Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

M U T A T I O N - Friend or Foe of Evolution?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
You shouldn't be arguing about something you lack complete knowledge of.

He's a creationist, it's in the job description.




posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
There's a limit to how quickly mutations can accumulate, something like 6 per gene according to one study. Any more and it's too much for natural selection to weed out. This makes sense of course.

Mutations that happen through harmful radiation is a hit and miss affair. Truly random. Damage to coding DNA for proteins will be very bad to a very high percentage.

Otherwise...

Mutation will be dominant in tissue specific genes not housekeeping genes that control vital cell function, which would be very bad.

Some mutations can be induced. There are also examples of adaptive mutations.

There are many other mechanisms for evolution beyond random mutation.

Horizontal Gene Transfer, Genome Doubling, Transposable elements, endosymbiosis, adaptive mutation, fine tuning by epigenetic aquired traits and probably many more I've missed and are yet to be discovered.

There's no tree of life, only a web of life.

Random mutation happens but it's more about loss of function according to the empirical evidence.

The version of evolution most of the regulars to this forum spout is oudated by at least 30 years or more, and then they call other views uninformed. Truth is, evolutionary theory is in desparate need of an overhaul. ie. Altenburg 16.

It's laughable when people make it out like we know exactly how it happens, just like religious zealots, and then ride off on their high horse shouting SCIENCE!



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
There's a limit to how quickly mutations can accumulate, something like 6 per gene according to one study. Any more and it's too much for natural selection to weed out. This makes sense of course.

That is not true, unless you misunderstood the study. Hit your gene of interest with high enough EM energy and it will be chopped up into way more pieces, and hence more than the arbitrary number 6.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Thain Esh Kelch
 


Your argument would appear to be with these gentlmen and not me.
www.sciencedaily.com...
Sorry 6 per genome.

Oh I don't doubt what you are saying. It sounds more like transposable elements, or the cell self splicing. Protozoa will do it, into hundreds of thousands of pieces and reasemble the genome making next cell better adapted. Doesn't seem too random to me. You can't mess with protiens too much.
edit on 4-9-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I don't believe in evolution, I'm convinced that it is just a series of made up theories to overwrite religion. I'm also not religious either, but I do believe that the bible holds a lot of historical value.

One such example of evolution and mutations was addressed in another thread that I'm active in, I think it was called can you prove evolution wrong?

One of the things I discovered in my attempts to do so was that geneticists just recently found out some remarkable information about ADHD. What they found is that this disorder was actually changing parts of our genes. Some it would copy and repeat, and others it would erase. I realized that prior to them realizing this, evolutionsts would have been considering these changes part of evoltuion, when in fact it was ADHD.

Because of this I also wondered how many other disorders could possibly be changing our genes, and how many of those are we pretending to be evolution?



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Do you believe in gravity? Just curious



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I don't believe in evolution, I'm convinced that it is just a series of made up theories to overwrite religion. I'm also not religious either, but I do believe that the bible holds a lot of historical value.

One such example of evolution and mutations was addressed in another thread that I'm active in, I think it was called can you prove evolution wrong?

One of the things I discovered in my attempts to do so was that geneticists just recently found out some remarkable information about ADHD. What they found is that this disorder was actually changing parts of our genes. Some it would copy and repeat, and others it would erase. I realized that prior to them realizing this, evolutionsts would have been considering these changes part of evoltuion, when in fact it was ADHD.

Because of this I also wondered how many other disorders could possibly be changing our genes, and how many of those are we pretending to be evolution?


Thanks,

We're of the same thought. But to me, mutation is an enemy of evolution. As such, evolution (in short changing one form into another form through the allele) is not only improbable but impossible.

Here's why:

I mentioned in another thread two powerful reasons why mutation is an enemy of evolution theory.

The Genome and the Sterility.

The genome itself contains so many complex and remarkable genes many of which are categorized as error correcting genes or repair genes.

Main function of these genes as their name suggest is to simply prevent any error from being copied during cell division.

