Peanut Butter Disproves Evolution!!

[random_guy]

Exactly yet the heart of evolution is mutation. Science as well as common sense tells us why "mutation creation" is bananas. When it comes down to it I seriously doubt many evolutionist actually believes what they preach.

I don't see the problem. Mutations help drive the change in allele frequencies. This is documented and we know mutations occur. However, "mutational paste"has nothing to do with the theory, but it's a gag. Why are you using a gag to attack evolution?

On the opposite side, Creationists are actually using banana and peanut butter as support for Creationism. Completely different things. I guess that's just another difference between us. We use scientific evidence, and you use gags.

 

[Parmenio]

Knowledge of evolutionary theory is not required to debate it, only tongue in cheek explanations of poorly understood concepts are required.

The issue is that these people have no real concept of what evolution is, and yet still say it isn't science.

As for the banana.... it isn't natural. At all. It is one of the many plants that we have bred to fit what we wanted from it. Wild "bananas" are barely edible, and are consistent almost entirely of hard seeds. So, you're right, it was designed: by us. Most everything that is grown and raised today is completely a product of human agriculture over the past several thousand years. Bananas are just one of many.

 

[hithesh]

Exactly yet the heart of evolution is mutation. Science as well as common sense tells us why "mutation creation" is bananas. When it comes down to it I seriously doubt many evolutionist actually believes what they preach.

lol, perhaps you should check out AiG site, to see what they think of "mutation creation":

Arguments creationist should not use:

“There are no beneficial mutations.”

This is not true, since some changes do confer an advantage in some situations. http://www.answersingenesis.com/home/area/faq/mutations.asp

“No new species have been produced.”

This is not true—new species have been observed to form.

......
So, are you going to go out and on a limb, and say that AiG, have now become evolutionist?

 

[laptoppop]

Arguments creationist should not use:

“There are no beneficial mutations.”

This is not true, since some changes do confer an advantage in some situations.

I agree -- but I'm still waiting for a SINGLE example of a significant beneficial mutation without any negative effects. For example, antibiotic resistance could be a benefit for particular bacterium, but AFAIK, when observed, it is typically accompanied with a negative effect, such as decreased motility.

I would not be surprised if any examples existed -- but I'm fascinated by their rareness if they do exist. Negative mutations abound and examples are readily available. At a minimum it seems like the ratio between negative and positive significant mutations is huge, let alone the neutral ones. One example given was a tribe with deformed feet -- while this may or may not be a "positive" mutation -- it sure isn't clearly a positive one. Again, there are lots of easy clear examples of major negative mutations -- how about some positive ones?

 

[random_guy]

I agree -- but I'm still waiting for a SINGLE example of a significant beneficial mutation without any negative effects. For example, antibiotic resistance could be a benefit for particular bacterium, but AFAIK, when observed, it is typically accompanied with a negative effect, such as decreased motility.

I would not be surprised if any examples existed -- but I'm fascinated by their rareness if they do exist. Negative mutations abound and examples are readily available. At a minimum it seems like the ratio between negative and positive significant mutations is huge, let alone the neutral ones. One example given was a tribe with deformed feet -- while this may or may not be a "positive" mutation -- it sure isn't clearly a positive one. Again, there are lots of easy clear examples of major negative mutations -- how about some positive ones?

I gave an example in the last thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=33777614&postcount=25

I don't think it was acknowledged.

 

[laptoppop]

I gave an example in the last thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=33777614&postcount=25

I don't think it was acknowledged.

If I read it properly (I looked on the web at the time) it was a gene manipulation experiment -- not a natural mutation. This doesn't show a whole lot.

 

[random_guy]

If I read it properly (I looked on the web at the time) it was a gene manipulation experiment -- not a natural mutation. This doesn't show a whole lot.

Well, the plan was to give an example, and then through your own work, follow the research it's based off of. There's a lot of research in this, including one strain that went through selective breeding for 14 years. What they found was pesticides lead to an increase in selecting mosquitos with a certain amplified gene (mutation that caused more copies). By using this technique, it allows them to understand how wild mosquitos have the same resistance.

There are wild mosquitos that also contain copies of the gene (although not as much as they were not breed in labs), but they undergone the selective pressure, too, due to the use of pesticides. So, unless you think that mosquitos have always had the same number of copies of genes, a mutation had to have occurred to cause gene duplication.

EDIT:

All this information is out there. Gene amplification is also a source of mutation, and a common result of pesticide/herbicide resistance. Try google scholaring gene amplification + cide. Part of being in the debate is to look up information and try to figure out how it supports/hurts your case. I think this difference (evolutionists constantly searching for new information through scientific articles vs. Creationists normally using the same information) is a key reason why those that are more educated are more likely to be evolutionists.

 

[hithesh]

I agree -- but I'm still waiting for a SINGLE example of a significant beneficial mutation without any negative effects. For example, antibiotic resistance could be a benefit for particular bacterium, but AFAIK, when observed, it is typically accompanied with a negative effect, such as decreased motility.

I would not be surprised if any examples existed -- but I'm fascinated by their rareness if they do exist.

The problem is what you're seeing as a "positive mutation", a lizards skin tone, which allows him to blend in with his environment, so that he is of low visibility to prey, is the product of a "positive mutation". All beneficial traits are a product of "positive mutations", so the examples are beyond abundant. If it wasn't for "positive mutations" then we would not even be here.

So, I'm not sure what you mean by "rareness".

