Genetic expression within Mendelian limitations prevent evolution

A thesis is a statement that needs to be proven. An antithesis is a word or phrase that shows a negative connection between two things, to err is human. A theory is an explanation that has been tested and has shown a connection between facts and guesses. If these are all true then that means evolution is an antitheory; an explanation that needs to be proven but contradicts its guesses and facts, or the lack of facts to be more exact. Now this (antitheory) of course is not a real word (anti theory of something though is real) but nevertheless is a real concept.


Here is a little math lesson for you to help explain the whole concept.

• 1+1=2 and 2+1=3 and 3+1=4 and 4+1=5 and 5+1=6

And so on. One should get the picture. There is a progression, a natural progression, to get from one number to the next by adding the same element. You can not get from 1 to 6 in progression by going straight from 1 to 6. There are steps in between. Evolutionists find 1 and they find 6 very easily. They may even find 2, 3, 4, and 5 as well with research and artifacts. But they forget there may be infinite rational numbers in between 1 and 2, such as 1.1, 1.2, 1.3678, and 1.976544324565. All fall in between the two whole numbers of 1 and 2. Evolutionists find the whole numbers only and say that the theory of evolution is the only reliable collection of facts there are.


In other words, they have been searching for the "missing link" or should we say "links" since the study began. They think they have found all they need because they have 1-6.


Here is the problem in reality: they may have found different species that look like they were once related, but they didn't. They have only found the "whole numbers". For evolution to work and become a law of nature each stage of evolution has to be found. Each and every minute mutation has to be found. And they are not. There are only bits and pieces of one species and bits and pieces of another completely different species and then they try and connect them.


If evolution was real here is what it means. Two species have an offspring. The offspring either picks up a recessive gene or for some unknown reason has a brand new gene, a mutation, that no other specie has had before. Now this offspring will find a mate and have an offspring of its own. Somehow this recessive/mutated gene gets passed on to where it eventually becomes the dominant gene or the mutation becomes the norm, not only in its own family line but apparently other family lines. This single mutation, which is now a common characteristic, makes a new species and the process starts all over.


Over after millions of years and mutations do we finally get modern man. We have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. But where is the 3.2? Evolutionists have only found the "complete" stages of the process. They have not found all the intermediate stages to fill the gaps. Oh, some will say they have by claiming they have transitional fossils with the truth etched in them. Or they will state that they have found groups of species with the same mutation to prove that communities of these species flourished and not just a fluke, thereby proving the evolution process. They will usually tend to leave out that there are still way too many gaps. Donald Prothero, professor of Geology at Occidental College, said that the total number of species of all kinds known through the fossil record was less than 5% of the number of known living species. 95% is of unknown origin. (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/donald_protheros_imaginary_evi029041.html) And by the theory of Darwinism, as defined by http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html, Multiply by "budding" into new species. Budding of course meaning one species splitting into a new species by retaining as many characteristics as the original species while developing something different to make a new species (1, 1.1, 1.2...). However, is there evidence that shows how an amoeba became a man with every step of mutation/evolution accounted for by budding? No. Why? Because it isn't the answer.
Now none of this is saying that two people with blond hair as a dominant gene can not have a baby with dark hair to where eventual dark hair will become dominant. But they are still people, not another species.


Evolution is a antitheory, an explanation that needs to be proven but contradicts its guesses and facts, or the lack of facts to be more exact.

Time for dinner. Be back tomorrow. Don't go and make 10 more pages for me to read. Good night all. Take care. And most of all, rejoice in the Lord.

Gozreht said:

But wouldn't that mean there would be 500,000 different species of humans? I am not referring to mutations as physical characteristics of people like larger craniums, smaller feet, etc. They would still be human. I am referring to growing opposable thumbs. Having four chambers in our heart instead of two. Losing gills. Losing opposable thumbs on our feet. Those would be different animals. And then to get one new complete speices one whole generation would have to have the exact mutation as everyone else in the group or otherwise again we would have over 500,000 varaiations of human beings.

Click to expand...

