New study provides first evidence of non-random mutations in DNA

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: neoholographic

There is no need to prove that god created everything, especially to those who are not looking and won't see.

We need to just put our faith in him and soon everything in the dark will be seen in the light. The truth of everything will be clear.
We need to pray for those who are not seeing to have their eyes opened and a seed planted and watered.
We need to love them all because our creator loves them all and Jesus died for us all.

If I were looking for a religion to guide or save me it would be the religion of this guy.

Not Neo's DESTROY ASININE NON-BELIEVERS shouty verbal violence, or the fakery and fantasy of Cooperton. Both of those 'religious' chaps have a lot to learn from SeaWorthy.

a reply to: dragonridr

You can't be serious!

Now you want to separate mutations from evolution because you realize how idiotic a natural interpretation of evolution is. You're just like the other poster that tried to downplay mutations.

I think you need to call up Biologist and other scientist and tell them evolution is separate from mutations. You said:

Well not exactly people often mix the two together. The main difference between evolution and mutation is that evolution is the process responsible for the descending of the modern organisms from ancient organisms over time whereas a mutation is a heritable change in the nucleotide sequence of the genome.

You then said:

Therefore, the main difference between evolution and mutation is their effect.

This is just ridiculous.

You can't have evolution without mutations. Mutations are the driver of evolution. This simply shows that you guys inherently know how foolish a natural interpretation of evolution is so you make up nonsense like separating evolution from mutations. Here's more from Nature:

Mutations Are the Raw Materials of Evolution Mutations are essential to evolution.

Every genetic feature in every organism was, initially, the result of a mutation. The new genetic variant (allele) spreads via reproduction, and differential reproduction is a defining aspect of evolution. It is easy to understand how a mutation that allows an organism to feed, grow or reproduce more effectively could cause the mutant allele to become more abundant over time. Soon the population may be quite ecologically and/or physiologically different from the original population that lacked the adaptation. Even deleterious mutations can cause evolutionary change, especially in small populations, by removing individuals that might be carrying adaptive alleles at other genes.

www.nature.com...

Mutations aren't separate from evolution. Random mutations are essential to evolution.

Sadly, many people who blindly support evolution don't understand the fantasy.

Evolution is driven by random mutations. These mutations have no direction or purpose and the genes they create have no direction or purpose. These blindly made genes and the blindly made machinery to construct these genes reach the environment and then the traits that help the organism survive in the environment spreads throughout the population via reproduction.

This is a random process and this is why Darwin expected to see all of these INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES.

“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” ― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

This is at the heart of evolution and a fantasy.

Think about it. Environmental pressures trigger random mutations and then all of these INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES blindly and without purpose or direction reach the environment and then the INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES that survive best in the environment populate the environment via reproduction. This is asinine and makes no sense but this is a natural interpretation of evolution.

If evolution is without purpose or direction, why do the traits needed for an organism to survive keep showing up when the organism needs it down to point mutations and extremophiles? A natural interpretation of evolution is just illogical. We have always been taught and our still taught today that species adapt to their environments and there's no evidence in the fossil record or the genome of any INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES. When an organism needs x traits to survive, x traits evolve down to point mutations. This is intelligent design.

It gets worse.

Not only do these random mutations blindly produce INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES, they create information and give sequence meaning!!!

Think about how absurd this is! It's like if I have the alphabet in front of me and I keep mutating the letters and sometimes the word YES comes up then the word DONT comes up. I mutate it again and again and the words BUY, CAR and ROAD comes up.Without an intelligent source giving the sequence of letters meaning these words are meaningless. So CAR and BUY is no different than the sequence of letters ZRH and MBQ without intelligence saying the sequence of the letters CAR mean this or the sequence of letters BUY means that.

The blind believers in a natural interpretation of evolution wants logical people to believe that random mutations not only put Genes in different sequences but that the sequence has no meaning before the random mutation occurs!!!!

Let me say that again:

The blind believers in a natural interpretation of evolution wants logical people to believe that random mutations not only put Genes in different sequences but that the sequence has no meaning before the random mutation occurs!!!!



Why would any rational person believe such absolute nonsense? It's because of belief. They use evolution to support their atheism or materialism.

a reply to: neoholographic

Im guessing English is a second language for you because you apparently can't read what someone says with even a 1st grade understanding of English, What i said was they are not the same thing one is a part of the other. there are several factors in evolution and mutation is just one of them. Not all mutations lead to evolution. Only hereditary mutations, which occur in egg or sperm cells, can be passed to future generations and potentially contribute to evolution. Somatic mutations however have no effect on evolution. Id like to think you just misunderstood what was being said and you were not trying to twist the words to suit your argument.

The factors involved in evolution is mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, and sexual recombination are some of the important factors which influence the evolution of living organisms. However, there are more as well so making the claim that somehow mutation is evolution is silly and a very basic understanding of what evolution actually is.

Now in the future please don't try to reinterpret what I'm saying just ask I will explain it to you.

a reply to: neoholographic

As per usual, you totally misinterpreted the science and reinvented the article to suit your agenda. Nothing new here with you.
BTW, this is how science works. It's called RESEARCH.

Now to the paper:

The conclusions drawn by the authors:

Evolutionary theory predicts that beneficial gene level mutation rates could readily evolve
if ΔU * Lsegment * Ne
> 1 (where ΔU = reduction in deleterious mutation rate, Lsegment = length of
sequence affected, Ne
= effective population size) 3,8. This criterion is met if processes
governing mutation rates interact with cytogenetic regulatory features to preferentially target
multiple important (effectively large ΔU) genes – resulting in a large effective Lsegment – for repair
3,8.

Consistent with previous functional work, here we find such features are indeed predictive of mutation rates and are distributed non-randomly between genes according to function (functionally constrained genes are enriched for features that are linked to lower mutation rates,


In contrast to other models of beneficial mutation rate evolution that invoke gene-specific modifiers of mutation rate, this scenario of genic mutation rate evolution requires that selection is sufficient to maintain gene level regulatory features,not gene level mutation rates directly.

The observations made in this investigation are thus consistent with a growing body of research suggesting that this model of beneficial genic mutation rate evolution is both theoretically and empirically plausible.

The implications of these findings for evolutionary biology are far-reaching. If mutation rates are specifically lower in functionally constrained genes, one might hypothesize that the distribution of fitness effects of new mutations would be skewed and adaptive evolution would
proceed faster than predicted from models assuming that mutation probabilities are truly independent of mutational consequences.We thus believe that the correlated effect of natural selection and variable mutation rate provides a more complete explanation of natural genetic
variation and gene evolution in A. thaliana.

The operative word here is FUNCTION.

