspection.


Here you go.

And note that this is RECENT.

More bad mutations = greater fitness







Compensatory mutations can be more frequent under high mutation rates and may alleviate a portion of the fitness lost due to the accumulation of deleterious mutations through epistatic interactions with deleterious mutations. The prolonged maintenance of tightly linked compensatory and deleterious mutations facilitated by self-fertilization may be responsible for the fitness increase as linkage disequilibrium between the compensatory and deleterious mutations preserves their epistatic interaction.


The actually study:

And keep in mind:
Source...
[Source




Since this is not a philosophy blog, how does this relate to selfing lineages? It goes back to linkage. Recall that tight linkage may produce situations where recombination can not break apart unhealthy associations where favorable variants are linked with unfavorable ones, and the latter may hitchhike with the former in selective sweeps (in populations with more heterozygosity recombination would increase the range of combinations across which selection operated; see Muller’s ratchet). This is the bad. But in the case of compensatory mutations the inability of recombination to break apart associations may be a positive. These epistatic interactions are contingent on robust combinations persisting. Recombination would break apart those combinations, preventing the fitness gains from persisting across generations. But in these selfing linages the homogenized genetic backgrounds are relatively fixed palettes against which these mysterious genetic interactions which turn expectations upside down can perform their magic.
edit on 27-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join