A second study shows that mutations are not random

A natural interpretation of evolution is dead but it's death will never be accepted.

Are genetic mutations random in humans? Israeli study says no

Here's more from the article:

Is the view by neo-Darwinists, that genetic mutations in human genes are inherently randomized, true? A study by a team of researchers from Israel and Ghana seemingly refutes this argument.

Using a new and innovative method, the researchers - led by the University of Haifa's Prof. Adi Livnat - have managed to prove that the rate of generation of the human hemoglobin S (HbS) mutation which protects one from malaria is higher in people from Africa in contrast to people from Europe. In other words, the mutation is not random but rather exists preferentially within the population of Africa where it is more needed.

Malaria is endemic in Africa, highly common around the entire continent; the more common development of a malaria-resistant mutation specific to the region where it is most needed cannot be explained by the traditional neo-Darwinist theories.

www.jpost.com...

This is why I've been talking about malaria so much. Here you have a point mutation that occurs when the organism needs to survive in a malaria rich environment. This point mutation wasn't selected against in any way. The organism needed this point mutation when in a malaria rich environment and it evolves this point mutation and it spreads throughout the population via reproduction.



This utterly destroys a natural interpretation of evolution but the lie will continue. Too many people use a natural interpretation of evolution to prop up their atheism. So it's too big too fail.

If Darwin called his book Diversity of Species, he would be correct. He called it the Origin of Species and that's a huge lie. It boils down to the fact that Darwin saw natural selection as the same thing as artificial selection.

In order for this to be the case, mutations have to be inherently random and without purpose or direction. Darwin was going further than artificial selection. Artificial selection shows how you can breed animals with different traits and get a new diverse form of the species but artificial selection says nothing about the origin of the animals they're breeding.

Darwin looked at this same process and said it doesn't only give you diversity but the origins of species.

This is a fantasy and can easily be shown to be false. In order for this to occur there has to be an enormous amount of intermediate varieties like there's species. There should be more intermediate varieties than there's species but there not. These intermediate varieties are non existent. This should be the end of a natural interpretation of evolution. Darwin said:

“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

Again, if there isn't an enormous amount of intermediate fossils, what is natural selection selecting?

So natural selection is better described as survival of the fittest. We know from the genome and the fossil record that organisms reach the environment fit. There's just some more fit to survive in the environment. I will give you an example.

If 50 year old Mike Tyson goes into the boxing ring with 50 year old out of shape guy with diabetes, Tyson's have the traits to survive better and will populate the environment of the ring.

On the other hand, out of shape guy is a computer programmer, so in the environment in the office where they write code, he will win out and populate the environment over Tyson.

This is simply survival of the fittest and different species will be more fit than others in different environments. It has nothing to do with the origins of species. It doesn't explain how species originate in order to reach the environment. Darwin thought this involved intermediate varieties because it's a blind, random process without direction or purpose.

So if you look at the Maned Wolf, it's longer darker legs have nothing to do with his survival in the environment. According to Darwin, it's just dumb luck and the longer, darker legs are just one variety out of thousands of different varieties and it 's just the traits that were selected via reproduction because they helped the species survive vs all of the other varieties that didn't help it survive.

This is supposed to be the origin of species. But it's a tale that belongs in Gravity Falls. We see from the fossil record and the genome that when the wolf found himself in the wet marshlands, it evolved long dark legs to survive in the environment. The mutations occurred in the place where the adaptation was needed so there's nothing to select against and no intermediate varieties.

If you accept a natural interpretation of evolution, show me the evidence that shows natural selection having anything to do with the origins of species.

Natural selection has nothing to do with how and why species reaches the environment. It only can help explain diversity after the species has reached the environment. The origin of species is the domain of intelligent design. It shows God's Creation. That brings us to speciation.

First off, I have no problem with speciation. It simply shows that different species can evolve after their kind or body plan after they reach the environment. There's 36 phyla or body plans that appeared during the Cambrian explosion period.

CONT'D

So you don't have any evidence that natural selection as Darwin intended, has anything to do with the origins of species. This goes to the heart of this satanic lie.

We don't see any intermediate varieties being selected against that give rise to a new species. Again, Darwin's original intent was natural selection was the opposite of artficial selection and this natural selection was responsible for the origins of species which is a book that belongs in the fantasy bin at the book store.

