Mutations and Evolution

[Zosimus]

The irony! It burns!

It reminds me of people who insist that the Bible is true because the Bible says so.

I guess atheists and Christians are just two sides of the same coin.

 

[DogmaHunter]

All right, so it is theoretically possible to have a determined argument.

In other words, evidence makes some theories a lot more likely then other "theories". This directly goes against your usual rant against theories.

For example, this can happen in math class.

No. It can (and does) happen in ANY theory that is supported by evidence.
This is how murder cases are solved and it is how science finds out how things work.

But does this happen in the real world?

Yes. All the time. It's how we figure out what happened at crime scenes. It's how we figure out that species share ancestry. It's how we figure out how germs make you sick. It's how we figure out that the earth's crust works through plate tectonics. It's how we figure out that we can harness energy from splitting atoms. It's how we figure out what atoms are.

It's how science is done.

If so, you should be able to come up with hundreds of theories that are so solid that alternate hypothesis do not even exist. Can you?

Alternate ideas can always exist. All it requires is someone to dream them up. It is only constrainted by people's imagination.
But what evidence does is make some ideas more likely then others.
It's how we build theories.

As for examples:
atoms, evolution, germs, plate tectonics, protons, neutrons, relativity, big bang cosmology, .............

Additionally, your argument is littered with misrepresentations of my position, spelling and grammar mistakes, and personal insults. Please try to stick to the topic.

I lol'ed at the grammar police comment.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's all right for atheists to question or even ridicule Christian beliefs, but it's not okay for me to question atheist dogma.

Atheist dogma?

LOL!

What dogma?

 

[[serious]]

Atheist dogma?

LOL!

What dogma?

I can think of one. Not really atheist, but non theistic at least.

 

[Zosimus]

In other words, evidence makes some theories a lot more likely then other "theories". This directly goes against your usual rant against theories.

{{fact}} Where did I say any of that? Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

No. It can (and does) happen in ANY theory that is supported by evidence.
This is how murder cases are solved and it is how science finds out how things work.

Any theory, regardless of how well supported you may think it is, is speculative at best. A simple look at Newton's Law of Gravitation shows how wrong you are. Although it was empirically derived and had thousands of successes, we now know that it was wrong. There are an infinite number of graphs that can be drawn from any data set. It is not possible to know which of the graphs is correct.

Yes. All the time. It's how we figure out what happened at crime scenes. It's how we figure out that species share ancestry. It's how we figure out how germs make you sick. It's how we figure out that the earth's crust works through plate tectonics. It's how we figure out that we can harness energy from splitting atoms. It's how we figure out what atoms are.

http://www.ibtimes.com/fbi-justice-...rensic-hair-analysis-evidence-decades-1887720

"The Justice Department and the FBI have formally acknowledged that almost all of the examiners working in the FBI Laboratory's microscopic hair comparison unit gave fundamentally flawed testimony in almost every trial they testified in, during a more than two-decade-long period before 2000, according to a report from the Washington Post."
----------------------
Wow, that engenders confidence in the process... NOT!

It's how science is done.

And why scientific theories get thrown out every 20 years.

Alternate ideas can always exist. All it requires is someone to dream them up. It is only constrainted by people's imagination.

Yes, and all those ideas are empirically sufficient. Who can say which is right?

But what evidence does is make some ideas more likely then others.
It's how we build theories.

I'm still waiting to see the math on this some-ideas-more-likely-than-others claim.

I lol'ed at the grammar police comment.

I noticed you still don't know the difference between the words "then" and "than."

 

[mark kennedy]

Do you have any doubt that the physical differences between humans and chimps is due to the DNA differences between our genomes?

What kind of a question is that? The differences are profound and simply too great to be explained by Darwinian natural selection of beneficial effects that do not account for deleterious effects.

 

[[serious]]

What kind of a question is that? The differences are profound and simply too great to be explained by Darwinian natural selection of beneficial effects that do not account for deleterious effects.

The question wasn't how those genetic differences got there, but whether the genetic differences account for physiological differences.

 

[mark kennedy]

What makes a trait dominant or recessive? The answer is the DNA sequence of each allele. Guess what changes DNA sequences? Mutations. We have observed the spontaneous creation of alleles from mutations in that neither parent has the disease allele. These are dominant diseases where you only need one copy of the disease allele (e.g. achondroplasia, hemophilia). These are better known because when people have these diseases they go to the doctor, and we know exactly which genes they correlate with. Beneficial mutations are much harder to track because people don't go to the doctor when they are feeling better than other people, and we can't correlate specific improvements with specific genes.

Mutations defined as what? Because transcript errors are a wrong answer. Now a change in the DNA sequence is not necessarily the result in a failure of DNA repair, by now you should be somewhat familiar with real life adaptations that result in adaptive traits on an evolutionary scale.

Have you?

Of course.

Do you think it is due to a difference in DNA sequences between the genomes?

Yep, do you realize the extent of the indels and the 40,000 differences in the protein coding genes?

There are those in this forum who keep bringing up epigenetics and outright rejecting the "mutation theory of evolution".

Mutation defined as what exactly?

The molecular basis is the difference in DNA sequence between the two genomes.