Unfortunately, due to still unknown reasons these repair genes become defective themselves. As such they become an enemy rather than a friend of the carrier. They introduce error in the genome rather than preventing them.

notice:


DNA repair systems are essential for the maintenance of genome integrity. Consequently, the disregulation of repair genes can be expected to be associated with significant, detrimental health effects, which can include an increased prevalence of birth defects, an enhancement of cancer risk, and an accelerated rate of aging. Although original insights into DNA repair and the genes responsible were largely derived from studies in bacteria and yeast, well over 125 genes directly involved in DNA repair have now been identified in humans, and their cDNA sequence established. These genes function in a diverse set of pathways that involve the recognition and removal of DNA lesions, tolerance to DNA damage, and protection from errors of incorporation made during DNA replication or DNA repair. Additional genes indirectly affect DNA repair, by regulating the cell cycle, ostensibly to provide an opportunity for repair or to direct the cell to apoptosis. For about 70 of the DNA repair genes listed in Table I, both the genomic DNA sequence and the cDNA sequence and chromosomal location have been elucidated. In 45 cases single-nucleotide polymorphisms have been identified and, in some cases, genetic variants have been associated with specific disorders. With the accelerating rate of gene discovery, the number of identified DNA repair genes and sequence variants is quickly rising. This report tabulates the current status of what is known about these genes. The report is limited to genes whose function is directly related to DNA repair.


Sadly, experiments and experience show that once a gene becomes a mutant - the result is almost always deadly. If not stopped, the mutated gene will finally destroy its carrier. This is the deadly side of mutation. Thus the repair gene plays a very important role in preserving the fidelity and quality of every gene.

It's in this case that mutation becomes an enemy of evolution since the resulting product will always be inferior to the the original source. As such the longevity of such carrier is greatly reduced.

On the other hand - evolutionists claim that there are beneficial mutations - of which the carrier instead of deteriorating - becomes better and stronger than the parent.

They claim that through mutations of the gene, natural selection and speciation occur.

Through the passage of time they claim - mutation was the driving force of evolution. Without mutation no evolution could occur. Thus to them - mutation is a "friend" of evolution.

Question is do the facts support this claim?

As we've already seen through many experiments and true life experiences - nothing good results from mutation.

So the question next to answer is - are there any beneficial mutation of which are friendly to evolution?

If so what are these "friendly mutation"?

Are they really "mutations" or are they something else?



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Noinden
 





Do you believe in gravity? Just curious
Of course I believe in gravity, its predictable, Evolution is not.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





Thanks,

We're of the same thought. But to me, mutation is an enemy of evolution. As such, evolution (in short changing one form into another form through the allele) is not only improbable but impossible.

Here's why:

I mentioned in another thread two powerful reasons why mutation is an enemy of evolution theory.

The Genome and the Sterility.

The genome itself contains so many complex and remarkable genes many of which are categorized as error correcting genes or repair genes.

Main function of these genes as their name suggest is to simply prevent any error from being copied during cell division.

Unfortunately, due to still unknown reasons these repair genes become defective themselves. As such they become an enemy rather than a friend of the carrier. They introduce error in the genome rather than preventing them.

notice
I can see that. I might have gotten further in my debates with others about this in that evolution claims to have the intelligence to know which genes to change and which ones not to. Either way now they are throwing intelligence into it.

You might like a thread I just started not to long ago called Target food proves evolution wrong.
What it comes down to is species seem to have a select diet from what we observe, and there seems to be programming of some sort that is telling them what to eat. As with humans we have to labratory test ourselves and food to find out if its a good match but for other species, its as though they automatically know. Either way, there is intelligence in there somewhere.




DNA repair and the genes responsible were largely derived from studies in bacteria and yeast,
This was my other problem with believing the threads about evolution, seeing these changes only in bacteria and viruses, is a lot different then claiming man shares a common ancestor with apes.

Everything I have read, first hand, tells me that evolution is nothing more than a series of hypothesis and theories, and in fact thats in writing. And when I share that, they just become incredulous.




Sadly, experiments and experience show that once a gene becomes a mutant - the result is almost always deadly. If not stopped, the mutated gene will finally destroy its carrier. This is the deadly side of mutation. Thus the repair gene plays a very important role in preserving the fidelity and quality of every gene.

It's in this case that mutation becomes an enemy of evolution since the resulting product will always be inferior to the the original source. As such the longevity of such carrier is greatly reduced.

On the other hand - evolutionists claim that there are beneficial mutations - of which the carrier instead of deteriorating - becomes better and stronger than the parent.

They claim that through mutations of the gene, natural selection and speciation occur.

Through the passage of time they claim - mutation was the driving force of evolution. Without mutation no evolution could occur. Thus to them - mutation is a "friend" of evolution.

Question is do the facts support this claim?
What I'm being told is that evoltuion is not just the giver of positive changes, and as a result of some of the negative things causing death and destruction, only the strongest ones survive. In all evolution is a creator, as there is no way a person or a process can make over a billion species and not be accepted as a creator. Now you will never get evolutionists to agree with that statement, but its a fact.

