Natural Selection Finishes Evolution

[lasthero]

The Bible speaks about kinds, and it is a general belief among creationists that a kind constitutes something within which variation can occur, but not to create new kinds. It has not been well defined genetically, for lack of research.

Genesis 1,21: 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.

If you can't, by your own admission, determine what a 'kind' is, how can you claim that evolution can't produce new 'kinds'? No matter what evolution produces, you could always say it's not a new 'kind', and since you have no rigid definition, there's no way to argue.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If you can't, by your own admission, determine what a 'kind' is, how can you claim that evolution can't produce new 'kinds'? No matter what evolution produces, you could always say it's not a new 'kind', and since you have no rigid definition, there's no way to argue.

That pretty much creationism in a nutshell -- produce nothing, and naysay the people who do.

 

[Willtor]

I believe that mutations are always negative, based on what I saw in my own research project on the interaction of the DnaA protein of E.coli with other factors for initiation of replication. Every mutation described had lost some kind of function. I came to believe that best function is, when every regulatory interaction works, and any mutation that offsets the original set of interactions is negative. It is of course a religious belief, since at that time (2000) protein interactions were not well understood.

There is no shortage of beneficial mutations observed in nature and in the lab. You must understand it's hard for us to reject what others have observed. Why do you do so?

 

[PeterDona]

While this is an overall good forum, there are forums like EVC which are frequented by many, many scientists.

ok I will make a point to visit that forum. Can you provide me with a link?

 

[PeterDona]

It is still 98% when each indel is considered to be a single mutation. Of the 40 million mutationos that separate humans and chimps, about 35 million of them are substitutions. When looking at substitutions alone, we are >98% similar. The question is how to represent indels. An indel represents a single mutation, but it can change 1 base or even 100,000 bases. So do you count indels by the number of bases that they change, or the number of indels? AiG tries to turn this question in to confusion, and make the readers think that scientists are somehow hiding something, when they really aren't.

I guess this is the first time that I can point out something in your line of thought, that I would say, this is an uninformed idea. The point is, that genetic information does not arise by mere chance, not even if given enough time. Randomization has a tendency to scramble and will not organize. There is a video on information theory applied to DNA, that you could watch, to further the argument here

 

[PeterDona]

There is no shortage of beneficial mutations observed in nature and in the lab. You must understand it's hard for us to reject what others have observed. Why do you do so?

In order to answer this question, and others the like, I will start by saying, as a molecular biologist, I consider the interaction between proteins and DNA, and between proteins and the rest of the cell. I do not believe that the cell is a random clump of "do something, whatever will work". In my view, the cell is a very finetuned machinery, where each protein plays its part. I believe that all proteins were created with their original function, which then becomes the optimal function.
In my thesis, I studied among other things, temperature sensitive mutations of the E.coli in the dnaA gene. These mutations always had something that was not working, one way or the other. Either a protein interaction that failed, or a promoter mutation that uncoupled the regulation. This supported the idea, that genes and proteins are created with optimal function, and can only lose function along the road.

I did never hear a description of a mutation, and then afterwards somebody said, verily, now we have a protein that functions better than the protein that God made.

Proteins are finetuned machines with functional domains. We also see this in the real world. Here is a machine with at least 2 functional domains:

And a further version of the hammer, still with the functional domains. How do you think, evolutionists would describe those 2 functional hammers? Do you think they would be able to trace the introduction into evolution, and claim a common ancestor? I feel, that this is what some people do when talking about proteins. Proteins are finely tuned machines.

 

[Willtor]

In order to answer this question, and others the like, I will start by saying, as a molecular biologist, I consider the interaction between proteins and DNA, and between proteins and the rest of the cell. I do not believe that the cell is a random clump of "do something, whatever will work". In my view, the cell is a very finetuned machinery, where each protein plays its part. I believe that all proteins were created with their original function, which then becomes the optimal function.
In my thesis, I studied among other things, temperature sensitive mutations of the E.coli in the dnaA gene. These mutations always had something that was not working, one way or the other. Either a protein interaction that failed, or a promoter mutation that uncoupled the regulation. This supported the idea, that genes and proteins are created with optimal function, and can only lose function along the road.

I did never hear a description of a mutation, and then afterwards somebody said, verily, now we have a protein that functions better than the protein that God made.

Those examples are things that get selected against. Are you saying otherwise? Beyond that, what about beneficial changes like bacteria that digest nylon or the London Underground Mosquito?

Proteins are finetuned machines with functional domains. We also see this in the real world. Here is a machine with at least 2 functional domains:

And a further version of the hammer, still with the functional domains. How do you think, evolutionists would describe those 2 functional hammers? Do you think they would be able to trace the introduction into evolution, and claim a common ancestor? I feel, that this is what some people do when talking about proteins. Proteins are finely tuned machines.

I'm sure I'm not understanding you correctly. But it sounds like you're suggesting that hammers might be reproducing. If I'm not understanding rightly, could you clarify the question?

 

[SteveB28]

I guess this is the first time that I can point out something in your line of thought, that I would say, this is an uninformed idea. The point is, that genetic information does not arise by mere chance, not even if given enough time. Randomization has a tendency to scramble and will not organize. There is a video on information theory applied to DNA, that you could watch, to further the argument here

The emboldened section reveals a gross error. Randomly throw a pair of dice for, say, 100 trials. You will find that the totals will "organise" into a normal distribution of scores between 2 and 12.

 

[JasonClark]

The emboldened section reveals a gross error. Randomly throw a pair of dice for, say, 100 trials. You will find that the totals will "organise" into a normal distribution of scores between 2 and 12.