In a word, no -- you have misunderstood the process of evolution. Evolution does not proceed by a single mutation creating a new species (well, almost never). Rather, many mutations accumulate, each making a small change to the organism, with lots of mutated genes coexisting in the population at any given time. Over many generations, the changes become large enough that you have a clearly different species; over many, many generations, you have not merely a different species, but a species with radically different traits, things like the loss of gills you're talking about.

Mind you, when you look at two modern species, you're not looking at one thing that has evolved from another. Instead, you're looking at two species that started out as one, but that at some point separated into two groups (often because of distance or a geographic barrier of some sort). Each group gradually evolved over the years, but they did so independently, so that the two lines became more and more different. We can see every stage of this process in modern species, from a single species with minor local variants (like humans, for example), to a single species with clear subspecies (like chimpanzees), to closely related species that can still produce hybrid offspring (like wolves and coyotes), to closely related species that produce hybrid offspring but unsuccessful ones (like horses and donkeys), though species that still look similar but which no longer hybridize (like many fruit flies).

Each human, in fact, differs from every other human (ignoring identical twins) at millions of places in their genomes, differences that have accumulated from millions of mutations over many years. And yet we are not 7 billion different species.

Kirkwhisper said:

Document that fact. Let us see it. We don't want opinions...which is what you usually throw at us.

Click to expand...

Document the fact of naturally occurring beneficial mutations? Off the top of my head . . . There are the three mutations to the gene dhfr that confer resistance to pyramethamine in malaria, which first occurred in Southeast Asia; independent, multiple mutations in the same gene also occurred in Papua New Guinea (or thereabouts) and in South America. There is the gene duplication at pfmdr that confers resistance to multiple drugs (hence the name of the gene), the mutation in the gene pfcrt that confers resistance to chloroquine (also first seen in SE Asia), and the triple mutations in dhps that confer resistance to sulfadoxine, which have occurred independently at least three times on different continents. All of these mutations are known from the single species Plasmodium falciparum (I had to look that last one up, by the way), and that isn't even the only species that causes malaria. That's at least 20 beneficial mutations right there.

In humans, there are the mutations (to the promoter of the gene for lactase) that confer lactose tolerance in adults, which have occurred independently at least three times, in Europe, East Africa and North Africa (or maybe the Middle East, I forget which). There is the mutation in the gene SLC24A5, which is largely responsible for the lighter pigmentation of Europeans. (There are about a dozen other genes that are clearly involved in pigmentation, and that clearly have undergone positive selection in lighter-skinned Europeans and Asians, but where the precise mutations had not been pinned down the last time I checked.) There are the mutations that confer greater tolerance to low oxygen levels that were selected for independently in Tibet and in the Andes. There is the Duffy null allele, which knocks out expression of a blood antigen and which confers complete resistance to malaria caused by a different species (P. vivax); the variant is completely absent in most of the world, but is at nearly 100% in sub-Saharan Africa. There is a mutation in the gene EDAR, which has clearly been selected for in East Asia, and which is probably responsible (or partly responsible) for distinctive East Asian hair texture; what exactly was being selected for is still unknown. There are a number of other cases where natural selection has almost certainly been active at a gene, and where researchers are puzzling out exactly which mutation was selected for and what the selective advantage involved was (e.g. the gene LARGE), but where a complete answer is not yet in. And then there are several hundred other cases where there is substantial evidence for selection for some mutation having occurred (i.e. evidence that there was a beneficial mutation there), but where nothing else is yet known. For a summary of the situation in humans, you could see here, which is a few years out of date but which was intended for a broad audience.

Those are the cases I know about myself. They're all in two species because those happen to be the only two species whose genetics I've worked on. I dare say more are known from other species.

Kirkwhisper said:

What in the world is the matter with you? I didn't ask for 'beneficial mutations'. I required the genetic formula for the divergance of man (homo) from the so-called 'common ancestor'

Click to expand...

??
Me:
"I didn't tell him that because that wasn't an answer to his question. The first fact you mentioned, that is. The second fact is wrong. Very few beneficial mutations have been genetically engineered, and quite a few have been observed in the wild."
You:
"Document that fact. Let us see it. We don't want opinions...which is what you usually throw at us."