This paper reaffirms what we already know about evolution and adds a very interesting de novo aspect of evolution which actually points to the evolutionary process itself i.e. change over time.

As the author points out:

However, the ultimate aim of this investigation was to study mutation rates at gene level resolution.

And that's exactly what they did.

BTW, they didn't find your guy-in-the-sky manipulating DNA. He/she/it isn't mentioned in the reference material.

And let's get something cleared up once and for all: What is "randomness". You guys throw that term around as though you understand what it really means. Well, mathematicians would disagree with you. Randomness has a real meaning.

In common parlance, randomness is the apparent or actual lack of pattern or predictability in events.[1][2] A random sequence of events, symbols or steps often has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are, by definition, unpredictable,but if the probability distribution is known, the frequency of different outcomes over repeated events (or "trials") is predictable.[note 1] For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will tend to occur twice as often as 4. In this view, randomness is not haphazardness;it is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome. Randomness applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy.

A random process is a sequence of random variables whose outcomes do not follow a deterministic pattern, but follow an evolution described by probability distributions. These and other constructs are extremely useful in probability theory and the various applications of randomness.

You guys use "randomness" as a process of throwing mud at a wall and hoping some will stick. In fact, you can do that but you can also determine the probability of how much mud will stick over time. You use the term as though absolutely nothing is known about the process.

As regards evolution, the word "random" does not necessarily mean an absolute lack of knowledge. It merely describes a process that is energetically more favorable in some circumstances. The process has meaning - and that's confirmed by the outcome i.e. living organisms.

a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom is playing the role of the Phantom once again. Don't believe what you read with your lying eyes. When will you get tired of being wrong? You said:

This paper reaffirms what we already know about evolution

The author of the paper said:

"I was totally surprised by the non-random mutations we discovered," lead author Grey Monroe, a plant scientist at the University of California, Davis, told Live Science. "Ever since high-school biology, I have been told that mutations are random."

www.livescience.com...

Most people that are honest admit that mutations are random like the lead author of the paper and it's random mutations that are at the core of evolution. This is why Darwin called it Natural SSelection vs. Artificial Selection. He didn't know about the supercomputer in DNA and he came up with a theory that's just asinine based on our current knowledge.

Darwin's theory was based on natural selection as the driving force of evolution and that's because he didn't know about the supercomputer in the cell. So he thought nature created a bunch of INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES and nature selected from these INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES.

“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” ― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

Darwin's theory should have been thrown out once we found the supercomputer in the cell called DNA. Scientist prop up this fantasy because of belief not science.

Darwin realized if nature was selecting these INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES then it had to be random and without purpose or direction.

Most things aren't random that we call random. A roll of the dice is random but the outcome of the role of the dice is non random. You can roll the dice ad infinitum and you're just going to get a probability distribution of the numbers 2-12.

There isn't any limiting factor like intelligence that designed the pair of dice that says the only outcomes that can occur are 2-12 when it comes to blind, random mutations. Again, this is what Darwin envisioned and Darwinist who blindly want to believe prop up his theory. Here's more:

Darwin chose the name natural selection to contrast with “artificial selection,” or selective breeding that is controlled by humans. He pointed to the pastime of pigeon breeding, a popular hobby in his day, as an example of artificial selection. By choosing which pigeons mated with others, hobbyists created distinct pigeon breeds, with fancy feathers or acrobatic flight, that were different from wild pigeons.

Darwin and other scientists of his day argued that a process much like artificial selection happened in nature, without any human intervention. He argued that natural selection explained how a wide variety of life forms developed over time from a single common ancestor.

Darwin did not know that genes existed, but he could see that many traits are heritable—passed from parents to offspring.
www.nationalgeographic.org...

Darwin didn't know about translation, transcription, polypeptide chains, gentic code, the correlation of digital and analog information, modular molecular machines and more.

Darwin looked at an an intelligent process of artificial selection and said nature can do the same thing without human intervention. This is why he expected to see an enormous amount of INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES. If nature is doing what intelligence can do as Darwin envisioned then it had to do so randomly and without purpose or direction. So natural selection needed all of these INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES to select against.

To be fair to Darwin, he came up with this theory without the knowledge we have today about the supercomputer in the cell.

This theory should have been laughed out of existence as anything natural but by this point it had become too big to fail for the godless.

Sadly, most people that blindly accept evolution doesn't know it's origin. The origin of this theory was steeped in Darwin's ignorance and that ignorance has been perpetrated by those that knows it's a lie.

Random mutations can't encode sequence with information that just poofs into existence. If nature was doing the selecting you would get chaos and destruction.

New Study Finds That Most Cancer Mutations are Due to Random DNA Copying ‘Mistakes’

Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center scientists report data from a new study providing evidence that random, unpredictable DNA copying “mistakes” account for nearly two-thirds of the mutations that cause cancer. Their research is grounded on a novel mathematical model based on DNA sequencing and epidemiologic data from around the world.

“It is well-known that we must avoid environmental factors such as smoking to decrease our risk of getting cancer. But it is not as well-known that each time a normal cell divides and copies its DNA to produce two new cells, it makes multiple mistakes,” says Cristian Tomasetti, Ph.D., assistant professor of biostatistics at the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “These copying mistakes are a potent source of cancer mutations that historically have been scientifically undervalued, and this new work provides the first estimate of the fraction of mutations caused by these mistakes.”

“We need to continue to encourage people to avoid environmental agents and lifestyles that increase their risk of developing cancer mutations. However, many people will still develop cancers due to these random DNA copying errors

The researchers say their conclusions are in accord with epidemiologic studies showing that approximately 40 percent of cancers can be prevented by avoiding unhealthy environments and lifestyles. But among the factors driving the new study, say the researchers, is that cancer often strikes people who follow all the rules of healthy living — nonsmoker, healthy diet, healthy weight, little or no exposure to known carcinogens — and have no family history of the disease, prompting the pained question “Why me?”

www.hopkinsmedicine.org...

Those who support a natural interpretation of evolution are saying these copying errors created modular molecular machinery and encoded sequences with information to be transcribed and translated into proteins. These copying error are more creative than Picasso!!

We'd probably be more open minded to this "hyperintelligent aliens invented life on earth" hypothesis if you could bring us an actual alien to discuss the matter with. Like that "Paul" movie, we need a more practical and efficient approach to the whole relationship between man and the cosmic mysteries. This ain't it.

a reply to: neoholographic

Another cut-and-paste frenzy. Take a pill, calm down and read the research. Oh wait, you don't do that! You draw conclusions out of thin air! I guess the guy-in-the-sky is handing them out again today.

OK, I read the article about the paper and its findings, but not the paper itself.