I once had someone tell me to watch a roulette wheel until red or black comes up 4 times in a row then bet on the other colour and I would win.

 

[SteveB28]

I once had someone tell me to watch a roulette wheel until red or black comes up 4 times in a row then bet on the other colour and I would win.

You were badly advised.

 

[Split Rock]

The Bible speaks about kinds, and it is a general belief among creationists that a kind constitutes something within which variation can occur, but not to create new kinds. It has not been well defined genetically, for lack of research.

Genesis 1,21: 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.

Lack of research you say? It should be simple enough to test this hypothesis. If there is a dog "kind," for example, then we can use phylogenetic analysis to determine if all dogs are in a separate "kind," that has no genetic relationship to other carnivores, like ferrets and cats. Unfortunately, phylogenetic analysis does not show us they are separate. Instead, they form part of a nested hierarchy which includes all members of the carnivora like cats, seals, bears and ferrets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Carnivora
http://www.whozoo.org/mammals/Carnivores/carnivorephylogeny.htm

 

[Loudmouth]

The point is, that genetic information does not arise by mere chance, not even if given enough time.

Do you have any evidence to back this assertion? Also, evolution includes natural selection. Selection is the opposite of random.

There is a video on information theory applied to DNA, that you could watch, to further the argument here

Have any scientific papers?

 

[Loudmouth]

In order to answer this question, and others the like, I will start by saying, as a molecular biologist, I consider the interaction between proteins and DNA, and between proteins and the rest of the cell. I do not believe that the cell is a random clump of "do something, whatever will work".

One of the first things you are taught as a scientist is that bad science is done by people who start with a belief and reject any evidence that contradicts it.

Why don't you start with the evidence instead of belief?

In my thesis, I studied among other things, temperature sensitive mutations of the E.coli in the dnaA gene. These mutations always had something that was not working, one way or the other. Either a protein interaction that failed, or a promoter mutation that uncoupled the regulation. This supported the idea, that genes and proteins are created with optimal function, and can only lose function along the road.

Then how do you explain the fact that humans and chimps have non-synonymous mutations, and they are doing just fine? Are you saying that every single genetic difference between humans and chimps is deleterious?

I did never hear a description of a mutation, and then afterwards somebody said, verily, now we have a protein that functions better than the protein that God made.

1. Where did you demonstrate that God made it.

2. There are plenty of examples of improved function of proteins due to mutations. For example:

The EBG system of E. coli has served as a model for the evolution of novel functions. This paper reviews the experimental evolution of the catabolism of beta-galactoside sugars in strains of E. coli that carry deletions of the classical lacZ beta-galactosidase gene. Evolution of the ebgA encoded Ebg beta-galactosidase for an expanded substrate range, evolution of the ebgR encoded Ebg repressor for sensitivity to an expanded range of inducers, the amino acid replacements responsible for those changes, and the evolutionary potential of the system are discussed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12868605​

The improved coat color in mice that we have discussed before is yet another example.

Third, the dark allele is dominant over the light allele, consistent with observations of Mc1r mutations in the mouse (11, 16) and other organisms (21–25). In the laboratory mouse, loss-of-function mutations at Mc1r are recessive and result in light color, whereas gain-of-function alleles are dominant and result in dark color (16). All heterozygous mice observed at the Pinacate site are dark with unbanded hairs and are phenotypically similar to the homozygous dark mice.
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/9/5268.full​

Proteins are finetuned machines with functional domains.

Then why do we find homologous proteins with differen amino acid sequences and even different functions?

 

[Loudmouth]

I once had someone tell me to watch a roulette wheel until red or black comes up 4 times in a row then bet on the other colour and I would win.

That's why casinos put up those little boards showing the previous results. It entices bets without changing the vig.

 

[JasonClark]

And yet they all flock in like lemmings, or should that be Lemons?

When looked at rationally humans have got to be one of the dumbest animals on the planet yet we think we're so smart.

 

[USincognito]

For a creationist, there can be differentiation within a kind, example once there was (I guess) 2 dogs on the Ark, now there are thousands of types of dogs.

Actually there's about 150 recognized breeds of dog all of which belong to the same subspecies of wolf.

For an evolutionist divergence means that new kinds would erupt in the process of divergence. Example a dog changes into a cat,

I really wish Creationists would learn about evolution from actual scientific sources instead of Creationist ones. An extant taxa (C. lupus familiaris) evolving into another extant taxa (F catus) would actually falsify evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

I really wish Creationists would learn about evolution from actual scientific sources instead of Creationist ones. An extant taxa (C. lupus familiaris) evolving into another extant taxa (F catus) would actually falsify evolution.

Perhaps we should approach this common creationist canard with a different response. What they are trying to express is the amount of morphological change that they would expect to see, which isn't totally out of line. Of course, it would be handy to point out the differences between cats and dogs are due to millions of years of evolution, so they shouldn't expect the same change in 0.001% of that time frame.

Instead, we could point out that if there is that much of a morphological change in the descendants of modern dogs that they would still be dogs. You don't evolve out of your ancestry. What will happen over time is that the descendants of modern dogs will be more varied, but they will still be in the dog clade, even if the change is as drastic as the differences between modern cats and dogs.

 

[JasonClark]

I really wish Creationists would learn about evolution from actual scientific sources instead of Creationist ones.

That's never going to happen, if they did they would stop being creationists and they know it and that's the very last thing they want.

Creationists want their beliefs backed up by whatever means available, as lies are the only way of doing it they settle for lies and convince themselves it's the truth,
if they are able to fool themselves into believing as they do they have little or no problem with out and out lies sustaining that belief.