Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by HappyBunny
LOL, once in awhile I'll imagine that I had an original thought and then one of you guys come along. I'll try to track down that book, thanks.
Originally posted by Hellhound604
Originally posted by chr0naut
Originally posted by Hellhound604
reply to post by iterationzero
I am still waiting for the creationists to tell me what is their definition of a "species". I keep on hearing that one species cannot change into another, but no creationist can tell me what they mean when they talk about a species.
Is a species any creature that can mate with another and have offspring?
or is it a any creature that can mate with each other and have fertile offspring?
if so, what about creatures that reproduce asexually, with self-fertilization, or with parthenogenesis, etc, etc, etc.......?
One species cannot mate with another and have fertile offspring. Simple definition regardless of belief.
OK, then what about creatures that reproduce asexually? Do they constitute a species?
Originally posted by HappyBunny
There is a huge flaw in your argument. There is no such thing as "devolution." Creatures do not suddenly revert to more primitive forms. Natural selection doesn't depend on increasing advances in complexity but in the most efficient and effective use of resources for better reproductive success.
Here's an example. The loss of eyes or vision in species that inhabit dark places like caves or the deep ocean isn't a step backwards on the evolutionary scale. It is an adaptation to their environment.
In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Where are your calculations showing that the rate of mutation is too fast?
Originally posted by Megatronus
Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Iason321
Actually he is right. Your getting mad at them for pointing out your inaccuracy. Which is why creationists usually FAIL in the evolution debate, because most don't understand the basic terminology of science.edit on 19-4-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)
Amen and then when you do pull them up on this they cry foul. I dont know what the true history of evolution is but id be more inclined to believe science with actual evidence then a book written by man. The only species on earth proven to lie, twist and manipulate facts when it suits thier agenda.
Originally posted by Romekje
Originally posted by Megatronus
Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Iason321
Actually he is right. Your getting mad at them for pointing out your inaccuracy. Which is why creationists usually FAIL in the evolution debate, because most don't understand the basic terminology of science.edit on 19-4-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)
Amen and then when you do pull them up on this they cry foul. I dont know what the true history of evolution is but id be more inclined to believe science with actual evidence then a book written by man. The only species on earth proven to lie, twist and manipulate facts when it suits thier agenda.
Im not a Bible believer BUT!!
What's the difference between the bible (written by man) and science (written by man)?
Originally posted by chr0naut
If random mutation drives Evolutionary Theory then the absence of devolutionary examples IS indicating that the theory doesn't work that way.
100% false. Creatures adapt to their environment. That is the ONLY direction they head. Of course the mutations are random, but the environment is not. Evolution as a whole is not. There is no backwards evolution or sideways evolution or even forward evolution. It's all about the environment and creatures surviving environmental changes. If a creature has a mutation that isn't favorable for that environment, they die out, not "devolve". The fact that there are no creatures that have "devolved" is further proof of natural selection and darwinian evolution.
The "mutations happening too fast" argument has already been debunked. First it was based on an older study. Newer studies show a lower rate of mutation, and that the rate varies from individual to individual. There is no actual merit in that claim, and not a single scientist working on the project has stated or concluded that the rate is too high for evolution to occur. It may lead to less diversity down the road OR pose a danger to our species at some point, but we simply don't know enough about it to say for sure that darwinian evolution is wrong because of a rate of mutation that we don't even know the full cause. It could be pollutants, environmental factors, or something else. Assuming that it means darwinian evolution is wrong, is jumping the gun.
If the mutations happening too fast has been debunked, please provide references.
Originally posted by Barcs
Originally posted by chr0naut
If random mutation drives Evolutionary Theory then the absence of devolutionary examples IS indicating that the theory doesn't work that way.
100% false. Creatures adapt to their environment. That is the ONLY direction they head. Of course the mutations are random, but the environment is not. Evolution as a whole is not. There is no backwards evolution or sideways evolution or even forward evolution. It's all about the environment and creatures surviving environmental changes. If a creature has a mutation that isn't favorable for that environment, they die out, not "devolve". The fact that there are no creatures that have "devolved" is further proof of natural selection and darwinian evolution.
