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

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


I'm going to stick with what I just posted about other things causing genes to change. They might be able to identify genes changing but without identifying the source, it my as well be ADHD thats causing it.




posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Evolution has never been witnessed, but I have allready shared something on this thread that has, and it too changes genes. So how are you going to continue to make false claims that evolution changes our genes when there is now new evidence of other things that are doing it?

There never was any proof that evolution was changing our genes, its just an assumption. Scientists would find change and just say oh that must be evolution causing that, without anything to back it up. I know what your going to say evolution doesn't cause anything to happen, its just a process, just like how that process is supposedly responsible for creating over a billion species but you would also never call it a creator.


Toothy, stop rambling. Are you or are you not suggesting an epigenetic cause?



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





The first sentence is indeed the first sentence on the Talk Origins page you linked. The second sentence never appears on the site (unless perhaps I missed them rehearsing a common anti-science slogan), and indeed the entire rest of the site is basically demonstrating that MES (Evolution Theory) is not only not made up, it has been verified over and over and over and over and over and over and over...
One of the things that you do read over and over and over and over and over is that the origin of the changes is never identified. This obvious fact proves that they are unsure what is causing the changes, and are only making an assumption on the origin. Of course this means that the changes could be coming from any number of sources like those that were explained in the ADHD article.

I have always said that without knowing and identifying where the changes are coming from, evolution will never last.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Nowhere in the paper does Hakonarson postulate a cause for the mutations.
As in where did I get lead from...

ADHD symptoms





ADHD symptoms caused by lead exposure, new study claims


Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...


caused of ADHD




The main factors studied to date have been: fetal exposure to toxic substances (e.g., alcohol and tobacco) during pregnancy, exposure to lead, trauma to the brain from head injury or illness and differences that could be attributed to heredity. These causes are discussed below


What causes ADHD

A mother's use of cigarettes, alcohol, or other drugs during pregnancy may increase the risk for ADHD. Also, exposure to lead may cause symptoms associated with ADHD





As far as lead exposure, correlation doesn't equal causation. Levels of people nowadays are hundreds of times higher than they were 100 years ago due especially to the addition of lead in gasoline. Lead levels have fallen sharply over the last 20 years.
Thats funny, correlation doesn't equal causation, if only evolutionists would have stuck to that same theory, it never would have gotten off the ground.




Now, lead is a neurotoxin that builds up in the bones and tissues. Are you saying that kids who have ADHD in fact have lead poisoning? Kids are routinely tested for lead right around the time ADHD and autistic traits appear.

Or are you suggesting an epigenetic cause?
It appears to be introduced to a fetus, and alters the genes. Some genes get multiplied, and some get deleted. There is also strong evidence of it being able to be passed on genetically as well.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Toothy, stop rambling. Are you or are you not suggesting an epigenetic cause?
Studys are showing that it can be passed on both ways, lead introduced to a fetus as well as passing it off to our offspring.

And it makes total sense as well because its actually changing our genes. So if you were an born fetus exposed to lead, you could end up getting some of your genes multiplied and others deleted. They would reamin that way in your body, and if you had offspring, you would pass them.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Toothy, stop rambling. Are you or are you not suggesting an epigenetic cause?
Studys are showing that it can be passed on both ways, lead introduced to a fetus as well as passing it off to our offspring.

And it makes total sense as well because its actually changing our genes. So if you were an born fetus exposed to lead, you could end up getting some of your genes multiplied and others deleted. They would reamin that way in your body, and if you had offspring, you would pass them.


Okay, I can go along with that.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 






Okay, I can go along with that


The question is do you understand what this means?

This was only recently figured out which means that prior to this, these changes would have been observed as evolution.
edit on 11-9-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I think mutations are only viewed as a friend because so far its the only method that has been able to explain the changes.

I don't look at this like there are changes, so it must be evolution causing them, it appears more to me that there is a major flaw in the whole program. IMO unless the mechanism and premise are identified, they are only guessing.

Now they could just say that any and all changes are evolution at work, but this not be true. My son has brown eyes, thats a change but not evolution. Unidentified changes could be evolution but with no way to identify whats causing the changes, are we just supposed to guess and accept the guess? Obviously not. Personally I don't believe in the series of theories that hold evolution together like a frail chicken.

What has happened however is scientists have accepted the fact that since there are changes (without actually knowing what is causing them) they must be from evolution. As I recently pointed out on here, I provided a link to site that actually explains how ADHD has been identified as changing our genes. Some genes it multiplys and others it delets. Seeing how this would have been viewed as a change, evolutionitsts would have seen the change and called it evolution. IMO all changes are from events like this, they just haven't been identified yet. But when they do, it will lay evolution to rest. Surely a mother smoking and infecting a fetus with ADHD is not, nor should it be considered to be viewed as evolution.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Mutation is necessary for something to evolve. However, not all mutations are considered good. Natural selection and circumstance tend to determine whether or not mutation is beneficial. Take the incredibly rare pink grasshopper. They are a terribly uncommon mutation which is beautiful, but aside from being hard to find because they are genetically uncommon, they are also hard to find because their bright pink color gives them away to predators. On the other hand evolution takes a more permanent stance when it is beneficial. So mutation, while necessary for evolution isn't always beneficial and that's why mutation isn't always good. Cancer can be considered an unhealthy mutation if you think about it.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Genetic mutations are not caused by evolution! Genetic mutations are PART of evolution. The mutations themselves have many causes. That argument certainly doesn't go against evolution



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Genetic mutations are not caused by evolution! Genetic mutations are PART of evolution. The mutations themselves have many causes. That argument certainly doesn't go against evolution


Ya but its like just trying to argue that it doesn't have intent. Do you honestly think that something that is responsible for creating over a billion different species, did it all by accident?

