What a long strange trip it's been.

[TLK Valentine]

You can present your theory all day long if you want to..but it syill doesn't answer the question.

Your whole process comes to a screeching halt when you realize that there needs to be an accumulation of so-called beneficial mutations occurring in the right portion of the DNA. You have not demonstrated this is possible...only suggested it is possible

Why isn't it possible?

 

[PsychoSarah]

You can present your theory all day long if you want to..but it syill doesn't answer the question.

Your whole process comes to a screeching halt when you realize that there needs to be an accumulation of so-called beneficial mutations occurring in the right portion of the DNA. You have not demonstrated this is possible...only suggested it is possible

Actually, it doesn't have to be in any specific spot on the DNA necessarily, just a spot that will be activated by proteins that make more proteins based off of the DNA sequences. For example, some people have segments of one of their chromosomes attached to another chromosome, and they function just fine. Additionally, many genes affect multiple traits, or single traits in multiple ways. There are very few genes which are guaranteed death or negative outcomes when mutation occurs, and surprise surprise, the sequences of those genes are pretty much the same between every species on earth.

There are genes for eyes on multiple chromosomes in humans, just the color component of vision is spread out across the X chromosome, chromosome 7, chromosome 2, and chromosome 8.

 

[-57]

Actually, it doesn't have to be in any specific spot on the DNA necessarily, just a spot that will be activated by proteins that make more proteins based off of the DNA sequences. For example, some people have segments of one of their chromosomes attached to another chromosome, and they function just fine. Additionally, many genes affect multiple traits, or single traits in multiple ways. There are very few genes which are guaranteed death or negative outcomes when mutation occurs, and surprise surprise, the sequences of those genes are pretty much the same between every species on earth.

There are genes for eyes on multiple chromosomes in humans, just the color component of vision is spread out across the X chromosome, chromosome 7, chromosome 2, and chromosome 8.

And for the eye to evolve it requires mutations to occur in just the right gene at just the right time....and do the right thing.

BTW, just how many mutations are considered as beneficial?

 

[USincognito]

And for the eye to evolve it requires mutations to occur in just the right gene at just the right time....and do the right thing.

Yeah, because eyes, evolved de novo in every species without precursor or inherited vision system.

 

[PsychoSarah]

And for the eye to evolve it requires mutations to occur in just the right gene at just the right time....and do the right thing.

BTW, just how many mutations are considered as beneficial?

How many? From the few studies I have seen on it, more than 10%, but less than 20%. Still, pretty significant, wouldn't you say? Evolution would apply even if it were only a fraction of a percent.

Also, as i have said, the mutations don't need to occur in any precise gene, nor at any precise time. Especially not at the early stages of eye development. The cone cells could develop first, or the cup-like depression that they will eventually end up in. Order as I have stated it is based on observations of living creatures as the eye appears to most commonly develop over time. Just like with flight, however, no specific and exact sequence of mutations is required to get that result. There are many mutations that will result in eye formation.

 

[-57]

How many? From the few studies I have seen on it, more than 10%, but less than 20%. Still, pretty significant, wouldn't you say? Evolution would apply even if it were only a fraction of a percent.

Also, as i have said, the mutations don't need to occur in any precise gene, nor at any precise time. Especially not at the early stages of eye development. The cone cells could develop first, or the cup-like depression that they will eventually end up in. Order as I have stated it is based on observations of living creatures as the eye appears to most commonly develop over time. Just like with flight, however, no specific and exact sequence of mutations is required to get that result. There are many mutations that will result in eye formation.

I have never seen a study where the beneficial mutations were that high. Perhaps you can provide a reference.
Secondly, mutations do need to occur in a precise place. A mutation to the "toe" won't effect the eye. As to the precise time...there are many systems that are co-dependent on each other. Timing is of the utmost importance...but then again you already knew that.

 

[Queller]

Considering evolutions isn't possible, of course I find it easy to dismiss....then again I've noticed you dismiss anything concerning the reality of God. Soooooooooooo, perhaps i should note your incredulity.

I've been asking for an evo, any evo to demonstrate that mutations can add up and form complex systems such as the dolphins echo-location system or something much smaller yet complicated as a motor protein. All I get back is the coloring book version.

Then how did we get the number of species that we have today from the relative few that were on the Ark?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I have never seen a study where the beneficial mutations were that high. Perhaps you can provide a reference.
Secondly, mutations do need to occur in a precise place. A mutation to the "toe" won't effect the eye. As to the precise time...there are many systems that are co-dependent on each other. Timing is of the utmost importance...but then again you already knew that.

Funny thing is, you are entirely wrong. A mutation that affects toes COULD affect eyes as well. Codependence evolves over time as well, and doesn't exist in the earliest development of structures. Also, the first study I find when searching "frequency of beneficial mutations" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2927765/ actually places a new high I have found, 25%. It should be noted that this frequency does vary by species, so I do not know what it is for humans. Interestingly, though, as I learned in lecture at college, in bacteria, the frequency is actually lower than in eukaryotes, and they evolve so quickly just because their population is so high and they reproduce so fast.

Here's a condition that can affect the eyes and toes, along with other features http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/oculodentodigital-dysplasia

Cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease, Fragile X syndrome, muscular dystrophy, and Huntington disease are all genetic diseases caused by mutations on single genes, and most of them affect more than one physical aspect of a person.