There's not any evidence or anyone that can show evidence of natural selection selecting the origin of a species.

What we call species are not even separate species. They're just variations of the same kind or body plan just as the Bible says.

Genesis 1 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

AFTER THEIR KIND OR BODY PLAN!

We came along years later and called these variations of the same kind different species. Let me explain what happens.

Let's say you have a species of a specific kind or body plan on an island. This species starts out the same. They're all on dry land. Some of the species gets separated and their isolated in a wet part of the island. They then evolve traits that help them survive in this new environment by non-random, directed mutations because God designed them to adapt to their environment.

THERE'S NO NATURAL SELECTION OR INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES NEEDED!

Now, the species in the wet part of the island have become a little different than the species in the dry part of the island. You then have some of the population from the wet part of the island get separated and are now isolated in a mountanous part of the island. They evolve traits that help them survive through non-random, directed mutations and they're slightly different than the species in the wet part of the island and they're twice removed from the original species in the dry part of the island.

Again, THERE'S NO NATURAL SELECTION OR INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES NEEDED FOR THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES!

In fact, these aren't separate species, just different variations of the same kind or body plan. We call them separate species because Darwin wanted natural selection to be the origin of species hence the title of his book.

So you can see that when you get 20-30 or 100 iterations away from the original population in the dry part of the island, you may get what we label a different species. They're not different species just variations of the same kind or body plan. There's 36 phyla or body plans known today and most of them occurred during the Cambrian period just as the Bible says. Here's an illustration of this:

Here's the phylum Chordate that includes humans.



Here's more:

A chordate (/ˈkɔːrdeɪt/) is an animal of the phylum Chordata (/kɔːrˈdeɪtə/). All chordates possess 5 synapomorphies, or primary characteristics, at some point during their larval or adulthood stages that distinguish them from all other taxa. These 5 synapomorphies include a notochord, dorsal hollow nerve cord, endostyle or thyroid, pharyngeal slits, and a post-anal tail. Chordates get their name from their characteristic “notochord”, which plays a significant role in chordate structure and movement. Chordates are also bilaterally symmetric, have a coelom, possess a circulatory system, and exhibit metameric segmentation.

en.wikipedia.org...

As you can see, they're all within their kind as the Bible says. Their just variations of the same kind or body plan that become isolated and through non-random, directed mutations become slightly different until you reach an iteration that's very different from the original and we label it a new species but it's just a variation of the same kind.

THERE'S NO NEED FOR NATURAL SELECTION OR ANY INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES! ALL YOU NEED IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN!

Now, they can evolve variations within their kind through non-random directed mutations but they can't evolve a new kind. Here's another kind.



Rotifera is a different kind than Chordate.

Again, if you support a natural interpretation of evolution:

SHOW US THE EVIDENCE OF NATURAL SELECTION SELECTING THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES!

This is satanic and a strong delusion. This lie needs to be dismantled and that's why I and others post on ATS and other forums. So you can plant or water a seed that understands the mechanics of evolution and God can give the increase if it's His Will to do so.

Sadly, this lie that's used to separate people from God and their spiritual nature, gets a lot of surface believers in evolution. They don't understand the mechanics but they see a bunch of scientist accepting the lie and therefore they accept it and use it to separate themselves from God and their spiritual nature.

We have to pray for them while going to people that understand the mechanics of evolution and exposing that a natural interpretation of evolution is an impossible lie!

Absolutely
but I think they wont come to same conclusions. What they do is modifying the theory slightly
by calling it gene expression by the means of evolutionary pressure or something like that.
Which probably happens all the time and is more pronounced in organisms with short generation duration. The randomness is BS obviously. The code is obviously designed to react to the environment

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
Absolutely
but I think they wont come to same conclusions. What they do is modifying the theory slightly
by calling it gene expression by the means of evolutionary pressure or something like that.
Which probably happens all the time and is more pronounced in organisms with short generation duration. The randomness is BS obviously. The code is obviously designed to react to the environment

Exactly!

It has become a lie that's too big to fail. The code is designed to adapt to it's environment within their kind down to extremophiles.