I know the researcher was quoted talking about 'randomness' and I cannot say whether he misspoke or was misquoted, but the 'meat' of the article didn't seem to be describing an absence of randomness at all.

I did NOT get from that article that they found that "mutations were not random". What I read was that some possible mutation locations are somehow 'protected', thus the entire genome is not available for a mutation "strike".

I could be wrong, because, as I said, I only read the article, not the paper.

But it seems to me that that doesn't challenge the 'randomness' of which mutation might actually occur, it only reduces the genetic locations that are available for a mutation.

If you have a 12 sided die, any given roll can produce a number between 1 and 12 inclusive.
If you have a 6 sided die, any given roll can produce a number between 1 and 6 inclusive.

Both the 12 sided die and the 6 sided die produce RANDOM results (assuming the normal stuff), but their result space is different. The 6 sided die isn't any less random, it just has a smaller result space.

The six sided die cannot produce an 8 as a result - that doesn't make the result it does produce any less random - it makes it differently bounded.

And that is what the reported study seemed to me to be saying - the possible mutations in the thale cress under study are limited to those areas in the genome that are not somehow 'protected'.

a reply to: rnaa

You said:

I could be wrong, because, as I said, I only read the article, not the paper.

You're correct, you are wrong.

Again, you first have to go to Darwin's intent to realize evolution today is a big lie. It's something that's promoted and pushed by the godless who use Darwin and his theory to support their belief system.

Darwin's original intent was simple. It was humans can breed diverse looking pigeons through artificial selection therefore nature must do the same thing without human intervention and he called it natural selection.

So Darwin was saying nature can "select" just like humans select the pigeons to breed. So Darwin's theory was simple and impossible based on what we know today.

The 3 billion base pairs in the human genome are remarkably similar from one person to another, but over tens of thousands of years random mutations in genes have introduced many variants.

Darwin's Postulates

1. With limited resources, reproduction generates more individuals than are able to survive and reproduce.
2. The disparity between resources and numbers generated by reproduction creates a competition for survival.
3. Variants with advantageous features are more likely to survive and reproduce.
4. Variants with survival advantages pass their traits to their offspring.

sphweb.bumc.bu.edu...

It simple to see how Darwin's theory inspired the Nazi's. You kill the weak and populate the environment with the best traits.

Darwin realized if nature was doing the selecting and not human intelligence then you would need an enormous amount of INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES for nature to select against.

So there should be many INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES of Giraffes and longer necks is just one dumb luck varient of these many INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES but we don't see any evidence of this in the fossil record or the genome. When you look at Giraffe's for instance it's a straight line from a to b. Look at the evolution of the Giraffe's neck.



Darwin realized this:

“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” ― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

Sorry Darwin, these enormous INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES have never been found. They're with bigfoot and the lochness monster. At least you have bigfoot and lochness sightings these INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES have never been seen!

This is why you never hear of Alfred Russel Wallace who discovered these things with Darwin. He said evolution had to have intelligent intervention.

Alfred Russel Wallace OM FRS (8 January 1823 – 7 November 1913) was a British naturalist, explorer, geographer, anthropologist, biologist and illustrator.[1] He is best known for independently conceiving the theory of evolution through natural selection; his paper on the subject was jointly published with some of Charles Darwin's writings in 1858.[2] This prompted Darwin to publish On the Origin of Species.

Why don't you ever hear about Wallace? When you think of evolution it's all Darwin. I bet if you ask 1,000 peoplle who's Charles Darwin about half will know and associate him with evolution. If you asked 1,000 people who's Alfred Russel Wallace, maybe 2-3% will know. This is by design because the godless wants to push the big lie to support their atheism or materialism.

Shortly afterwards, Wallace became a spiritualist. At about the same time, he began to maintain that natural selection cannot account for mathematical, artistic, or musical genius, as well as metaphysical musings, and wit and humour. He eventually said that something in "the unseen universe of Spirit" had interceded at least three times in history. The first was the creation of life from inorganic matter. The second was the introduction of consciousness in the higher animals. And the third was the generation of the higher mental faculties in humankind. He also believed that the raison d'être of the universe was the development of the human spirit.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is why you only hear of Darwin and Wallace isn't well known. They want to keep the lie alive. In some cases it's not a lie. People really have a strong delusion when it comes to a natural interpretationof evolution. The Bible talks about this delusion.

9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I Pray that some will read this and they will be released from this strong delusion and they will experience the Love of God through Jesus Christ and the Revelation of the Holy Spirit before it's too late.

Darwin's view of natural selection is different than how it's viewed today. Today, it should just be called survival of the fittest for the most part. It's random and happens after traits have reached the environment.

Darwin saw natural selection like artificial selection. All of these INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES reach the environment in a random and without purpose way. There's no translation, transcription, modular molecular machinery, correlation of information, polypeptide chain, genetic code and more. It's just a bunch of INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES and blind luck.

Think about it. All of the species we see down to extremophiles just happen to have the right traits to survive in their environment and nobody asks why, if this is a product of nature?

Let me repeat that.

Think about it. All of the species we see down to extremophiles just happen to have the right traits to survive in their environment and nobody asks why, if this is a product of nature?

Why is this information available? Why are all of these traits that allow species to survive available?

A natural interpretation of evolution says this information didn't exist prior to random mutations. So random mutations just conjured up the mutations that just happened to be the mutations needed for the organism to survive?

You have to throw out reason and logic to believe such nonsene.

It's like if I throw some Legos in a box and shake up the box for millions of years, you will open the box and find the Legos have created a color code and they encoded this code with information that instructs the Legos on how to assemble and now you have all kinds of Lego structures coming from the information encoded in the color code.

It's like my example of the alphabet.

CONT'D

Think about how absurd this is! It's like if I have the alphabet in front of me and I keep mutating the letters and sometimes the word YES comes up then the word DONT comes up. I mutate it again and again and the words BUY, CAR and ROAD comes up.Without an intelligent source giving the sequence of letters meaning these words are meaningless. So CAR and BUY is no different than the sequence of letters ZRH and MBQ without intelligence saying the sequence of the letters CAR mean this or the sequence of letters BUY means that.

The blind believers in a natural interpretation of evolution wants logical people to believe that random mutations not only put Genes in different sequences but that the sequence has no meaning before the random mutation occurs!!!!

So Darwin would probably be against his own theory if he was alive today and knew what we know.

Let's look at what the lead researcher of the paper said.

"I was totally surprised by the non-random mutations we discovered," lead author Grey Monroe, a plant scientist at the University of California, Davis, told Live Science. "Ever since high-school biology, I have been told that mutations are random."

