Evolution is not science, it's supposition.

[Chalnoth]

Hehe, I agree. Did you notice the little, "You Are Here?"

Yeah, that's the only way I know for certain it's not a representation of all species, as our own close phylogeny is the only one that I actually know

Edit: And am I right? Are there only four mammals on that tree?

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes it was. Here was my exact quote.

There is little reason to doubt the ability of natural selection to reduce genetic diversity to those traits most likely to confer a benefit towards reproductive success.

Natural selection has nothing to do with genetic diversity. It has nothing to do with reproductive success. Natural selection is the removal of the less fit, that's all, it doesn't alter any of the genetic mechanisms in the slightest.

Reducing genetic diversity changes the frequency of alleles in a population.

Reducing genetic diversity? What are you talking about?

How is my explanation of the scientific method "running in circles?"

You are talking common ancestry and evolution as if they are the same thing which is absurd

Fine, then you assume that common ancestry is incorrect.

I assume nothing of the sort.

Except the whole common ancestry thing.

Way to nail it down, great retort.

Here is a random biology paper picked from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Notice that this research was done within a framework of evolution, and evolution itself drives the research. That's how biology is done.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/103/45/16734

Here's a random affect of random mutations affecting the human brain.

Then perhaps you failed to realize why the chimpanzee genome was sequenced.

Really!!! That's great news! Tell me more, is our DNA really 99% the same?

Here is the first two paragraphs of the original proposal to sequence the chimp genome.

"-chimp divergence in nucleotide sequence is 1.2%
(Fujiyama et al. 2002), while the divergence between the two chimp species is approximately half that
value."

Is that a true and accurate statement? If so how many nucleotides are involved?

From here: http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/Sequencing/SeqProposals/Chimp_Genome1_editted.pdf

So what was the outcome of this research?

Evolution:

1. Any change in allele frequency of a population over time.
2. Descent with modification due to differential reproductive success acting on random genetic variability.
3. Common ancestry of all life from one, or a few, ancient, ancestral populations.

Natural Selection:

1. The tendency for those traits most likely to confer an advantage towards reproductive success to be maintained and propagate in a population while those most disadvantageous die off.
2. Differential reproductive success.

You never addressed whether you're sticking by your claim that amino acids are translated into proteins.

What is you source for this defintion and the scientific basis for it?"

 

[Chalnoth]

Natural selection has nothing to do with genetic diversity. It has nothing to do with reproductive success. Natural selection is the removal of the less fit, that's all, it doesn't alter any of the genetic mechanisms in the slightest.

Right, and the removal of the less fit reduces genetic diversity, as Ondoher said. My genetic code, for instance, is unique. I have a combination of mutations and specific chromosomes which no other human on Earth has. When I die, my specific genetic code, that nobody else on Earth has, will be removed from the population, and the total diversity of humans will be reduced.

Similarly, if some environmental effect started killing off all humans over 6 feet tall (say, large blades installed in doorways at 6ft from the ground), the diversity in human height would be reduced by the removal of a subset of the population: natural selection reduces diversity.

 

[mark kennedy]

Right, and the removal of the less fit reduces genetic diversity, as Ondoher said. My genetic code, for instance, is unique. I have a combination of mutations and specific chromosomes which no other human on Earth has. When I die, my specific genetic code, that nobody else on Earth has, will be removed from the population, and the total diversity of humans will be reduced.

No it doesn't, the removal of the less fit simply removes the less fit. Your genetic code in 99.9% indentical to mine and the differences that DNA testing would reveal different alleles not genetic mutations. You were born with something to the order of 2x10^-8 mutations which comes to about 60 nucleotides. That does not make your DNA unique, you are being completly absurd.

Similarly, if some environmental effect started killing off all humans over 6 feet tall (say, large blades installed in doorways at 6ft from the ground), the diversity in human height would be reduced by the removal of a subset of the population: natural selection reduces diversity.[/QUOTE]

 

[tocis]

There is no doubt in my mind that the way Charles Darwin used the expression 'natural selection' is little more then an antithesitic rethorical device.
[...]

*yaaaaaaawn*

Please, pleeeeeeeease, try at least once to come up with something new. I'd ask for something new and true, but with creationists one learns to be happy with small advances...

 

[Chalnoth]

No it doesn't, the removal of the less fit simply removes the less fit. Your genetic code in 99.9% indentical to mine and the differences that DNA testing would reveal different alleles not genetic mutations. You were born with something to the order of 2x10^-8 mutations which comes to about 60 nucleotides. That does not make your DNA unique, you are being completly absurd.