You sure looked like you were asking for documentation for my statement about beneficial mutations. Since you claim you weren't, however, and looking back at it again, I can see . . . that you were asking for documentation for my statement about beneficial mutations. There was nothing else in what you quoted from me. I can only respond to what people write(*), not to what they meant to write.

(*) In your case I've taken to not responding to substantial portions of your posts, the portions that consist of insults and flames. Based on prior experience, I know it's usually futile to ask other Christians to behave with basic civility, but is there any chance we could just cut out all of the ugliness, suggestions of lying and imputation of vile motives?

Kirkwhisper said:

W I required the genetic formula for the divergance of man (homo) from the so-called 'common ancestor' (hominini?) in terms like as I posted in the OP.

Click to expand...

As I already said, there should be no "formula". Why would you expect there to be one? As for your OP, most of it displayed a confusion about how evolution works that I've already addressed in another post: evolution does not require breeding between dramatically different organisms.

Besides that, you didn't list a SINGLE example of an organism that was changed into an identifiably/classifiably different organism.

Click to expand...

Since that wasn't the challenge I was responding to, that's not surprising, is it?

As for observed instances of speciation, there are lists of such things around. There are a number of examples known from plants, e.g. Oenethera gigas, a species derived from O. lamarckiana, or the several species in Brassica that arose naturally but that could also be recreated by hybridization in the lab.

Given how long speciation is thought to take in animals, we shouldn't expect to see it occur there very often, since the process takes multiple human lives. There are cases recorded, however, some more compelling than others; talkorigins.org has a list. More interesting to me are observations of speciation in progress, like those of the M and S forms of Anopheles Gambiae (a malaria vector); here is one report among many on the incipient species.

sfs said:

In a word, no -- you have misunderstood the process of evolution. Evolution does not proceed by a single mutation creating a new species (well, almost never). Rather, many mutations accumulate, each making a small change to the organism, with lots of mutated genes coexisting in the population at any given time. Over many generations, the changes become large enough that you have a clearly different species; over many, many generations, you have not merely a different species, but a species with radically different traits, things like the loss of gills you're talking about.

Click to expand...

Almost??? Just picking on you for that one.

But that would be inconsistent with the final results. "Many, many" leads to the assumption (since we can't observe) that there would be even more species out there today, including some species somehow in some phase between an ape and man.

Mind you, when you look at two modern species, you're not looking at one thing that has evolved from another. Instead, you're looking at two species that started out as one, but that at some point separated into two groups (often because of distance or a geographic barrier of some sort). Each group gradually evolved over the years, but they did so independently, so that the two lines became more and more different

Click to expand...

.

We can see every stage of this process in modern species,

Click to expand...

No we can't. We see integers. We do not see the whole number line. Thaty means we are seeing different species but not changes over time.

from a single species with minor local variants (like humans, for example), to a single species with clear subspecies (like chimpanzees), to closely related species that can still produce hybrid offspring (like wolves and coyotes), to closely related species that produce hybrid offspring but unsuccessful ones (like horses and donkeys), though species that still look similar but which no longer hybridize (like many fruit flies).

Click to expand...

Variants. Yes. Exactly what I said earlier. Wolves, coyotes, dogs, foxes = canines. And within each of these you have other variants.

Each human, in fact, differs from every other human (ignoring identical twins) at millions of places in their genomes, differences that have accumulated from millions of mutations over many years. And yet we are not 7 billion different species.

Click to expand...

Just my point. We are no different than when we were first created. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Kirkwhisper said:

'speciation'....uh, right.

Click to expand...

Yes, speciation -- the change of an organism into a "identifiably/classifiably different organism". You know, exactly what you asked for.

sfs said:

In humans, there are the mutations (to the promoter of the gene for lactase) that confer lactose tolerance in adults, which have occurred independently at least three times, in Europe, East Africa and North Africa (or maybe the Middle East, I forget which). There is the mutation in the gene SLC24A5, which is largely responsible for the lighter pigmentation of Europeans. (There are about a dozen other genes that are clearly involved in pigmentation, and that clearly have undergone positive selection in lighter-skinned Europeans and Asians, but where the precise mutations had not been pinned down the last time I checked.)