Did he misspeak twice?

"The idea of random mutation has been around for over a hundred years in biology and is something you hear so often as a student that it is easy to take it for granted," Monroe said. "Even as a practicing geneticist and evolutionary biologist, I had never seriously questioned the idea."

www.livescience.com...

This is the heart of Darwin's theory. Mutations have to be random and without purpose or direction. Natural selection is then supposed to increase the fitness overtime through reproduction by reproducing the traits that best help the organism survive as so the fiction goes.

Let's look at the paper.

I'm going to highlight one sentence in the paper that supports exactly what I've been saying about adaptation. There's nothing natural about adaptations.

Our findings reveal adaptive mutation bias that is mediated by a link between mutation rate and the epigenome.

This is HUGE!!!!

Think about what it's saying. There's a bias towards adaptive mutations that are beneficial! The full paragraph says this.

Our findings reveal adaptive mutation bias that is mediated by a link between mutation rate and the epigenome. This is mechanistically plausible in light of evidence that DNA repair factors can be recruited by specific features of the epigenome8. Hypomutation targeted to features enriched in functionally constrained loci throughout the genome would reduce the relative frequency of deleterious mutations. The adaptive value of this bias can be conceptualized by the analogy of loaded dice with a reduced probability of rolling low numbers (that is, deleterious mutations), and thus a greater probability of rolling high numbers (that is, beneficial mutations)

WOOHOOO!!!

This should be the beginning of the end for the fantasy that's a natural interpretation of evolution but it will not be because for the godless a natural interpretation of evolutionis too big to fail for their belief systems. Look at this part:

The adaptive value of this bias can be conceptualized by the analogy of loaded dice with a reduced probability of rolling low numbers (that is, deleterious mutations), and thus a greater probability of rolling high numbers (that is, beneficial mutations)

WOO HOOO!!!

So a reduced mutation rate increases the chances of a beneficial mutation!!

Let me repeat:

So a reduced mutation rate increases the chances of a beneficial mutation!!

What type of reduction in the mutation rate did they see?

These findings demonstrate that genes subject to stronger purifying selection are maintained in epigenomic states that underlie a significant reduction in their mutation rate (Extended Data Fig. 9). In conclusion, mutation bias acts to reduce levels of deleterious variation in Arabidopsis by decreasing mutation rate in constrained genes.....Instead, the observed 37% reduction in mutation rates in essential genes is consistent with a reduction in mutation

Think about how counterintuitive this is to Darwin. Darwin said you need ENORMOUS INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES to select traits that just happen to be beneficial to the survival of the organism.

This paper is saying the opposite. It's saying a lower mutation rate increases the likelihood of a beneficial mutation. THIS IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN!

This is what they will find. An organism needs x traits to survive, the mutation rate is lowered to increase the chances that the organism will evolve the beneficial traits it need, the paper uses the example of a loaded dice. This is why you see so many species evolving the traits they need when they're in an environment where they need them to survive.

Paper Link

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING NATURAL, THIS IS DESiGN!!

Thank You God for Your Wisdom and Revelation by the Holy Spirit through your Son Jesus Christ, AMEN!

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TzarChasm

Mutations Are the Raw Materials of Evolution

Evolution—Myths and Facts

“Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts Professor Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist.16 Of course, experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution with the same undisputed support?

Before answering that question, we need to clear up something. Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly. For example, humans can selectively breed dogs so that eventually the descendants have shorter legs or longer hair than their forebears.* Some scientists attach to such slight changes the term “microevolution.” [*: The changes dog breeders can produce often result from losses in gene function. For example, the dachshund’s small size is caused by a failure of normal development of cartilage, resulting in dwarfism.]

However, evolutionists teach that small changes accumulated slowly over billions of years and produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apelike creatures into men. These proposed big changes are defined as “macroevolution.”

Charles Darwin, for example, taught that the small changes we can observe implied that much bigger changes​—which no one has observed—​are also possible.17 He felt that over vast periods of time, some original, so-called simple life-forms slowly evolved​—by means of “extremely slight modifications”—​into the millions of different forms of life on earth.18

To many, this claim sounds reasonable. They wonder, ‘If small changes can occur within a species, why should not evolution produce big changes over long periods of time?’* In reality, though, the teaching of evolution rests on three myths. Consider the following. [*: While the word “species” is used frequently in this section, it should be noted that this term is not found in the Bible book of Genesis. There we find the term “kind,” which is much broader in meaning. Often, what scientists choose to call the evolution of a new species is simply a matter of variation within a “kind,” as the word is used in the Genesis account.]

Myth 1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species. The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations​—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—​can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.19

The facts. Many characteristics of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell.* [Research shows that the cell’s cytoplasm, its membranes, and other structures also play a role in shaping an organism.] Researchers have discovered that mutations can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. But do mutations really produce entirely new species? What has a century of study in the field of genetic research revealed?

In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced a new idea. They already thought that natural selection​—the process in which the organism best suited to its environment is most likely to survive and breed—​could produce new species of plants from random mutations. Therefore, they now assumed that artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do the same thing but more efficiently. “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany.* Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought that the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.”20 In fact, some hoped to produce entirely new species.

Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation [to cause mutations], widely proved to be a failure.”21 And Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants . . . died or were weaker than wild varieties.”* [Mutation experiments repeatedly found that the number of new mutants steadily declined, while the same type of mutants regularly appeared. In addition, less than 1 percent of plant mutations were chosen for further research, and less than 1 percent of this group were found suitable for commercial use. However, not one entirely new species was ever created. The results of mutation breeding in animals were even worse than in plants, and the method was abandoned entirely.]

Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”22

Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

Mutations can introduce changes in plants​—such as this mutant with large flowers—​but only within limits

Mutant fruit flies, though malformed, are still fruit flies

Myth 2. Natural selection led to the creation of new species. Darwin believed that what he called natural selection would favor those life-forms best suited to the environment, whereas less suitable life-forms would eventually die off. Modern evolutionists teach that as species spread and became isolated, natural selection chose the ones with gene mutations that made them capable of surviving in their new environment. As a result, evolutionists speculate, these isolated groups eventually developed into totally new species.