Havent you ever heard the saying burn me once shame on you, burn me twice shame on me? So mutations just occur, you don't know by what, because that is the argument, you just know that they happen and as a result you call it evolution. Is that correct?



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Havent you ever heard the saying burn me once shame on you, burn me twice shame on me? So mutations just occur, you don't know by what, because that is the argument, you just know that they happen and as a result you call it evolution. Is that correct?


Exactly! Mutations have a lot of known causes. I'm no ADHD expert, but I'm guessing that would be one of them. It would be a mutation that is not beneficial and could negatively affect you, possibly not allowing reproduction. That's the definition of evolution. Mutations sorted by natural selection. 1 + 1 = 2. No need for accidents and chance events and magic. Change over time, and that's pretty much it.
edit on 11-9-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Exactly! Mutations have a lot of known causes. I'm no ADHD expert, but I'm guessing that would be one of them. It would be a mutation that is not beneficial and could negatively affect you, possibly not allowing reproduction. That's the definition of evolution. Mutations sorted by natural selection. 1 + 1 = 2. No need for accidents and chance events and magic. Change over time, and that's pretty much it.


And you don't think that over time, science is going to get so involved with our DNA that they will eventually know what each section is for, and what any differences mean as well?

I do, just like what I'm sharing on here about ADHD, over time scientists will learn that in all actuality, all so called changes are able to be accounted for and there is really no random changes like once thought of with evolution. Either way its ok, because I know evolutionists will just come up with another theory at that point and claim that evolution is just temporary dormant.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
And you don't think that over time, science is going to get so involved with our DNA that they will eventually know what each section is for, and what any differences mean as well?

I do, just like what I'm sharing on here about ADHD, over time scientists will learn that in all actuality, all so called changes are able to be accounted for and there is really no random changes like once thought of with evolution. Either way its ok, because I know evolutionists will just come up with another theory at that point and claim that evolution is just temporary dormant.


Like I said, whether the mutations are unknown, from genetic diseases, radiation, or other factors, it is still a change in the DNA which affects the creature's life. This process is known as evolution. You seem to think evolution is this separate external process, but it's not. It's our description of the effects of genetic mutations and natural selection. Please tell me you can understand this.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 






Okay, I can go along with that


The question is do you understand what this means?


Of course I do. I raised an autistic/ADHD child for many years.


This was only recently figured out which means that prior to this, these changes would have been observed as evolution.
edit on 11-9-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)


They are observed as evolution. Have you ever heard of endogenous retroviruses?

I fail to see how an epigenetic causal agent such as lead disproves evolution. Your argument isn't persuasive at all.
edit on 9/12/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
Genetic mutations are not caused by evolution! Genetic mutations are PART of evolution. The mutations themselves have many causes. That argument certainly doesn't go against evolution


I think I see where Toothy's confused, Barcs. While some mutations can occur in utero and have an epigenetic effect (lasting for generations without affecting the genome), for a mutation--good or bad--to be passed on, it has to occur in the sex cells, not the somatic cells.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Like I said, whether the mutations are unknown, from genetic diseases, radiation, or other factors, it is still a change in the DNA which affects the creature's life. This process is known as evolution. You seem to think evolution is this separate external process, but it's not. It's our description of the effects of genetic mutations and natural selection. Please tell me you can understand this.
Yes I understand, but do you understand that I'm trying to tell you there is evidence that these changes could be explained from other things, not evolution.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 





Like I said, whether the mutations are unknown, from genetic diseases, radiation, or other factors, it is still a change in the DNA which affects the creature's life. This process is known as evolution. You seem to think evolution is this separate external process, but it's not. It's our description of the effects of genetic mutations and natural selection. Please tell me you can understand this.
Yes I understand, but do you understand that I'm trying to tell you there is evidence that these changes could be explained from other things, not evolution.


Obviously you don't understand because what you said goes against what I just said! It doesn't matter what causes the mutations. If it's a genetic change it's evolution, even if some alien manipulated our DNA and bred humans from early hominids. That would still technically be evolution because it's a genetic change that leads to change in the organism and is effected by natural selection. Cause doesn't matter, the effect of the change is evolution, no matter what the cause is. Understand this time or do I have to repeat it over and over again?
edit on 12-9-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





They are observed as evolution. Have you ever heard of endogenous retroviruses?

I fail to see how an epigenetic causal agent such as lead disproves evolution. Your argument isn't persuasive at all.
There is no proof that evolutionairy changes aren't epigenetic.

It doesn't matter the only difference between it being epigenetic or not is the time at which the force strikes. There is no rule that says forces can't attack prior.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





I think I see where Toothy's confused, Barcs. While some mutations can occur in utero and have an epigenetic effect (lasting for generations without affecting the genome), for a mutation--good or bad--to be passed on, it has to occur in the sex cells, not the somatic cells.
Well then you must have missed the section that precisley states that it changes our genes...
alterations in these genes

so the fact that children with ADHD are more likely to have alterations in these genes reinforces previous evidence that the GRM pathway is important in ADHD,"





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join