There's no evidence of natural selection selecting the origin of species. There will be Darwinist that come on this thread and say it's not random but it has to be or natural selection has nothing to select against. They realize that attributing the "species" we see today to anything random is illogical but Darwin's original intent turned out to be illogical. They just covered it with lie after lie.

Tne supercomputer in the cell that's makes modular molecular machinery is highly designed and part of it's code governs adaptations. It say when a species need x traits to survive, you get non-random directed mutations in the areas of the genome where the traits that are needed can evolve and those traits reach the environment.

There's no intermediate varieties or natural selection needed for the origin of species just the intelligence of God.

“The results suggest that complex information that is accumulated in the genome through the generations impacts mutation, and therefore mutation-specific origination rates can respond in the long-term to specific environmental pressures,” 

It's called Mendelian inheritance

SHOW US THE EVIDENCE OF NATURAL SELECTION SELECTING THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES!

Chill out and maybe rephrase the question more coherently. No need for shouting in capslock.

If everything was left up to chance, including the existence of the universe, nothing would ever happen.

Someone I used to know believed that the shear weight of the numbers would eventually make things happen without God. However, you can't have numbers and chance when nothing exists, no cosmic lottery is going on, no place, no where, because nothing exists yet. Even the Swiss watch analogy needs a box full of parts.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

I dunno dude, I was unplanned and look at me now.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I like your post above mine about Mendelian inheritance.

a reply to: neoholographic

It can't be that simple. There has to be a published paper out there that supports Darwin's original intent. If not, then the entire theory of evolution falls apart. If I'm reading this correctly, there should be clear evidence of natural selection being involved with the origin of a species and not non random mutations. I will be interested to read a paper that challenges this if there is one.

a reply to: neoholographic

That does not disprove natural selection, it refines it.

Your post is 3/4 about how the study is correct and how wrong Darwin was, not about providing more evidence than this weak study.

There are multiple reasons that could be the case, but Darwin argued that nature selects the best mutations, and those mutations are passed down to the next generation. Nature selects for what is most beneficial. So it would be expected to see more malaria resistant mutations in Africa. The fact Malaria is one of the biggest threats to people in Africa is exactly why you would expect more malaria related mutations there if natural selection is a thing. While mutation may be random, it is natural selection that ensures those are the mutations that are kept.

Your article seems like it is jumping the gun. Considering the source, it is likely intentional.

Refuting Darwinists' random mutation belief
"Contrary to the widely accepted expectations, the results supported the nonrandom pattern," the University of Haifa announced. "The HbS mutation originated de novo not only much faster than expected from random mutation but also much faster in the population (in sub-Saharan Africans as opposed to Europeans) and in the gene (in the beta-globin as opposed to the control delta-globin gene) where it is of adaptive significance."

These results effectively contradicted the commonly-held random mutation belief held by Darwinists.

“The results suggest that complex information that is accumulated in the genome through the generations impacts mutation, and therefore mutation-specific origination rates can respond in the long-term to specific environmental pressures,” said Prof. Livnat, whose study was funded by a grant given by the John Templeton Foundation. “Mutations may be generated nonrandomly in evolution after all, but not in the way previously conceived. We must study the internal information and how it affects mutation, as it opens the door to evolution being a far bigger process than previously conceived.”

That entire argument right there can be explained by mutations we do not know about from 1000 years ago that made one group diverge more than we realized from another. A mutation helping a group adopt mutations quickly can be explained through natural selection. I see nothing here that excludes much of the theory you say this breaks.

Its like if you take populations of Canadian Geese and a ducks and drop them off in the Arctic Circle. I would expect the Geese to adopt changes for cold weather at a faster rate than the ducks. I would assume that the Geese already have more adaptations for cold, and that they most likely even have dormant genes for dealing with cold that are not always expressed and are likely to contribute to a faster and more beneficial mutations for that group. While those specific mutations they would adapt may not be random, we have no evidence or proof that the process Darwin described is not the process in which they gained that advantage in the first place.

I have been saying this for years.
We adapt.
Our body, on a molecular level, senses changes in our environment and triggers adaptation.
Junk DNA? No such thing. It is 'just in case' DNA, the information that can be used if needed.

There were several threads back in early 20 teens that BARCS (haven't seen him/her on in awhile) and I disused this.
They, like many others, thought I was grasping for straws.

I am glad science is catching up with me .

