Reason why evolution can not happen

[shenzhou]

mutations are more harmful then productive. since that is a fact, evolution should be a downward spiral because of mutation.

There are more harmful than beneficial mutations but this isn't a problem for evolution because natural selection removes harmful mutations and preserves beneficial mutations meaning that evolution is not a 'downward spiral'.

Here are a few examples of beenficial mutations i have posted previously:

Interesting examples of beneficial mutations are those altering visual pigments. For example ultraviolet pigments in birds evolved from violet pigments by a single amino acid substituition (1) and independantly in 9 other lineages by various mutations (2). Natural selection has also acted to fix useful variants of the visual pigment rhodopsin in Lake Victoria cichlids (3,4).

Other examples of beneficial mutations include those that give rise to new genes, a well studies example is the SDIC gene is Drosophila melanogaster. This genes was formed by a duplication of two genes (a mutation) and then deletions fused them together to form a new gene (mutations) and then further mutations led to the gene we see today (5). This gene was then fixed in the population by natural selection (6) proving its beneficial nature.

Another example of a new gene is antifreeze gene in Antarctic fish, this genes was formed by duplication and then further mutation of a trypsinogen gene (7). Positive Darwinian selection has also been found to act on antifreeze proteins (8).

One of the best ways to detect positive mutations is to look for the signature that natural selection leaves in the genome as it acts to fix beneficial mutations in the population, this process is referred to as positive selection. Natural selection for favourable mutations has been found in many genes in the human genome (9) including many brain/neural related genes and developmental genes. An interesting example is the lactase gene in people of northern European origin that allows milk to be digested properly in adulthood which is an allele of recent origin that has been naturally selected for (10) and g6pd a gene involved in malaria resistance (11). It is also ubiquitus in immune system genes (12) and fertilisation related genes (13). Natural selection has also been found to act on many different beneficial mutations in many species other than humans (14).

Some more beneficial mutations fixed by positive Darwinian selection:

Glycoconj J. 2002 Aug-Sep;19(7-9):451-8. The speciation of conger eel galectins by rapid adaptive evolution. Ogawa T, Shirai T, Shionyu-Mitsuyama C, Yamane T, Kamiya H, Muramoto K.

Mol Biol Evol. 2004 Jan 22 Rapid Evolution of a Pollen-Specific Oleosin-Like Gene Family from Arabidopsis Thaliana and Closely Related Species. Schein M, Yang Z, Mitchell-Olds T, Schmid KJ.

J Mol Evol. 2004 Jan;58(1):54-63. Likelihood analysis of the chalcone synthase genes suggests the role of positive selection in morning glories (Ipomoea). Yang J, Gu H, Yang Z.

Hum Mol Genet. 2004 Jan 13 Adaptive evolution of ASPM, a major determinant of cerebral cortical size in humans. Evans PD, Anderson JR, Vallender EJ, Gilbert SL, Malcom CM, Dorus S, Lahn BT.

particularly important as it shows that mutations giving rise to human specific features such as large brain size were fixed in the human species by natural selection. see also:

Nature. 2002 Aug 22;418(6900):869-72. Epub 2002 Aug 14. Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language. Enard W, Przeworski M, Fisher SE, Lai CS, Wiebe V, Kitano T, Monaco AP, Paabo S.

(1) Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Jun 20;97(13):7366-71.Ultraviolet pigments in birds evolved from violet pigments by a single amino acid change. Yokoyama S, Radlwimmer FB, Blow NS.
(2) Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Jul 8;100(14):8308-13. Epub 2003 Jun 24. Molecular analysis of the evolutionary significance of ultraviolet vision in vertebrates.Shi Y, Yokoyama S.
(3) Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Oct;19(10):1807-11. Natural selection of the rhodopsin gene during the adaptive radiation of East African Great Lakes cichlid fishes. Sugawara T, Terai Y, Okada N.
(4) Terai Y, Mayer WE, Klein J, Tichy H, Okada N. The effect of selection on a long wavelength-sensitive (LWS) opsin gene of Lake Victoria cichlid fishes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Nov 26;99,24,:15501-6. Epub 2002 Nov 15.
(5) Genetica. 2003 Jul;118(2-3):233-44. Origin and evolution of a new gene expressed in the Drosophila sperm axoneme. Ranz JM, Ponce AR, Hartl DL, Nurminsky D.
(6) Science. 2001 Jan 5;291(5501):128-30. Chromosomal effects of rapid gene evolution in Drosophila melanogaster. Nurminsky D, Aguiar DD, Bustamante CD, Hartl DL.
(7) Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Apr 15;94(8):3811-6.Evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein gene from a trypsinogen gene in Antarctic notothenioid fish. Chen L, DeVries AL, Cheng CH.
(8) J Mol Evol. 2002 Mar;54(3):403-10. Positive darwinian selection promotes heterogeneity among members of the antifreeze protein multigene family. Swanson WJ, Aquadro CF.