Yes, Mark, it does. The obscene number of specific combinations of genetic material, combined with the mutations that each person experiences, result in each and every single person being genetically unique. This means that any death reduces the total diversity of the genome, and any birth increases it.

Random mutations increase genetic diversity. Natural selection reduces it, because natural selection acts to remove specific traits from the genome (those that are deleterious).

 

[mark kennedy]

*yaaaaaaawn*

Please, pleeeeeeeease, try at least once to come up with something new. I'd ask for something new and true, but with creationists one learns to be happy with small advances...

You say that as you post a pedantic, ad hominem one liner. Good comeback

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes, Mark, it does. The obscene number of specific combinations of genetic material, combined with the mutations that each person experiences, result in each and every single person being genetically unique. This means that any death reduces the total diversity of the genome, and any birth increases it.

That is not how each persons DNA is unique, mutations have nothing to do with it. Alleles change without the genes themselves being altered and anyone who is passionate about science the way you are should know that much.

Random mutations increase genetic diversity. Natural selection reduces it, because natural selection acts to remove specific traits from the genome (those that are deleterious).

Random mutations do not increase diversity, they can have a strong enough effect for selection to act. What usually happens is if a gene has a mutation and it shuts down the reading frame the organism dies. If the alteration was the result of a germline mutation the mutations dies with the organism. This happens in spontaneous abortions when an embryo is not forming properly.

In case you missed it, a mutation might shut a gene down thus reducing diversity but it can never increase diversity in the sense of adding information to the genome. Never, not even a little bit.

 

[shernren]

In case you missed it, a mutation might shut a gene down thus reducing diversity but it can never increase diversity in the sense of adding information to the genome. Never, not even a little bit.

Well, at least our PRATTs are getting a little more conventional than "Mutations happen during DNA transcription". Now please define "information" as it needs to be "added" to the genome, and quantify it, if possible supplying algorithms for which a set of sampled genomes/proteomes could be monotonically sorted for increasing information content.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

In case you missed it, a mutation might shut a gene down thus reducing diversity but it can never increase diversity in the sense of adding information to the genome. Never, not even a little bit.

Ever heard of a point mutation? A simple insertion of just one codon will increase the 'information' held on the genome. Simple.

 

[Tomk80]

What a surprise, another skewed poll where not all good answers are included.

 

[Tomk80]

That is not how each persons DNA is unique, mutations have nothing to do with it. Alleles change without the genes themselves being altered and anyone who is passionate about science the way you are should know that much.

Yes, they have. Even if we have the same genes, not all people have the same allelic varieties of it. For example, there are many varieties of the alleles for hemoglobin. If a person has a new mutation (hemoglobin C would be an example iirc) the total genetic diversity of the population increases. If that mutation is detrimental the person will not pass it on, resulting in a decrease in the genetic variance of the population.

Random mutations do not increase diversity, they can have a strong enough effect for selection to act. What usually happens is if a gene has a mutation and it shuts down the reading frame the organism dies. If the alteration was the result of a germline mutation the mutations dies with the organism. This happens in spontaneous abortions when an embryo is not forming properly.

As shown above, random mutation do indeed increase genetic diversity.

In case you missed it, a mutation might shut a gene down thus reducing diversity but it can never increase diversity in the sense of adding information to the genome. Never, not even a little bit.

Define information. You'd be the first.

 

[Split Rock]

. Alleles change without the genes themselves being altered and anyone who is passionate about science the way you are should know that much.

Are you just making things up now?

Alleles are genes; how can alleles change without "the genes" being altered???

Random mutations do not increase diversity, they can have a strong enough effect for selection to act. What usually happens is if a gene has a mutation and it shuts down the reading frame the organism dies. If the alteration was the result of a germline mutation the mutations dies with the organism. This happens in spontaneous abortions when an embryo is not forming properly.

OK, but not all mutations do this.

In case you missed it, a mutation might shut a gene down thus reducing diversity but it can never increase diversity in the sense of adding information to the genome. Never, not even a little bit.

What about the example of the nylonase gene?

What about my example of glyphosate resistance due to a single basepair substitution? If I have a population of individuals with no resistance, and mutation and selection produce a population with half the individuals resistant and half not, how is this not an increase in diversity?

 

[Ondoher]

Natural selection has nothing to do with genetic diversity. It has nothing to do with reproductive success. Natural selection is the removal of the less fit, that's all, it doesn't alter any of the genetic mechanisms in the slightest.