Look at the Octopus. Science has a hard time explaining the way it adapts so they say they "may not be of this Earth".
My opinion is that they can do what I mentioned above but on steroids (very fast).
Quad

a reply to: TrollMagnet

Your post destroys Darwin and his theory. You said:

Nature selects for what is most beneficial. So it would be expected to see more malaria resistant mutations in Africa. The fact Malaria is one of the biggest threats to people in Africa is exactly why you would expect more malaria related mutations there if natural selection is a thing. While mutation may be random, it is natural selection that ensures those are the mutations that are kept.

How can natural selection ensure random mutations when there's no evidence that there were random mutations selected against?

This is the fantasy of Darwin. His original intent crumbles in the face of facts.

When you look at sickle cell, it's the result of a point mutation that occurs when a species is in a malaria rich environment.



When Malaria spreads throughout a population a specific mutation occurs at a specific point that changes Glutamic Acid to Valine. This change gives a survival advantage to those with Malaria. You don't get Leucine mutating into Histidine or Histidine mutating into Valine. You get a specific mutation at a specific point that gives a population where Malaria is spreading a protective advantage against Malaria. There's no evolution needed just a change in the code at the exact point needed to respond to the change in the environment.

This is why Darwin was looking for an enormous amount of INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES in the fossil record. This is because natural selection selected from random varieties that have no purpose or direction. It's just by dumb luck that the variety or traits the species needed to survive in the environment is amongst all of these INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES and spreads throughout the population via reproduction.

There's not a shred of evidence to support this. Darwin said:

“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

AGAIN,

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.

Sadly, people who blindly follow a natural interpretation of evolution don't understand Darwin's original intent. Darwin saw natural selection as the same as artificial selection. He went even further and said it was the origin of species.

What does the process of extermination mean?

It means that Darwin thought environmental pressures occur, this triggered all of these INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES randomly and without purpose reaching the environment. During the "process of extermination" the majority of these INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES are not beneficial to the species. The few that are, become selected by nature via reproduction and spreads throughout the population.

There's not a shred of evidence to support this.

What we see in the genome and the fossil record is when a species needs x traits to survive they evolve x traits. There's no natural selection or INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES needed. Look at the Maned Wolf.

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...



If Darwin was correct, the Maned Wolf didn't need or try to adapt to it's environment. Environmental pressures would have triggered an enormous amount of INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES and through the process of extermination and by dumb luck, one of these varieties just happens to be long dark legs. This trait then spreads throughout the population via reproduction.

This is Darwin's fantasy scenario that isn't supported by any evidence. This is why you need to know Darwin's original intent to know that his theory can't happen.

What we see is, the species needed long dark legs to survive and mutations occurred in the part of the genome that gave the wolf long dark legs and it adapted to it's environment. This is INTELLIGENT DESIGN and has nothing to do with Darwin's original intent.

This study is coupled with the first study I wrote about.

New study provides first evidence of non-random mutations in DNA
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This study said 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)

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)

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!!

This is intelligent design and not anything natural. I can write an algorithm that says, when species x is in a new environment, the mutation rate decreases to increase the liklihood of beneficial mutations in the area of the genome where the adaption is needed.

There's nothing in the theory of evolution or Darwin's original intent that says reduce the mutation rate in the exact areas needed for the species to survive in order to increase the chance of beneficial mutations. That's an intelligent designed code not anything random or natural.

Lastly, you said:

While those specific mutations they would adapt may not be random, we have no evidence or proof that the process Darwin described is not the process in which they gained that advantage in the first place.

Did you read this before you posted it?

CONT'D

It's like saying that black holes form because the Teen Titans are fighting in a white hole. Specifically, when Robin fights Beast Boy.

I'm being facetious to illustrate this point:

My Teen Titan theory of black holes has just as much weight as evolution if I use your words. You said:

we have no evidence or proof that the process Darwin described is not the process in which they gained that advantage in the first place.

I can say, we have no evidence or proof that the process of Teen Titan black hole formation isn't the process in which black holes form!!

If there's no evidence or proof to support Darwin's original intent on the origins of species, then it's just nonsense.