The facts. As previously noted, the evidence from research strongly indicates that mutations cannot produce entirely new kinds of plants or animals. Nevertheless, what proof do evolutionists provide to support the claim that natural selection chooses beneficial mutations to produce new species? A brochure published in 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the United States refers to “the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s finches.”23

In the 1970’s, a research group led by Peter R. and B. Rosemary Grant of Princeton University began studying these finches and discovered that after a year of drought on the islands, finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived more readily than those with smaller beaks. Since observing the size and shape of the beaks is one of the primary ways of determining the 13 species of finches, these findings were assumed to be significant. “The Grants have estimated,” continues the NAS brochure, “that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.”24

However, the NAS brochure neglects to mention that in the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again dominated the population. The researchers found that as the climatic conditions on the island changed, finches with longer beaks were dominant one year, but later those with smaller beaks were dominant. They also noticed that some of the different “species” of finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. They concluded that if the interbreeding continued, it could result in the fusion of two “species” into just one.25

At best, Darwin’s finches show that a species can adapt to changing climates

So, does natural selection really create entirely new species? Decades ago, evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams began questioning whether natural selection had such power.26 In 1999, evolutionary theorist Jeffrey H. Schwartz wrote that natural selection may be helping species adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new.27

Indeed, Darwin’s finches are not becoming “anything new.” They are still finches. And the fact that they are interbreeding casts doubt on the methods some evolutionists use to define a species. In addition, information about these birds exposes the fact that even prestigious scientific academies are not above reporting evidence in a biased manner.

Myth 3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes. The previously mentioned NAS brochure leaves the reader with the impression that the fossils found by scientists more than adequately document macroevolution. It declares: “So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.”28

The facts. The confident statement made by the NAS brochure is quite surprising. Why? Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, states that the fossil record shows, not that there is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long periods of time, “little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.”*29 [Even the few examples from the fossil record that researchers point to as proof of evolution are open to debate. See pages 22 to 29 of the brochure, The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

According to the fossil record, all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged

To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of small fossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.

Belief in Evolution​—An Act of “Faith”

Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact? Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, candidly wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”* Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”30 [*: “Materialism,” in this sense, refers to a theory that everything in the universe, including all life, came into existence without any supernatural intervention in the process.]

In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut.”31

If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on facts or on myths? Really, belief in evolution is an act of “faith.” [whereislogic: "belief" and "faith" are synonyms in modern English by the way.]

Bibliography

originally posted by: neoholographic
Think about how absurd this is! It's like if I have the alphabet in front of me and I keep mutating the letters and sometimes the word YES comes up then the word DONT comes up. I mutate it again and again and the words BUY, CAR and ROAD comes up.Without an intelligent source giving the sequence of letters meaning these words are meaningless. So CAR and BUY is no different than the sequence of letters ZRH and MBQ without intelligence saying the sequence of the letters CAR mean this or the sequence of letters BUY means that.

The blind believers in a natural interpretation of evolution wants logical people to believe that random mutations not only put Genes in different sequences but that the sequence has no meaning before the random mutation occurs!!!!

So Darwin would probably be against his own theory if he was alive today and knew what we know.

Let's look at what the lead researcher of the paper said.

"I was totally surprised by the non-random mutations we discovered," lead author Grey Monroe, a plant scientist at the University of California, Davis, told Live Science. "Ever since high-school biology, I have been told that mutations are random."

Did he misspeak twice?

"The idea of random mutation has been around for over a hundred years in biology and is something you hear so often as a student that it is easy to take it for granted," Monroe said. "Even as a practicing geneticist and evolutionary biologist, I had never seriously questioned the idea."

www.livescience.com...

This is the heart of Darwin's theory. Mutations have to be random and without purpose or direction. Natural selection is then supposed to increase the fitness overtime through reproduction by reproducing the traits that best help the organism survive as so the fiction goes.

Let's look at the paper.

I'm going to highlight one sentence in the paper that supports exactly what I've been saying about adaptation. There's nothing natural about adaptations.

Our findings reveal adaptive mutation bias that is mediated by a link between mutation rate and the epigenome.

This is HUGE!!!!

Think about what it's saying. There's a bias towards adaptive mutations that are beneficial! The full paragraph says this.

Our findings reveal adaptive mutation bias that is mediated by a link between mutation rate and the epigenome. This is mechanistically plausible in light of evidence that DNA repair factors can be recruited by specific features of the epigenome8. Hypomutation targeted to features enriched in functionally constrained loci throughout the genome would reduce the relative frequency of deleterious mutations. The adaptive value of this bias can be conceptualized by the analogy of loaded dice with a reduced probability of rolling low numbers (that is, deleterious mutations), and thus a greater probability of rolling high numbers (that is, beneficial mutations)

WOOHOOO!!!

This should be the beginning of the end for the fantasy that's a natural interpretation of evolution but it will not be because for the godless a natural interpretation of evolutionis too big to fail for their belief systems. Look at this part:

The adaptive value of this bias can be conceptualized by the analogy of loaded dice with a reduced probability of rolling low numbers (that is, deleterious mutations), and thus a greater probability of rolling high numbers (that is, beneficial mutations)

WOO HOOO!!!

So a reduced mutation rate increases the chances of a beneficial mutation!!

Let me repeat:

So a reduced mutation rate increases the chances of a beneficial mutation!!

What type of reduction in the mutation rate did they see?

These findings demonstrate that genes subject to stronger purifying selection are maintained in epigenomic states that underlie a significant reduction in their mutation rate (Extended Data Fig. 9). In conclusion, mutation bias acts to reduce levels of deleterious variation in Arabidopsis by decreasing mutation rate in constrained genes.....Instead, the observed 37% reduction in mutation rates in essential genes is consistent with a reduction in mutation

Think about how counterintuitive this is to Darwin. Darwin said you need ENORMOUS INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES to select traits that just happen to be beneficial to the survival of the organism.

This paper is saying the opposite. It's saying a lower mutation rate increases the likelihood of a beneficial mutation. THIS IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN!

This is what they will find. An organism needs x traits to survive, the mutation rate is lowered to increase the chances that the organism will evolve the beneficial traits it need, the paper uses the example of a loaded dice. This is why you see so many species evolving the traits they need when they're in an environment where they need them to survive.

Paper Link

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING NATURAL, THIS IS DESiGN!!

Thank You God for Your Wisdom and Revelation by the Holy Spirit through your Son Jesus Christ, AMEN!

Interesting. I read the article and I didn't fully understand it but the quotes from the paper makes it more clear. You're saying that when mutation rates are reduced you can get more beneficial mutations like loaded dice. So are you saying that DNA is designed to increase beneficial mutations where they're needed? If so how would this work?

It's time to stop going along with the equivocation of the fact that the descendants of living things may change slightly, with “evolution” by those calling it “microevolution.” That is not “evolution” the way promoters of evolutionary philosophies and fancy stories have usurped the word “evolution” by re-defining it to apply it to their storylines.

