It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
You shouldn't be arguing about something you lack complete knowledge of.
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.
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?
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.
Of course I believe in gravity, its predictable, Evolution is not.
Do you believe in gravity? Just curious
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.
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
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.
DNA repair and the genes responsible were largely derived from studies in bacteria and yeast,
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Truth is, evolutionary theory is in desparate need of an overhaul. ie. Altenburg 16.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Noinden
Of course I believe in gravity, its predictable, Evolution is not.
Do you believe in gravity? Just curious
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Noinden
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.
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.
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.
How evolution is first taught (or not taught in the worst cases) to people is in desperate need of an over haul.