1. Genotype defines phenotype (more or less)
2. Certain phenotypes are more likely to have offspring, some are less likely.
3. Those phenotypes less likely to produce offspring tend to produce less offspring.
4. A phenotype that leaves no offspring will remove the associated genotype from the genepool entirely, thus reducing the available genetic diversity.

Reducing genetic diversity? What are you talking about?

See above.

You are talking common ancestry and evolution as if they are the same thing which is absurd

Common ancestry is an important aspect of evolutionary theory.

I assume nothing of the sort.

Of course you don't.

Way to nail it down, great retort.

I thought so too.

Here's a random affect of random mutations affecting the human brain.

Nobody has ever claimed mutations were never detrimental.

Really!!! That's great news! Tell me more, is our DNA really 99% the same?

Note the date on the proposal. Also note the motivation for the proposal, which was the entire point.

[/quote]
"-chimp divergence in nucleotide sequence is 1.2%
(Fujiyama et al. 2002), while the divergence between the two chimp species is approximately half that
value."

Is that a true and accurate statement? If so how many nucleotides are involved?
[/quote]
Again, note the date of the proposal, but more important the motivation for the proposal.

So what was the outcome of this research?

A sequenced chimp genome and a great deal of subsequent analysis on what has changed since the last common ancestor of chimps and humans.

What is you source for this defintion and the scientific basis for it?"

These are all pretty standard definitions.

I noticed you have still not indicated whether you are still of the opinion that amino acids are translated into proteins. You have to be more willing to admit your errors, like you did with the prion thing. It may make your arrogance more palatable

 

[Ondoher]

That is not how each persons DNA is unique, mutations have nothing to do with it. Alleles change without the genes themselves being altered and anyone who is passionate about science the way you are should know that much.

An allele is a variation of a gene. If an allele changes (which would really be the introduction of a new allele) then that variation of the gene changes.

Random mutations do not increase diversity, they can have a strong enough effect for selection to act. What usually happens is if a gene has a mutation and it shuts down the reading frame the organism dies. If the alteration was the result of a germline mutation the mutations dies with the organism. This happens in spontaneous abortions when an embryo is not forming properly.

When a new mutation enters the gene pool, it increases the genetic diversity available within the population.

In case you missed it, a mutation might shut a gene down thus reducing diversity but it can never increase diversity in the sense of adding information to the genome. Never, not even a little bit.

Setting aside your failure to define information, you are simply wrong. Duplication followed by divergence does exactly this. Gene families are generally considered to have arisen following this simple process.

 

[Hydra009]

Random mutations do not increase diversity

...

Ok, let's do a little thought experiment:

There is a population of beetles, some are green and some are brown. Allele X codes for green beetles. Allele Y codes for brown beetles.

One generation, a random mutation in allele Y causes a few of the beetles to be yellow instead of brown. There are now 3 different alleles, and 3 possible colorations.

Is 3 less than or equal to 2? This isn't rocket science - mutations do in fact increase genetic diversity.

 

[Kahalachan]

Evolution is a science and has been proven.

Up to the Creationist to say why certain alleles can't change frequency.

 

[Pesto]

Natural selection has nothing to do with genetic diversity. It has nothing to do with reproductive success. Natural selection is the removal of the less fit, that's all, it doesn't alter any of the genetic mechanisms in the slightest.

But it does alter allele frequency within a population. Let's take a hypothetical population of critters. 50% have allele A and 50% have allele B. Allele B gives the critters some disadvantage when dealing with a specific predator, so a bunch of these predators come along and eat half of the group with allele B. They also eat one quarter of the group that has allele A. The population has been reduced in such a manner that now 60% of the population has allele A and 40% has allele B. The critters then pass this on to the next generation.

Natural selection causes a change in allele frequency between generations. There you go.

 

[Split Rock]

Similarly, if some environmental effect started killing off all humans over 6 feet tall (say, large blades installed in doorways at 6ft from the ground), the diversity in human height would be reduced by the removal of a subset of the population: natural selection reduces diversity.

A study was done back in the 1960s where a population of fruit flies was put under two different selections for bristle number. A sub-set of the population was chosen with the fewest bristles, and another with the greatest number of bristles. Then for every generation that followed, a subset was saved from the fewer bristle population that had the fewest bristles and a subset was saved from the greater bristle population that had the greatest number of bristles. This was continued for something like 60 generations. In the end, there were two populations that had bristle distribution numbers completely outside the range of the original population!

What does this tell us about the power of artificial selection, and what does it infer about the power of natural selection?

 

[mark kennedy]

What a surprise, another skewed poll where not all good answers are included.

I noticed no one choose common ancestor, that effectivly eliminates common ancestry from a definition.