The way they have re-defined "nothing", "(new) species", "design(ing)", "information" and a score of other words to safe their failed philosophies/ideas and false stories/myths, equivocating these things with other things that are not "nothing", not an entirely new species (and certainly not higher categories like entirely new families, see bolded part in myth 1), not designing if your argument boils down to 'nature did it' (if your argument is that something emerged by chance and natural causation it is inappropiate to use the word "design", then it isn''t a design, that would be a contradiction, as in Stephen Hawking's book about the universe called The Grand Design in which he basically argues 'nature did it', gravity did it, if you claim that, then it can't also be a design, just another contradiction), and not actual "information" (as they do in theoretical physics and astrophysics for example so they can talk about an increase of information). Standard modus operandi for the promoters of evolutionary myths.

Needless to say, I did not succeed in producing a higher category in a single step; but it must be kept in mind that neither have the Neo-Darwinians ever built up as much as the semblance of a new species by recombination of micromutations. In such well-studied organisms as Drosophila [fruit flies], in which numerous visible and, incidentally, small invisible mutations have been recombined, never has even the first step in the direction of a new species been accomplished, not to mention higher categories.

Richard B. Goldschmidt

Source: W.-E. Loennig: Gesetz der rekurrenten Variation (Law of recurrent Variation)

Mutations are merely hereditary fluctuations around a medium position…No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.

Pierre-Paul Grassé

Small changes in successive generations that fluctuate "around a medium position", leading to recurrent variation, is not evolution nor evidence for evolution. Time to stop pretending it is and using the word "(micro)evolution"* for it. (*: with a natural interpretation or otherwise, it's not evolution, period)

All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.

William R. Fix

...

(On evolutionary novelties by chance mutations

I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.

Lynn Margulis

Mutations are a reality and while most of them are of no consequence or detrimental, one cannot deny that on occasion a beneficial mutation might occur [in relation to a certain environment, but usually not for a gene's function per se; Anmerkung von W.-E.L.; vgl. Diskussion]. However, to invoke strings of beneficial mutations that suffice to reshape one animal into the shape of another is not merely unreasonable, it is not science.

Christian Schwabe

The link their under "vgl. Diskussion" is concerning bacterial resistance. But it's in German. I can speak German but I'm not going to translate it for those who do not. Too much effort for those who don't want to hear it anyway as per 2 Timothy 4:3,4.

The Encyclopedia Americana observes: “The truth is often disagreeable, because it fails to support prejudice or myth.” Seeing our beliefs exposed as untrue can be disillusioning, especially if we were taught by trusted religious leaders and the gurus of scientism and evolutionary mythology (philosophies/ideas and storylines). Why do I say "gurus"? The ancient Brahmin of Hinduism are involved:

he Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)

Philosophical naturalism is termed as "materialism" in the article I was quoting from before. It is often equivocated with "science" or methodological naturalism is pretended to be a requirement for "the scientific method". A proper scientific method does not limit one to only considerations that fit into philosophical naturalism/materialism. Don't equivocate (biased) "philosophy" with "science" please.

originally posted by: Romeopsi

originally posted by: neoholographic

Interesting. I read the article and I didn't fully understand it but the quotes from the paper makes it more clear. You're saying that when mutation rates are reduced you can get more beneficial mutations like loaded dice. So are you saying that DNA is designed to increase beneficial mutations where they're needed? If so how would this work?

Exactly, it's intelligent design and it has nothing to do with natural selection as Darwin envisioned. That's a key point. A natural interpretation of evolution today is fantasy on top of fantasy because they need the theory to support their belief system but Darwin came up with this theory out of pure ignorance.

He didn't know about genes and the supercomputer in the cell. So Darwin saw artificial selection where intelligence can create diverse pigeons with new features when breeding them and he jumped to the conclusion that nature can do the same thing which explains the origins of species and all of the diversity we see.

This has been shown to be false. Darwin thought since nature did the selecting, you need an enormous amount of INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES. This would occur without any purpose or direction. It's just blind and random.

“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” ― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

Here's an example that shows Darwin and therefore a natural interpretaion of evolution is false. The Maned Wolf:



Here's some info on the Maned Wolf adaptations.

The maned wolf is part of the canid family and a relative of other wolves, coyotes, foxes, and domestic dogs. One evolutionary theory says the maned wolf's long legs evolved to help it survive in the tall grasslands of South America.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Look at what they're teaching kids about the Maned Wolf today:

Maned wolves also have 7-inch-long ears. Having long ears and long legs are important adaptations for the maned wolf. An adaptation is a body part or behavior that helps an animal survive in their environment. Long legs help maned wolves look over the tall grass to see potential predators or prey. Large ears make it easier to hear the sounds of prey moving through the grasses.

study.com...

This destroys any notion of Darwin's original intent for natural selection and any natural interpretation of evolution. Here's more:

The Maned Wolf, also known as Chrysocyon Brachyurus has an amazing adaptation of long black legs. The Maned Wolves amazing adaptation helps it look over tall grass to find its prey which would be small animals such as rodents or birds that live there. The reason part of its adaptation is black legs is possibly to camouflage in the dark grass. It would be hard for the Maned Wolf to find and catch its prey in long grass before it got its long legs and it could not get food to survive, so overtime it developed long legs to solve this survival issue.

amazingadaptations.weebly.com...

This is INTELLIGENT DESIGN and has nothing to do with Darwin or a natural interpretation of evolution. The Maned Wolf needed longs legs that are dark in order to catch prey and survive in the high grasslands. There's no Darwin or evolution needed. The wolf needed x traits to survive and evolved x traits when it needed them. This is how Darwin envisioned this happening.

Darwin was looking for an ENORMOUS amount of INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES because nature was selecting without purpose or direction. So, if the Maned Wolf evolved according to Darwin, there should be evidence in the fossil record and the genome of all of these traits or INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES in the environment. So there should be Wolves in the area with long legs, short legs, skinny legs, fat legs, grey colored legs, green colored legs and more. It just so happens by dumb luck that the right combination of long dark legs is one of MANY INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES and through reproduction these traits spread throughout the population.

This is why Darwin's theory should have been laughed out of existence when they found the supercomuter in the cell, but the godless kept it alive to support their beliefs. So at this point, the fantasy of a natural interpretation of evolution became too big to fail.

Also, ask yourself how do the right traits for the organism to survive down to point mutation and extremophiles just keep randomly showing up? How is all of this right information available to the organism when the information doesn't exist until a random mutation occurs?

This new study coupled with an older study obliterates a natural interpretation of evolution.

In the new study it shows an adaptive mutation bias that's connected to the protein histone. First, the paper showed a connection between longer UTA's which are longer lengths of untranslated DNA and mutation rates.