Click to expand...

The article said positive selection has to have something beneficial. Losing pigmentation helps us lighter skinned people develop cancer easier. How is that beneficial?

There are the mutations that confer greater tolerance to low oxygen levels that were selected for independently in Tibet and in the Andes.

Click to expand...

My eyes get used to the darkness after the lights go out at night. Then they get used to the sunlight in the morning. I am sure that over a longer period of time if we were always in the dark our eyes would be completely used to darkness and we would be able to see at night simply because we are used to it. Over time people can develop a tolerance if exposed to something. I can see that. But that is not "evolution". That is simply getting used to it. Another example, I live in Ohio. If it gets 95 degress in the summer, I can handle it. If someone from Gnome, Alaska comes down and stays, the first summer will be intolerable for them. But then they will adapt and get used to it. This is a reason why the military trains in such harsh conditions as well.

For a summary of the situation in humans, you could see here, which is a few years out of date but which was intended for a broad audience.

Click to expand...

"frequency of some of these neutral genetic variants (alleles) increases simply by chance, and the resulting "genetic drift" is thought to be the most common process in human evolution".

This may be one of the main reasons why "creationists" can not believe in evolution. God created things for a purpose and here we have an article that says things happen by chance.

None of this is criticizing you personally. So, please do not take it that way. I am merely using the information provided and trying to understand the thought process and responding with my own.

Gozreht said:

Almost??? Just picking on you for that one.

Click to expand...

All(*) rules in biology come with exceptions -- it's not like physics.

(*) Almost all, of course.

But that would be inconsistent with the final results. "Many, many" leads to the assumption (since we can't observe) that there would be even more species out there today,

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't, mostly because species only last for a few million years, on average, so that roughly 99.5% of all animal species that have ever lived have gone extinct.

What you should expect to find is evidence for gradual change over time among fossils, where the fossil record is good enough. And that is exactly what we do see, as illustrated in the changing skull shape and increasing brain sizes of our extinct relatives. (Exactly how gradual the changes should be depends in detail on exactly how change occurs in evolution, and can vary with the circumstances. What is true is that large-scale changes, like the transition from fish to land animal, land animal to whale, reptile to mammal, will occur over long periods of time with many intermediates. And that is certainly the case in the fossil record.)

including some species somehow in some phase between an ape and man.

Click to expand...

There can't be a species between humans and apes because humans are apes, biologically speaking. There should be species of ape that resemble one another a lot (like chimpanzees and bonobos), species that resemble one another a little less (humans and chimpanzees, or humans and bonobos) and species that are even more different, since their branches split further back (orangutans and any of the human/chimpanzee/bonobo/gorilla).

There is a reason that biologists have accepted evolution, you know. Or rather, many reasons.

No we can't. We see integers. We do not see the whole number line. Thaty means we are seeing different species but not changes over time.

Variants. Yes. Exactly what I said earlier. Wolves, coyotes, dogs, foxes = canines. And within each of these you have other variants.

Click to expand...

You're not being consistent. Foxes are different from wolves, aren't they? Are they the same "whole number" or not? They can't interbreed (which, according to Kirkwhisperer, means they're not related to one another), and they're quite different in shape and size -- more different than humans and chimpanzees are. How do you decide where to draw these lines? All canids resemble one another, more so than they resemble anything else. So do all apes, including humans.

Gozreht said:

The article said positive selection has to have something beneficial. Losing pigmentation helps us lighter skinned people develop cancer easier. How is that beneficial?

Click to expand...