That's good, now let's talk about the indels.

We can already see the effects of the mutations that separate humans and chimps. All we need to do is compare the two species.

What we need to do is to talk about the effects of mutations on the human brain. I won't hold my breath waiting on that one.

 

[mark kennedy]

The question wasn't how those genetic differences got there, but whether the genetic differences account for physiological differences.

That's not a serious question, protein coding genes and regulatory genes are the heart of genetics cause and effect science. What is the effect of a mutation in a brain related gene in the human genome?

 

[USincognito]

That's not a serious question, protein coding genes and regulatory genes are the heart of genetics cause and effect science. What is the effect of a mutation in a brain related gene in the human genome?

Well, in the case of SRGAP2C and ARHGAP11B it's to make the brain grow more complex and to have a more developed neocortex and folding.

 

[[serious]]

Mutations defined as what? Because transcript errors are a wrong answer. Now a change in the DNA sequence is not necessarily the result in a failure of DNA repair, by now you should be somewhat familiar with real life adaptations that result in adaptive traits on an evolutionary scale.

I'm guessing you are misusing terms, because errors in transcription are not heritable and do not alter the DNA. No one who knows what they are talking about would look at transcription errors for changes in a population.

Mutation defined as what exactly?

In biology, a mutation is a permanent change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA or other genetic elements.​

Wikipedia defines it pretty well.

That's good, now let's talk about the indels.

Ok, what about them? Frameshift mutations tend to mess stuff up a lot. Point mutations tend to cause more minor changes. not to say that frameshifts CAN'T be beneficial or result in novel function.We have examples of that such as nylonase.

What we need to do is to talk about the effects of mutations on the human brain. I won't hold my breath waiting on that one.

Ok, what gene would you like to talk about?

 

[whois]

my question as to all of this mutation stuff is one of time spans.
for example, it takes millions of years (or however long it takes) for the human brain to evolve.
where is the evidence that proves this?
i don't want something from fossil history, i want to see some honest lab results that demonstrate this concept.

 

[justlookinla]

my question as to all of this mutation stuff is one of time spans.
for example, it takes millions of years (or however long it takes) for the human brain to evolve.
where is the evidence that proves this?
i don't want something from fossil history, i want to see some honest lab results that demonstrate this concept.

You're not going to get it.

 

[whois]

You're not going to get it.

seems that way.
actually i'm really curious about this.
this sort of thing cannot possibly take "millions of years", HGT proves it.
the ABO blood group is thought to have occured as a result of HGT, and this was incorporated into the genome immediately.

 

[USincognito]

my question as to all of this mutation stuff is one of time spans.
for example, it takes millions of years (or however long it takes) for the human brain to evolve.
where is the evidence that proves this?
i don't want something from fossil history, i want to see some honest lab results that demonstrate this concept.

Did you see this post?
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/mutations-and-evolution.7901971/page-4#post-68504643

 

[whois]

Did you see this post?
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/mutations-and-evolution.7901971/page-4#post-68504643

what about it?
these 3 papers says nothing about how long it took for the human brain to evolve.
these papers deal mostly with finding the genes involved.
i found no reference to any genetic algorithms that prove any type of gene acquisition, or the time spans involved.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Do you have any doubt that the physical differences between humans and chimps is due to the DNA differences between our genomes?

Harvard biological anthropologist Wrangham dates the breakthrough in human evolution to a moment 1.8 million years ago, when, he conjectures, our forebears tamed fire and began cooking.

 

[bhsmte]

Harvard biological anthropologist Wrangham dates the breakthrough in human evolution to a moment 1.8 million years ago, when, he conjectures, our forebears tamed fire and began cooking.

I think Dean Ornish published his first cookbook about that time too.

 

[Loudmouth]

Mutations defined as what?

Already defined that in the opening post.

"In biology, a mutation is a permanent change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA or other genetic elements. Mutations result from damage to DNA which is not repaired or to RNA genomes (typically caused by radiation or chemical mutagens), errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements.[1][2][3] Mutations may or may not produce discernible changes in the observable characteristics (phenotype) of an organism."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

Now a change in the DNA sequence is not necessarily the result in a failure of DNA repair, by now you should be somewhat familiar with real life adaptations that result in adaptive traits on an evolutionary scale.

We can get to that in the future. Right now we need to agree on something much simpler.

Are the differences between humans and chimps due to the differences in the DNA sequences of their genome? Yes or no?

Yep, do you realize the extent of the indels and the 40,000 differences in the protein coding genes?

What about them?

Do you think those differences in protein coding genes are responsible for the physical differences between humans and chimps?

What we need to do is to talk about the effects of mutations on the human brain. I won't hold my breath waiting on that one.

Why talk about mutations if you can't even agree that changes in DNA sequence will cause any differences?

 

[Loudmouth]

my question as to all of this mutation stuff is one of time spans.

Before we discuss time spans we have to agree on a much more fundamental concept.

Do you think that the physical differences between humans and chimps is due to a difference in the DNA sequence of their respective genomes?

i don't want something from fossil history, i want to see some honest lab results that demonstrate this concept.

What do you mean by this?