Evolution is also the judge and the jury. I'm being told that when things don't go well, and evolution mutation makes bad choices, those die out, and that is all part of the system. Now it makes no sense to me why something that is responsible for creating over a billion different species would also have a plan to kill us off.

Accordingly, the idea of a species not having food, also weighs into that picture. According to other ATS members, its perfectly normal for a species to starve and not have food, as this is all part of the plan. It makes no sense that we clearly see species that have target diets, and they seem to know what they are eating, and someone or something had to have a prior knowledge of the food thats avaialbe to teach them what to eat, in addition to that food actually being highly beneficial to them, IMO has creator all over it. It's just way to complicated to think these planned events are unplanned.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





As we've already seen through many experiments and true life experiences - nothing good results from mutation.

So the question next to answer is - are there any beneficial mutation of which are friendly to evolution?

If so what are these "friendly mutation"?

Are they really "mutations" or are they something else?
Well I'm going to agree with you. Everything I have read supports that understanding. I never could understand how anything positive could come from mutations.

You may not know, but according to the bible, our planet was reset with life. Life from other planets was brought here, including us. Here is where the real problem lays. Scientists are totally baffled right now because they can't understand why we are approaching our 6th largest mass extinction. I know exactly why. If you were to fly around to every air inhabitable planet and pick up a few of each species and bring them all to earth, what you have is a big mess. Most of the species, including us, don't belong here, and when you put us all together, we were not meant to be in balance. So this is why we have mass extinctions, like 99% right now. Each planet is originaly made with specified species and if you take any out, its out of balance and can collapse, if you add species, its the same thing, you will cause a collapse, and that is where we are at rigth now.

I don't believe in faith but I think the historical parts of the bible are precious to say the least.

So we have everything, but thats not a good thing, as it says in the bible we were given everything except those things from our home, which means that our actuall food and species are not here with us. So now it might make a little more sense as to why we have so much simularity in species on this planet, because so many were brought here from other planets. I don't know if this is all made by a creator, or some form of a type of evolution, but many creators are even possible.

Probably the strongest arguement that I have posed against evolutionists, is flagellum. I want to know how gears and sprockets evolved.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
That is not true, unless you misunderstood the study. Hit your gene of interest with high enough EM energy and it will be chopped up into way more pieces, and hence more than the arbitrary number 6.


Also to note, there is a difference between DNA damage and mutation.

DNA damage is a physical error in the structure. Chopped up. like you describe.

Mutation is a change in the base sequence of DNA.

Damage can lead to mutation but there is an important distinction.

My example with the protozoa is more of a case of self genetic engineering. Transposable elements are not damage either. Was a bit off the mark with those. Just to clear that up. Late night.
edit on 4-9-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 




The version of evolution most of the regulars to this forum spout is outdated by at least 30 years or more, and then they call other views uninformed.


I agree. However, you cannot really discuss at that level of detail with folks who barely understand Sunday School biology. If you try to make them run before they can walk, they will just descend into even more wrongness.

Mutations happen through a variety of methods just as you describe. That doesn't change the fact that they are random and not supernaturally pre-planned. Natural Selection proceeds at different paces under different circumstances, gradually or in spurts, over many generations or remarkably few generations. That doesn't change the fact the selection is natural and not supernaturally imposed.

That is why I included the caveat of 'at this level of detail'.



Truth is, evolutionary theory is in desparate need of an overhaul. ie. Altenburg 16.


As I understand it, the Altenburg 16 conference didn't suggest that the MES was "in desparate need of an overhaul" nor was that ever the motivating idea behind it. It merely pointed out areas of legitimate research, like 'punctuated equilibrium' for example, that they felt were being given sufficient attention.

Meetings like this occur all the time in every discipline, even in narrow closed shops like computer software manufacturers user group conferences. There is nothing Earth shattering about nerds on the edge discussing amongst themselves how they get the edge (and therefor themselves) into the center.

It occurs to me that many of their arguments have been addressed over time. Certainly, 'punctuated equilibrium' is much better understood today than it was in 2008. I don't have a problem with a continuously evolving MES, but then I am not an evolutionary biologist. If they do, well they know more about their discipline than I do.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


How evolution is first taught (or not taught in the worst cases) to people is in desperate need of an over haul. Genetics need to be introduced (not in depth) to the equation. Darwin did not know DNA was involved, and even if he did he would not have been able to say much, genetics is a NEW science and the tools we need to study evolution are only really becoming available now. So many sanger sequencers are gathering dust thanks to the explosion of new techniques, I hope we will be able to teach kids the basics, and then introduce modern evolutionary ideas earlier.