It isn't beneficial -- selected traits can have less beneficial side effects. The benefit of lighter skin in northern latitudes is (very likely -- it's hard to prove definitively) the increased ability to synthesize vitamin D. You need sunlight to synthesize vitamin D, and as you move away from the tropics, there is less and less sunlight, especially in winter. The risk of too much sun exposure also decreases as you move away from the equator, and really isn't much of an issue if you spend your entire life in Scandinavia, say. The result is a gradation of skin pigmentation as you move away from the equator: southern Europeans are a lot lighter than sub-Saharan Africans, but substantially darker than Scandinavians. (If you are interested, see here for more information about human pigmentation, including a map showing its distribution.)

My eyes get used to the darkness after the lights go out at night. Then they get used to the sunlight in the morning. I am sure that over a longer period of time if we were always in the dark our eyes would be completely used to darkness and we would be able to see at night simply because we are used to it. Over time people can develop a tolerance if exposed to something. I can see that. But that is not "evolution". That is simply getting used to it.

Click to expand...

No, that's not evolution. But differences in skin pigmentation between different human populations are the result of evolution, because the changes are genetic, not changes within individuals' bodies. If you put Norwegians in the tropics, yes, their skin will get somewhat darker, since like everyone, they have some ability to tan. That's getting used to the sun. But it won't get not much darker; no matter how long they stay there, they will always have light skin and be subject to severe sunburns. The same goes for Nigerians who move to Minnesota, in reverse. The Norwegians' children and grandchildren will have equally light skin (assuming they only marry other Norwegians), since skin color is largely controlled by genes. Their skin will remain the same until one of their descendants has a mutation in one of the genes that controls pigmentation.

"frequency of some of these neutral genetic variants (alleles) increases simply by chance, and the resulting "genetic drift" is thought to be the most common process in human evolution".

This may be one of the main reasons why "creationists" can not believe in evolution. God created things for a purpose and here we have an article that says things happen by chance.

Click to expand...

You're reading a meaning here that's different than what the authors intended. "By chance" just means that the frequency is equally likely to go up and down, i.e. that it is not being biased by natural selection either for or against that variant. In science, we routinely describe processes as being random, which just means that we can safely treat them as being draws from a random distribution for the purpose of scientific description. The authors very much do not mean to assert that there is no divine purpose behind genetic drift, since divine purpose is not something that is accessible to scientific inquiry.

None of this is criticizing you personally. So, please do not take it that way. I am merely using the information provided and trying to understand the thought process and responding with my own.

Click to expand...

Not at all. If I ever sound annoyed or condescending, please just ignore it.

sfs said:

No, it doesn't, mostly because species only last for a few million years, on average, so that roughly 99.5% of all animal species that have ever lived have gone extinct.

Click to expand...

Extinction is natural and positive then. I know...I am just changing the subject. This is not part of the discussion.

What you should expect to find is evidence for gradual change over time among fossils, where the fossil record is good enough. And that is exactly what we do see, as illustrated in the changing skull shape and increasing brain sizes of our extinct relatives. (Exactly how gradual the changes should be depends in detail on exactly how change occurs in evolution, and can vary with the circumstances. What is true is that large-scale changes, like the transition from fish to land animal, land animal to whale, reptile to mammal, will occur over long periods of time with many intermediates. And that is certainly the case in the fossil record.)

Click to expand...

I would and could agree with all of the findings if there wasn't other variables. In math, I don't know about science, we can use theorems and formulas and use them consistently if all things given are constant. But throw one vairable into the equation and everything changes. You say it is "good enough". If it isn't perfect then it is not good enough. Now if you say this is the best we have, then that may be true. But there are other factors: weather, predatory action, man, God, water, earthquakes, storms, deformations as opposed to mutations. We do not know completely what or how these may have effected life. Fossils are a snap shot of a moving picture.

I know you didn't mean it this way but the way you phrased this sounds like all water creatures evolved into land creatures.

There can't be a species between humans and apes because humans are apes, biologically speaking. There should be species of ape that resemble one another a lot (like chimpanzees and bonobos), species that resemble one another a little less (humans and chimpanzees, or humans and bonobos) and species that are even more different, since their branches split further back (orangutans and any of the human/chimpanzee/bonobo/gorilla).

Click to expand...

I agree when you say biologically speaking. I agree with classification of animals. And I would even put man in the class of primates, biologically speaking.