A species of caterpillars, that are resistant to particular pesticides are the result of positive mutations. Scientist have actually observed finch beaks changing over time, depending upon changing food sources. Also not all bacterium that has developed resistance to antibiotics have an accompanied negative affect, that results in loss of fitness.

 

[gluadys]

Also not all bacterium that has developed resistance to antibiotics have an accompanied negative affect, that results in loss of fitness.

Even when a positive mutation such as resistance to antibiotics is accompanied by a negative effect there is no loss of fitness. The bacterium with resistance is still fitter than the one without as long as the antibiotic is present in the environment.

If there was an actual loss of fitness, there would be no positive selection.

One could theorize that the bacterium would be still more fit with resistance and without the accompanying negative effect, and that would be true. But until a new mutation deletes the negative effect without lowering resistance, the bacterium with resistance is the most fit.

 

[tanzanos]

I thank God that my ancestor was an ape and that I am not the result of incest (Eve with Kain or Abel). I would not be able to live with myself.

 

[Assyrian]

I thank God that my ancestor was an ape and that I am not the result of incest (Eve with Kain or Abel). I would not be able to live with myself.

I wouldn't set my hopes on the morality of our ancestors. I don't think dominant males apes have any problems about inbreeding.

Hi Tanzanos, welcome to OT.

 

[Assyrian]

Even when a positive mutation such as resistance to antibiotics is accompanied by a negative effect there is no loss of fitness. The bacterium with resistance is still fitter than the one without as long as the antibiotic is present in the environment.

If there was an actual loss of fitness, there would be no positive selection.

One could theorize that the bacterium would be still more fit with resistance and without the accompanying negative effect, and that would be true. But until a new mutation deletes the negative effect without lowering resistance, the bacterium with resistance is the most fit.

One of the interesting little details thrown up when they sequenced the macaque genome is that mutations which cause phenylketonuria and Sanfillipo syndrome in humans, are the normal form of the gene in macaques. So it is possible to have a mutation in a gene that causes serious negative effects by itself, but combined with other genes it is perfectly harmless.

 

[hithesh]

Even when a positive mutation such as resistance to antibiotics is accompanied by a negative effect there is no loss of fitness. The bacterium with resistance is still fitter than the one without as long as the antibiotic is present in the environment.

If there was an actual loss of fitness, there would be no positive selection.

So what if the bacterium devolops resistance, but it can no longer reproduce as quickly, would you consider this a neutral mutation? even though this can still lead to positive selection?

"Commonly, but not always, these mutations decrease the fitness of the bacteria, i.e., in environments where there are not antibiotics present, they don't reproduce as quickly as bacteria without the mutation. This is not always true; some of these mutations do not involve any loss of fitness."~talkorigins

 

[shernren]

One of the interesting little details thrown up when they sequenced the macaque genome is that mutations which cause phenylketonuria and Sanfillipo syndrome in humans, are the normal form of the gene in macaques. So it is possible to have a mutation in a gene that causes serious negative effects by itself, but combined with other genes it is perfectly harmless.

Alternatively, this shows that the phenotypic effects of the gene are not deleterious in the macaque's environmental context even though it is in ours. Either explanation shows how difficult it can be to quantify a gene's "fitness". It is rather easier to try to determine if a gene is being selected for, and how. But fitness can only be properly evaluated relative to the environment the phenotype finds itself in.

 

[shernren]

When it comes down to it I seriously doubt many evolutionist actually believes what they preach.

*hiss ... hiss* I find your lack of faith disturbing. *hiss ... hiss*

 

[theFijian]

Exactly yet the heart of evolution is mutation. Science as well as common sense tells us why "mutation creation" is bananas. When it comes down to it I seriously doubt many evolutionist actually believes what they preach.

Yet what Creationists think evolution is, and what evolution actually is, are usually quite different.

 

[vossler]

I thank God that my ancestor was an ape and that I am not the result of incest (Eve with Kain or Abel). I would not be able to live with myself.

Now this is exactly where evolution in Christianity leads us; thanking God we're a product of apes instead of men.

 

[Assyrian]

Shouldn't we thank God for the forefathers he gave us?

 

[vossler]

Shouldn't we thank God for the forefathers he gave us?

You're more than welcome to thank Him for your forefathers, the apes, I certainly won't be.

 

[gluadys]

So what if the bacterium devolops resistance, but it can no longer reproduce as quickly, would you consider this a neutral mutation? even though this can still lead to positive selection?

If there is positive selection, it is not neutral, it is advantageous.

"Commonly, but not always, these mutations decrease the fitness of the bacteria, i.e., in environments where there are not antibiotics present, they don't reproduce as quickly as bacteria without the mutation. This is not always true; some of these mutations do not involve any loss of fitness."~talkorigins

Note the qualifier. Remember that for the purposes of evolution, speed of reproduction is not the only indicator of fitness. So is survival of the offspring. When antibiotics are present, it is as if the non-resistant bacteria are held back in reproduction, not because they lose speed in reproduction, but because many fewer of the bacteria survive. So, even at the slower pace,the net production of resistant bacteria gains on that of the non-resistant bacteria.

But when the environment is free of antibiotics, the non-resistant bacteria are not hampered by an unusually high death toll, so their quicker reproduction time gives them the advantage.

Another reminder that "fitness" is not an absolute concept, but always in relation to environmental conditions. What is most fit in one circumstance is less fit in others.

Finally, we should note that this loss of fitness only occurs in some species. Somebody with the relevant information needs to steer laptoppop to one of those species where there is no loss of fitness accompanying resistance.