We further discovered emergent relationships between gene structure and mutation rate (Extended Data Fig. 7). Owing to the distribution of epigenomic features along gene bodies, mutation probabilities are highest in extreme 5′ and 3′ coding exons. Natural polymorphisms in Arabidopsis and Populus trichocarpa showed a similar pattern. Consistent with the effects of mutation bias, D was more negative in peripheral exons. The predicted mutation rate of coding regions was 28% and 39% higher in genes annotated as lacking 5′ untranslated regions (UTRs) and 3′ UTRs, respectively. The inferred effect size of 5′ UTRs and 3′ UTRs on coding-exon mutation probabilities and polymorphism was greatest in extreme 5′ and 3′ coding exons. UTR lengths were negatively correlated with mutation probabilities and polymorphisms in peripheral coding exons. Mutation probabilities were also 90% greater in genes lacking introns and lower in genes with more (r = −0.34) and longer (r = −0.24) introns. These patterns were mirrored by patterns of polymorphism and Tajima’s D. In conclusion, an unexpected emergent effect of UTRs and introns in Arabidopsis appears to be lower mutation rates in coding regions.

It's important to remember that you have this correlation of information that regulates DNA repair and gene expression. You can throw Darwin out of the window. You don't need INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES, you have signalling between digital and analog information that's connected to histones in 2 different papers.

Let me repeat:

It's important to remember that you have this correlation of information that regulates DNA repair and gene expression. You can throw Darwin out of the window. You don't need INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES, you have signalling between digital and analog information that's connected to histones in 2 different papers.

CONT'D

Here's more from the paper:

By combining mutation datasets, we found that the frequency of mutation was 58% lower in gene bodies than in nearby intergenic space. Epigenome-predicted mutation probabilities explained over 90% of the variance in the pattern of observed mutations around gene bodies (Fig. 2a, b, Extended Data Fig. 5). Since only 20–30% of gene body sites are estimated to be subject to selection, mutation bias in genic regions could affect sequence evolution around genes more than selection34.

In conclusion, evolution around genes in Arabidopsis appears to be explained by mutation bias to a greater extent than by selection.

link paper

That last sentence is fatal to Darwinist. Evolution seems to be a mutation bias than by selection. Remember what the paper said about loaded dice:

Our findings reveal adaptive mutation bias that is mediated by a link between mutation rate and the epigenome....The adaptive value of this bias can be conceptualized by the analogy of loaded dice with a reduced probability of rolling low numbers (that is, deleterious mutations), and thus a greater probability of rolling high numbers (that is, beneficial mutations) (Fig. 4d).

Again, this shows intelligent design by God.

Ask yourself, how did the genetics of the Maned Wolf know that mutations were needed in the area of the genome that controls lengthening and darkening of the legs? Was it just dumb luck?

No, it was a correlation of information. Here's the author of the paper talking about Histones.

Researchers found that to protect themselves, essential genes send out special signals to DNA repair proteins. This signaling is not done by the DNA itself but by histones, specialized proteins DNA wraps around to make up chromosomes.

"Based on the result of our study, we found that gene regions, especially for the most biologically essential genes, are wrapped around histones with particular chemical marks," Monroe said. "We think these chemical marks are acting as molecular signals to promote DNA repair in these regions."

The idea of histones having unique chemical markers is not new, Monroe said. Previous studies into mutations in cancer patients have also found that these chemical markers can affect whether DNA repair proteins fix mutations properly, he added.

However, this is the first time these chemical markers have been shown to influence genome-wide mutation patterns and, as a result, evolution by natural selection.

www.livescience.com...

Here you have these non random mutations that influence the entire genome AND AS A RESULT, no need for INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES and no need for Darwin.

There's more though! These histones are also associated with a paper that talks about irreducible organisational complexity of the genetic regulation system of any cell.

Paper: “Irreducible Organization” of DNA Necessary for Genetic Regulation

Recent studies have made it increasingly evident that the primary sequence of DNA in addition to the linear genetic code also provides three-dimensional information by means of spatially ordered supercoil structures relevant to all DNA transactions, including transcriptional control. In this review, we adopt the previously introduced terms “analog” and “digital” with regard to the two logically distinct types of information provided by the DNA. … [A]ny DNA gene is a carrier of digital information by virtue of its unique base sequence. Moreover, a gene conceived as an isolated piece of linear code (no matter whether this isolation occurs at the level of transcription or posttranscriptional processing), is a discontinuous entity that can be expressed or not, thus principally consistent with an “on-or-off” logic and, therefore, belonging to digital information type. Conversely, the physicochemical properties of DNA, as exemplified by supercoiling and mechanical stiffness, are determined not by individual base pairs but by the additive interactions of successive base steps. Supercoiling is by definition a continuous parameter ranging between positive and negative values (you can have more or less of it), and so belongs to analog information type.

evolutionnews.org...

This is VERY IMPORTANT! This is because supercoiling occurs around.....HISTONES! These histones and the supercoiling around them work as a signal of information between the supercoiling(analog) and DNA(digital). The authors say the information shared between them is IRREDUCIBLE ORGANIZATION!

Genetic regulation is crucial not only for sustaining the self-reproduction of a cell but also for substituting its worn-out constituents. This implies that a genetic regulation system, as a system consisting of physical elements, must be able not only to perform its primary function but also to perceive any internal changes of state so that it retains the potential, for example, to replenish its own components. In other words, it has to be self-referential. This peculiarity of organisation becomes conspicuous when compared to information coding in natural language, the syntactic and semantic properties of which provide logically different types of information. Syntax determines the structure of the rules of language and, thus, the way in which the words are assembled in sentences, whereas semantics determine the meaning of the words and so the available vocabulary. However, the structural rules of language cannot determine the meanings of the words, and nor is the vocabulary determinative for the structural rules of the language (we do not concern ourselves with any generative mechanisms relevant to the formal language theory here). Therefore, viewed as a coding system composed of two non-convertible types of information, natural language is not self-referential. By the same token, the Jacob-Monod paradigm separating the gene regulatory context from the genetic information is at variance with self-referential organisation. Notably, we do not use this term in the sense of elaborated mathematical concepts of distinction, circulation, feedback, re-entry, recursion, etc. Self-referential organisation, as we put it here, implies inter-conversion of information between logically distinct coding systems specifying each other reciprocally. Thus, the holistic approach assumes selfreferentiality (completeness of the contained information and full consistency of the different codes) as an irreducible organisational complexity of the genetic regulation system of any cell.

CONT'D

Put another way, this implies that the structural dynamics of the chromosome must be fully convertible into its genetic expression and vice versa. Since the DNA is an essential carrier of genetic information, the fundamental question is how this self-referential organisation is encoded in the sequence of the DNA polymer.

evolutionnews.org...