You're not being consistent. Foxes are different from wolves, aren't they? Are they the same "whole number" or not? They can't interbreed (which, according to Kirkwhisperer, means they're not related to one another), and they're quite different in shape and size -- more different than humans and chimpanzees are. How do you decide where to draw these lines? All canids resemble one another, more so than they resemble anything else. So do all apes, including humans.

Click to expand...

I told you I was a layman in terms of scienctific terms and stuff. Maybe we can't reproduce between kingdoms, phylums, classes, order, family, genus, but only at the species level. I don't know. And maybe that is what Kirkwhisper is saying. Dogs can breed with wolves, maybe not foxes.

sfs said:

It isn't beneficial -- selected traits can have less beneficial side effects. The benefit of lighter skin in northern latitudes is (very likely -- it's hard to prove definitively) the increased ability to synthesize vitamin D. You need sunlight to synthesize vitamin D, and as you move away from the tropics, there is less and less sunlight, especially in winter. The risk of too much sun exposure also decreases as you move away from the equator, and really isn't much of an issue if you spend your entire life in Scandinavia, say. The result is a gradation of skin pigmentation as you move away from the equator: southern Europeans are a lot lighter than sub-Saharan Africans, but substantially darker than Scandinavians. (If you are interested, see here for more information about human pigmentation, including a map showing its distribution.)

No, that's not evolution. But differences in skin pigmentation between different human populations are the result of evolution, because the changes are genetic, not changes within individuals' bodies. If you put Norwegians in the tropics, yes, their skin will get somewhat darker, since like everyone, they have some ability to tan. That's getting used to the sun. But it won't get not much darker; no matter how long they stay there, they will always have light skin and be subject to severe sunburns. The same goes for Nigerians who move to Minnesota, in reverse. The Norwegians' children and grandchildren will have equally light skin (assuming they only marry other Norwegians), since skin color is largely controlled by genes. Their skin will remain the same until one of their descendants has a mutation in one of the genes that controls pigmentation.

Click to expand...

Two very important things you said here:
1. (assuming they only marry other Norwegians). Here is where genetic change comes in and where the Bible comes back into play. Noah had three sons. Each son will settle into three different parts of the new world. Each containing their own gene pool, if you will, granted they may be carrying recessive genes. But if they remain in their own gene pool, the dominant gene almost becomes the only choice over 1000 years. Norwegians look alike (blonde hair/blue eyes) due to keeping the same genes in the same area for a long period of time. This is not meant to sound racial, just observatory. Africans have similar traits. Asians have similar traits. Those in between are mixtures of all the genes. Now if they start to intermix again then these genes are intorduced back into the pool, hence dark haired Norwgeian as a bad example.
2. "you move away from the tropics". Geography will cause people to get used to their surroundings. If the sun causes caucasians to get less Vitamin D then your body gets used to it. Or it may cause other problems down the road. Africans and sickle-cell anemia, Euroopean and malaria.

Kirkwhisper said:

Changes on the species level is now and has always been accepted by creationists as changes 'within the kind'. That happens all the time. But what I challenged in the OP has to do with transformations of one organism into a clearly DIFFERENT organsim. Like flies to perhaps hummingbirds, or worms to snakes, or bacteria to lice, or perhaps rodents to a thylacine or a dog. He doesn't get it. He doesn't wish to get it.

Click to expand...

It's been said (and ignored) before but it might be worth saying again for the sake other creationists:

If one species gave birth to another completely different species - flies somehow producing hummingbirds for example - it would not prove evolution. It would completely and utterly disprove it. That's why we don't see it happen.

Notedstrangeperson said:

It's been said (and ignored) before but it might be worth saying again for the sake other creationists:

If one species gave birth to another completely different species - flies somehow producing hummingbirds for example - it would not prove evolution. It would completely and utterly disprove it. That's why we don't see it happen.

Click to expand...

Yep. Individual x of a certain species is very likely to be extremely similiar compared to its parents and its offspring in the following generation.

Evolution is a very gradual process. One generation at a time.