The "mutations happening too fast" argument has already been debunked. First it was based on an older study. Newer studies show a lower rate of mutation, and that the rate varies from individual to individual. There is no actual merit in that claim, and not a single scientist working on the project has stated or concluded that the rate is too high for evolution to occur. It may lead to less diversity down the road OR pose a danger to our species at some point, but we simply don't know enough about it to say for sure that darwinian evolution is wrong because of a rate of mutation that we don't even know the full cause. It could be pollutants, environmental factors, or something else. Assuming that it means darwinian evolution is wrong, is jumping the gun.
If the mutations happening too fast has been debunked, please provide references.
Here's an article about the more recent experiment I was referring to:
www.sciencenews.org...
Plus nobody has provided the original link, which I'm assuming you are referring to this?
www.genetics.org...
Now even in that link it doesn't say anywhere that the deleterious rate is too high for evolution to occur. People read the crap on a creationist website that loosely references this experiment from 2000 with faulty math and old numbers based on an old result. Typical of most creationist "science".edit on 13-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)
The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction (MULLER 1950 Down; WALLACE 1981 Down; CROW 1993 Down; KONDRASHOV 1995 Down; EYRE-WALKER and KEIGHTLEY 1999 Down). The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 - e-U (KIMURA and MORUYAMA 1966 Down). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size.
Originally posted by chr0naut
This was only for Human mutation rates. I was referring to other species mutation rates.
The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction (MULLER 1950 Down; WALLACE 1981 Down; CROW 1993 Down; KONDRASHOV 1995 Down; EYRE-WALKER and KEIGHTLEY 1999 Down). The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 - e-U (KIMURA and MORUYAMA 1966 Down). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size.
The human mutation rate per nucleotide site per generation (μ) can be estimated from data on mutation rates at loci causing Mendelian genetic disease, by comparing putatively neutrally evolving nucleotide sequences between humans and chimpanzees and by comparing the genome sequences of relatives. Direct estimates from genome sequencing of relatives suggest that μ is about 1.1 × 10−8, which is about twofold lower than estimates based on the human–chimp divergence. This implies that an average of ∼70 new mutations arise in the human diploid genome per generation. Most of these mutations are paternal in origin, but the male:female mutation rate ratio is currently uncertain and might vary even among individuals within a population. On the basis of a method proposed by Kondrashov and Crow, the genome-wide deleterious mutation rate (U) can be estimated from the product of the number of nucleotide sites in the genome, μ, and the mean selective constraint per site. Although the presence of many weakly selected mutations in human noncoding DNA makes this approach somewhat problematic, estimates are U ≈ 2.2 for the whole diploid genome per generation and ∼0.35 for mutations that change an amino acid of a protein-coding gene. A genome-wide deleterious mutation rate of 2.2 seems higher than humans could tolerate if natural selection is “hard,” but could be tolerated if selection acts on relative fitness differences between individuals or if there is synergistic epistasis. I argue that in the foreseeable future, an accumulation of new deleterious mutations is unlikely to lead to a detectable decline in fitness of human populations.
Admittedly the deleterious Human mutation rate is not as bad as suggested in the last article, but it still represents a significant problem for evolutionary biologists.It's certainly not the only other recent study, but regardless it DOES show that the mutation rate can vary from individual to individual, and that parents don't always pass down the same amount of genes. It seems like the study from 2000 only sampled 2 human and 1 chimp unless I'm reading that wrong. There's still a lot more to be done before anyone can draw any ridiculous conclusions from them such as "the rate is too high for evolution to occur". Nowhere in any experiment or study does it say that.
The (newer) article quoted from Nature Genetics also only measured mutations in six people, which was an extremely small sample upon which to base their findings.
Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by rhinoceros
I am asking you politely to stop trolling my threads and posts if you can't think of anything worth saying or intelligent,
You're showing your immaturity and lack of ability to objectively observe by continually making crude, smart alec remarks to my posts,