 

[-57]

Funny thing is, you are entirely wrong. A mutation that affects toes COULD affect eyes as well. Codependence evolves over time as well, and doesn't exist in the earliest development of structures. Also, the first study I find when searching "frequency of beneficial mutations" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2927765/ actually places a new high I have found, 25%. It should be noted that this frequency does vary by species, so I do not know what it is for humans. Interestingly, though, as I learned in lecture at college, in bacteria, the frequency is actually lower than in eukaryotes, and they evolve so quickly just because their population is so high and they reproduce so fast.

Here's a condition that can affect the eyes and toes, along with other features http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/oculodentodigital-dysplasia

Cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease, Fragile X syndrome, muscular dystrophy, and Huntington disease are all genetic diseases caused by mutations on single genes, and most of them affect more than one physical aspect of a person.

I've never count bacteria when it come to explaining evolutionism....for the most part it is nothing like what happens in an animal. Often the ability already exist and when the bacteria is placed in a harmful environment the pre-existing ability to survive the environment shows itself. I believe they called it "standing genetic variation"
You said 25% according to the article...but when I read it I saw this..."estimated an uncorrected frequency of beneficial mutations of 25%"

Now, what I do find is ironic is how you use harmful diseases...that don't enhance the fitness of an organism to support evolutionism.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I've never count bacteria when it come to explaining evolutionism....for the most part it is nothing like what happens in an animal. Often the ability already exist and when the bacteria is placed in a harmful environment the pre-existing ability to survive the environment shows itself. I believe they called it "standing genetic variation"
You said 25% according to the article...but when I read it I saw this..."estimated an uncorrected frequency of beneficial mutations of 25%"

Now, what I do find is ironic is how you use harmful diseases...that don't enhance the fitness of an organism to support evolutionism.

We don't systematically categorize beneficial mutations in humans very often. Diseases and their genetic ties concern most researchers far more, so more information exists on them to refer to. I chose the route with more information available, but as "interesting" as you find that to be, you best acknowledge that a single mutation can both affect toes and eyes (as in, multiple body parts, senses, etc., I am not being literal here, although there are conditions that affect both regions).

 

[-57]

We don't systematically categorize beneficial mutations in humans very often. Diseases and their genetic ties concern most researchers far more, so more information exists on them to refer to. I chose the route with more information available, but as "interesting" as you find that to be, you best acknowledge that a single mutation can both affect toes and eyes (as in, multiple body parts, senses, etc., I am not being literal here, although there are conditions that affect both regions).

I don't really care what you systematically categorize....I just want to know how so few so-called beneficial mutations have the ability to randomly increase the information in the DNA to the point that something such as a dolphins echo-location evolves.

 

[sfs]

I don't really care what you systematically categorize....I just want to know how so few so-called beneficial mutations have the ability to randomly increase the information in the DNA to the point that something such as a dolphins echo-location evolves.

How many mutations are needed for the echo-location system?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I don't really care what you systematically categorize....I just want to know how so few so-called beneficial mutations have the ability to randomly increase the information in the DNA to the point that something such as a dolphins echo-location evolves.

It isn't few, but many. As I said, we just don't categorize them as often. Bats have different echolocation mutations than dolphins.

 

[-57]

It isn't few, but many. As I said, we just don't categorize them as often. Bats have different echolocation mutations than dolphins.

Neither had echo-location mutations.

So, when will you explain how they add up?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I've never count bacteria when it come to explaining evolutionism....

So you pick and choose... Well, that's honest, isn't it?

for the most part it is nothing like what happens in an animal. Often the ability already exist and when the bacteria is placed in a harmful environment the pre-existing ability to survive the environment shows itself.

How did the ability cone along in the first place? It wouldn't be through mutation, would it?

Now, what I do find is ironic is how you use harmful diseases...that don't enhance the fitness of an organism to support evolutionism.

Diseases evolve too...

 

[PsychoSarah]

Neither had echo-location mutations.

So, when will you explain how they add up?

What are you talking about? Echolocation is an extension of the sense of hearing. So, yes, there are only a very small number of mutations that need to occur for a creature with no such ability to have it, so long as they have a sense of hearing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your whole process comes to a screeching halt when you realize that there needs to be an accumulation of so-called beneficial mutations occurring in the right portion of the DNA. You have not demonstrated this is possible...only suggested it is possible

Why isn't it possible?

Each human is born with around 50 mutations. If you are looking for a substitution mutation as the beneficial mutation, there are 3 billion bases in the haploid human genome. There are 3 possible changes at each base, so that is 9 billion possible mutations. The chances of getting just that one special mutation is 50/9E9, or 1 in 180 million. That means you just need 180 million births before you hit that mutation. With 6 billion people, that one special mutation has happened many, many times in just one generation.

 

[Loudmouth]

And for the eye to evolve it requires mutations to occur in just the right gene at just the right time....and do the right thing.

Prove it.

BTW, just how many mutations are considered as beneficial?

If we showed you every mutation that occurred along the evolution of the eye, you would not consider any of them to be beneficial. That's the irony in this whole thing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Neither had echo-location mutations.

So, when will you explain how they add up?

How can they not add up? Is there some process in reproduction that erases the mutations that you inherited from past generations?

 

[Loudmouth]

I've never count bacteria when it come to explaining evolutionism....for the most part it is nothing like what happens in an animal. Often the ability already exist and when the bacteria is placed in a harmful environment the pre-existing ability to survive the environment shows itself.

That isn't true. Mutations produce the new phenotype.