You're saying that it's somewhere and we have no idea where it's at. Maybe it's in Atlantis or Lemuria, but I need to prove a negative and show that this non-existent evidence isn't really the cause of beneficial mutations.

a reply to: neoholographic

You would need way more data to try and argue the cause of what you think disproves Darwin. Because we do not know the history of mutations, we do not know the cause of current mutations.

One of the reasons Darwin requires a much higher standard than your argument, is because when things like this pandemic hit, a bunch of people including myself were able to predict what would happen using Darwin's arguments. Darwins arguments have predicted many many things throug history.

Meanwhile, the cause/effect you see could easily be from natural selection, but without more data from previous generations, its all speculation. You are referring to a different branch on the tree of humanity from Europeans, Asians, or Americans. The different branches have different adaptations and mutations, this is common knowledge. That different starting point is why you see different mutations in each branch.

Im not an atheist at all, but you are really reaching to try and prove that god did all of this, when the simpler explanation is more likely correct. People that have lived in a place for 40k years longer than any other group are expected to have region specific adaptations and mutations. To not see them would be much more surprising than seeing them. Nothing you described requires intelligent design beyond what Darwin described. You are way over complicating something, and the article you are basing it on was written by religious zealots.

a reply to: TrollMagnet

You said:

You would need way more data to try and argue the cause of what you think disproves Darwin. Because we do not know the history of mutations, we do not know the cause of current mutations.

This makes zero sense in light of the evidence presented and based on what we know so far. There's zero evidence of Darwin's original intent or any INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES connected to the origin of species.

You're making arguments that refute your argument in the same sentence. You said:

Meanwhile, the cause/effect you see could easily be from natural selection, but without more data from previous generations, its all speculation.

You're saying natural selection is speculation and it is. There's no connection to the origin of species as Darwin intended.

The fact is, Darwin went too far. If he would have stopped at diversity of species his theory wouldn't be just speculation as you just said.

Alfred Russel Wallace felt the same way.

Wallace is just as important as Darwin but because he disagreed with Darwin and his speculation without a shred of evidence, he has been largely ignored by history.

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.

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.[106] These views greatly disturbed Darwin, who argued that spiritual appeals were not necessary and that sexual selection could easily explain apparently non-adaptive mental phenomena.

en.wikipedia.org...

What's also interesting is that Wallace says intervention happened 3 times and God Created 3 times in Genesis. In verse 1, 21 and verse 27.

You haven't provided a shred of evidence to refute or support anything that's in the thread.

You keep saying, Darwin could be right and natural selection could be the cause. I can say FRB's are the cause. I can say a meteor passing by earth is the cause. I can say a supernova is the cause. All you're saying is that it could be and I'm saying there's not a shred of evidence that it's the case.

For anyone interested in cephalopods and their way of adapting to environmental change.
They can do so rapidly by altering their RNA and leaving their DNA unchanged. It is believed that they can do this at will.

Rosenthal thinks that they pay for this sacrifice with a different kind of flexibility. By changing their RNA rather than their DNA, they might be more effective at adapting to challenges on the fly. From the same gene, they could produce proteins that, say, work better in hot temperatures or cold ones. And such changes would be temporary—the creatures could turn them on or off depending on the circumstance. Rosenthal wonders if they could learn or encode experiences in this way. “I’m working a lot on the squid ADAR enzymes and their distribution between cells,” he says. “It’s mind-blowing how variable they are. One neuron will have high levels but its neighbor will have nothing.”

www.theatlantic.com...

Immune cells are allowed to randomly mutate to find new proteins of viruses etc but there's a check mechanism and thymus tries their effect on body's cells and destroys most of them.

They are learning from the intelligent design forever. Keeping the randomness idea is indeed silly.
The only random mutation is cancer. Or I should say cancer from ionizing radiation and mutagens. Not the viral cancer or cancer as a defense mechanism. There's no good cancer that makes it to the next generation even when you survive it. It doesnt work like that

Surely this is EXACTLY proof of natural selection. People live near or amongst something which impacts them in THAT area and genetic mutations occur due to those environmental factors. This is precisely Darwinism, is it not?

Einstein: "God does not play dice with the universe".
Bohr: "Einstein, stop telling God what to do".

www.britannica.com...

Surely this is EXACTLY proof of natural selection. People live near or amongst something which impacts them in THAT area and genetic mutations occur due to those environmental factors. This is precisely Darwinism, is it not?