Again, this should be the end of a natural interpretation of evolution.

This is saying that the information and organization of this information between the supercoiling and DNA is self-referential. In other words, THERE'S SYNTAX NAD SEMANTICS!

Syntax governs the way words are structured in a sentence. So the sentence, I went to the store is the syntax. How the sentence is ordered. The semantics is the meaning of the words which give meaning to the sentence. The paper is saying that our DNA operates this way and the organization of information is not encoded in the sequence of it's base pairs!

So the supercoiling and the DNA must understand each other even though one is analog information and the other is digital.

The authors describe the supercoiling (superhelicity) of the DNA, which affects levels of transcription in a rheostatic (analog) manner, is arranged in a gradient from the origin of replication to the terminus. Anabolic functions, which are expressed early in the cell cycle, show a preference to be on the leading strand (with regard to replication) and are organized close to the origin of replication, whereas catabolic functions are expressed late in the cell cycle, organized toward the terminal region of replication. Furthermore, the anabolic genes require high negative superhelicity for transcription, which is increased during rapid growth and therefore rapid replication of the DNA. So, during rapid growth, when anabolic functions become a limiting factor, a bottleneck if you will, the DNA replication generates more strain on the chromosome, i.e. more negative superhelicity, which is exactly the parameters for increasing anabolic functions. Brilliant.
evolutionnews.org...

Think about this, when the supercoiling around histones is negative or positive or is increased or decreased things like anabolic functions or catabolic functions can cause the gene to be regulated and expressed in different ways according to the need of the organism so no need for INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES, no need for Darwin's assumption and no need for a natural interpretation of evolution.

This is important because a natural interpretation of evolution is a strong delusion that separates people from God and their spiritual nature.

THE WISDOM OF GOD!!

I think we are getting the latest research a bit wrong and in general I think a lot of people get either religion or science wrong. There is some truth in everyone and religion does not contradict science and vice versa science does not contradict religion. We should not reject the fact that we cannot know everything about the universe.

This is kinda like flat earth logic.

Some guy see's a tiny ball and then imagines they're on a ball and how could they possibly stand upside down??????

Then they try to pick details they literally do not understand and think they've discovered something.

Yet they dont disagree things are made of energy or atoms or have dna, they infact use whatever suits them.

I urge you to imagine before the planet exists and then try and imagine how it formed. You'll have to imagine how atoms join together though. You'll have to imagine that the distance between the sun and earth is greater than the distance between a proton and an electron inside a single atom when put into scale.

You'll have to imagine that things are working on multiple scales at once.Whilst a table looks completely still at the same exact time, at the quantum level its neither solid, liquid or gas, none of it is touching and its all moving constantly.

Also in terms of dna - you have to imagine that there was 1 molecule at first that replicated over and over and over to become every single life form you see, you, me, your mother, your brother, every plant, every bacteria, all of it is infact 1 life form expressing itself in multiple different ways. Think billions of years. As in 1 million seconds is 12 days, 1 billion seconds is 32 years. Humans only came into existence around 2 million years ago from what we have gathered.

life has been growing and replicating for nearly 4 billion years, so thats the difference between 24 days and a 128 years. Thats like the difference between what happened in this last month compared to whats happened in the last century.

Also imagine that 1 grain of sand contains around 40 quintillion atoms, they're all moving, all the time. Now imagine QUADRILLIONS of organisms, every cell containing their entire dna sequence, all of their atoms are moving.

Dna passes on the changes its made, so if you give birth, its like you're passing on the manuscript of life, its not identical to your manuscript due to the fact that nothing can ever be the same or identical due to the nature of quntillions of atoms moving around and its impossible to make the EXACT same environment and set up ever.

We die, you die, i die, trees die, the life forms die but dna lives on and thats how it lives on, by making better versions of itself although it is very random, something that works totally well can die off because things change and it has adapted itself to a certain environment. If the rivers run dry, some of the organisms that live in that water will die off and vice versa, if something lives on the dry land and now its covered in water....they die off but dna doesnt because its made zillions of versions of itself. Death is the disorganisation of atoms that were manifesting life, those atoms dont go anywhere, they all still stay here. Thats why you can watch a dead body rot and the atoms become something else, maybe a life form, maybe just calcium, maybe just some oxygen.

This is why humans contain bacteria and can eat plants...because WE come AFTER those things, those things have been doing stuff for billions of years before dna changed. By you using electricity, wearing clothes, sitting in a dimmly lit building all day is changing how your genes function. If you have the light on while you sleep, the genes to activate melotonin will not turn on like it does in the dark because it requires the lack of light to trigger those genes.

I mean its just stupid to go on about dna, atoms and all this then try and attempt to use that as a way to claim it was "designed".

What designed the designer? I cant really believe im even entertaining this stupidity. Considering people will just respond with no answers and more of the same bull#. "scientists" dont know alot just the same as YOU dont know alot cause they're just a person with a brain trying to observe, remember and think about what they're inside of.

If you wanna prove you're so smart, disgard ALL of this knowledge and describe it all in your own way, dont pick and choose the bits that you like. You do realise energy cannot ever go away?????? Its never ending?????? There will also be a point where humans will end. There will be a point where the earth will end. The sun will end. The galaxy will end. This universe will end but energy will not.

It will become another "universe" or something similar because the totality of energy can never change in its amount it can only change in its form and the prior forms dictate what will occur next, so its impossible to make this reoccur or any event that has ever happened.

Mutation and evolution can simply be described by the way energy interacts based on what all the energy is currently doing, the reason why yesterday doesnt happen again today is because the energy has changed position and state and for to make what happened yesterday, you'd have to set up EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF ENERGY IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE the same as it was to make what happened on earth happen as it did yesterday.

this goes for every single moment in time, no moment can EVER be the same in totality.

Anyone ever heard of MRSA bacteria??? That strain didnt exist before we started using anti biotics.

.....bacteria has the ability to change its own genes around in reference to changes in the environment.

Bacteria also have separate circular segments of dna called plasmids, which they can acquire singular traits.

The "engineering" of a virus actually proves atoms can do those things, that means IF the atoms did come together whether it by a persons direction or by some other sequence of events....the atoms would become that virus.

"engineering" simply just proves atoms can do a certain thing if you join them together. They still do that thing without the engineering.

Anyone see whats happens when we breed dogs? or breed plants from totally different areas of the world, or bring plants to totally different areas of the world????? These are mutations from the original dna manuscript they contained.

Alterations to the dna mean that the life form will be different. "same" means literally identical in every possible way. Thats an actual physical impossibility. ANY difference what so ever, the spin of a single electron means it wont be the same. If you stand in one area of space and i stand next to you, there is a difference.