Darwin is HISTORY and important history yes, but his ideas are akin to old GUI operating systems, clunky compared to modern ones



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Personally I think its because the old guard has fought so long and hard against creationism it's become heavily weighed down with philosophical baggage that any back tracking from certain positions will open the door to the enemy and damage public perception.

As it exists now we have this very old idea from the 1940's unfortunately named the modern synthesis. Since receiving a few modifications genetic drift etc.. and then an enormous explosion of knowledge in micro biology revealing a vast array of mechanisms. The entire genetics era. Yet the theory the basic underlying theory hasn't budged.

An argument can be made for a intelligent cellular design process IMO. Bacteria and cells are small but they aren't stupid. This is not truly random. There is a long history of this since the 1940's as well beginning with Barbara McClintock.

As far as the Altenburg meeting goes, none of them supported ID. All were critical of the satus quo. And many of them supported "self organizanal" mechanisms.

This is a form of design that need not invoke a supernatural cause. Natural selection happens, random mutation happens. But there is a hell of a lot more going on as well. It's quite amazing.

As for the origin of life, that's another story. The semiotic nature of life is completely baffling.

See, you can have your cake and it as well.
edit on 4-9-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Noinden
 





Do you believe in gravity? Just curious
Of course I believe in gravity, its predictable, Evolution is not.


We understand gravity about as much as we understand Evolution. Evolution appears to be a more complex operation so we just can not predict anything, it is also a process that is slow for limited beings such as us. Yet we've observed evolution. Drug resistance is an example. Similarly we can trace how heritable traits entered the human genome, again I use lactose TOLLERANCE as an example. They also have seen how certain Jewish lineages have genes associated with higher cognicance (it's hard to quantify this beyond, they have higher IQ) because it was a trait that helped with survival.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Again with anthropomorphism and evolution. Evolution does not have enemies, it's not a living being.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Noinden
 





We understand gravity about as much as we understand Evolution. Evolution appears to be a more complex operation so we just can not predict anything, it is also a process that is slow for limited beings such as us. Yet we've observed evolution. Drug resistance is an example. Similarly we can trace how heritable traits entered the human genome, again I use lactose TOLLERANCE as an example. They also have seen how certain Jewish lineages have genes associated with higher cognicance (it's hard to quantify this beyond, they have higher IQ) because it was a trait that helped with survival.
Ya the only problem is that speciation has only ever been observed in some aquatic life, bacteria, and viruses. This is a big stretch to claiming that evolution is responsible for over a billion different species, or even that we share a common ancestor with apes.

Evolution isn't even a verified theory.

evolution

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses./ex] Parts of evolution are simply made up.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Noinden
 





We understand gravity about as much as we understand Evolution. Evolution appears to be a more complex operation so we just can not predict anything, it is also a process that is slow for limited beings such as us. Yet we've observed evolution. Drug resistance is an example. Similarly we can trace how heritable traits entered the human genome, again I use lactose TOLLERANCE as an example. They also have seen how certain Jewish lineages have genes associated with higher cognicance (it's hard to quantify this beyond, they have higher IQ) because it was a trait that helped with survival.
Ya the only problem is that speciation has only ever been observed in some aquatic life, bacteria, and viruses. This is a big stretch to claiming that evolution is responsible for over a billion different species, or even that we share a common ancestor with apes.

Evolution isn't even a verified theory.

evolution

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses./ex] Parts of evolution are simply made up.


None of the alternatives are verified either, most rely on belief rather than evidence. Hence no parts of evolution are not "made up", if you are so adamant on this. Show the parts.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Here we go again. This is going to be yet another EDMC thread that ends up discussion the same exact thing as his previous 3, where he asks a bunch of questions, then when they are answered responds with more questions that have more to do with philosophy, than the subject being discussed. If you'd like to waste a ton of time arguing with somebody who is a complete scientific illiterate than by all means, do it here.

Mutations are not friend or foe. They are inevitable. Bad mutations cause harm to the organism, while beneficial ones help it's survival and reproduction rates.
at claiming people fear them.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Noinden
 




How evolution is first taught (or not taught in the worst cases) to people is in desperate need of an over haul.


I don't have any real argument about that. Teaching methods and curriculum always need updating. Especially in the sciences. The MES is as advanced beyond Darwin (while still retaining his core ideas, and those of his contemporaries) as Quantum Mechanics is beyond Newton (while still retaining his core ideas, and those of his contemporaries).





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join