(9) Karl C. Diller, William A. Gilbert, and Thomas D. Kocher. Selective Sweeps in the Human Genome: A Starting Point for Identifying Genetic Differences Between Modern Humans and Chimpanzees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19(12):2342–2345. 2002.​

(10) Am J Hum Genet. 2001 Jan;68(1):160-172. Epub 2000 Nov 28. Lactase haplotype diversity in the Old World. Hollox EJ, Poulter M, Zvarik M, Ferak V, Krause A, Jenkins T, Saha N, Kozlov AI, Swallow DM.
(11) Genetics. 2002 Dec;162(4):1849-61. Nucleotide variability at G6pd and the signature of malarial selection in humans. Saunders MA, Hammer MF, Nachman MW.

(12) J Evol Biol. 2003 May;16(3):363-77. MHC studies in nonmodel vertebrates: what have we learned about natural selection in 15 years? Bernatchez L, Landry C.
(13) Nat Rev Genet. 2002 Feb;3(2):137-44. The rapid evolution of reproductive proteins. Swanson WJ, Vacquier VD.​

(14) Ford MJ. Applications of selective neutrality tests to molecular ecology. Mol Ecol. 2002 Aug;11(8):1245-62. Review.A​

 

[Arikay]

Soy: There is a lot of great information that has been given to you here. Might I recomend holding back on the statements for awhile and listening? You have a great resource of information just in this thread, please dont ignore it.

 

[pureone]

Soy: There is a lot of great information that has been given to you here. Might I recomend holding back on the statements for awhile and listening? You have a great resource of information just in this thread, please dont ignore it.

 

[soysauce]

natural selection preserves the organism and does not make it evolve.

 

[soysauce]

so if u believe that we evolve, prove it to me in geology.

 

[Jet Black]

Mutation is a loss of information, not gain

this is quite blatantly false. Mutations increase the genetic vatiation in the population and natural selection weeds out the examples which are detrimental to general life. You have not provided any definition of information, and even the greatest proponents of Intelligent Design and Creationism such as the heads of AIG and so on run away when asked what information is.

 

[pureone]

natural selection preserves the organism and does not make it evolve.

Right. Naturals selection is the method of weeing out the good and bad mutations. if a mutation help the survival of an organism within it's immediate environment, then it is good and nature selects for it. If it is a non- beneficial or disease causeing mutation, then nature selects against it.

 

[Jet Black]

natural selection preserves the organism and does not make it evolve.

natural selection removes the least fit organisms and preserves the best ones in the environment. It is not always a significant force though, and in this case then mutations can increase the variation of the population.

 

[pureone]

so if u believe that we evolve, prove it to me in geology.

Do you mean you want proof of huamn evolution or just any evidince of any speciation with transition fossils in general?

 

[Jet Black]

Another point to prove that mutations increase variation, regardless of your religious opinion, is the fact that for many genes, there are more than four alleles. If mutations cannot increase variation, then there should only be four alleles at maximum for each gene in humans if we were descended from Adam and Eve. The same is true for Animals on the ark: for all the unclean animals there should me a maximum of four alleles, for all the clean ones, a maximum of 14. There are many genes with many more alleles than those. This variation has to come from somewhere, and barring miracles, the only source left for this variation, is mutations.

 

[Arikay]

I see that not only did you ignore what I said (about not making statements but listening) you dont quite understand what you are talking about.

Natural selection selects what mutation will continue on. Harmful mutations are least likely to be selected because they are most likely to get the organism killed before it has a chance to have offspring, or have lots of offspring. Thus natural selection weeds out harmful mutations.

Im still waiting for a definition of what a "feature."

natural selection preserves the organism and does not make it evolve.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

natural selection preserves the organism and does not make it evolve.

It's a multi-step process. First, you have reproduction, in which the resulting offspring has a different genetic makeup than its parents (via mutation and genetic recombination), followed by natural selection on that population of offspring (which acts as a filter to determine which of those offspring will in turn pass their genes on to subsequent generations).

Btw, it should probably be pointed out that populations of organisms evolve, not individuals.

 

[Hydra009]

irish, thats like saying "if i pull out my teeth, i wont get cavities"

Soysauce, you never answered my question about mutations. If no mutations can be beneficial, then why does the genetically-inherited sickle cell anemia provide the individual with more resistance to malaria than is found in non-sickle cell individuals.

Or take the example of camoflague. Is this not a benefical mutation?

 

[FEZZILLA]

Gen.1:1 is a big problem for evolutionist. The bible seems to point out the fact the God designed everything. Whether He used a natural process or a special process to create, God is the creator has mentioned in Genesis.
Why trust Darwin over Moses? Moses had all the knowledge of the Egyptians plus a one on one relationship with God. Moses also knew about Joseph who was a governer of Egypt. These people had a knowledge that Darwin could not match. Darwin did alot of guess work and failed in everything he ever did. He called Micro-evolution, Macro. The Hebrews knew it was God and so they wrote about it.

Isaiah 40:22 is hard core science. Isaiah was one of the greatest of all the old testament prophets. To call this verse a 2-d flat object is to be completely stupid and ignorant in the highest degree of all pathetic impulses that carve the words "porpusely blinded." The Hebrews used the word "circle" to decribe any round object. The word sphere was not in the Hebrew diction. If you look up "round" in the bible you'll see a broad definition:Ball, Circle, or Sphere.

Job 26:7 descibes the earth suspended over nothing.
While Job:26:10 describes the equator.

In all realms of realness, this is academical proof of Gods existence. anyone who denies after reading this scientific biblical proof is only fooling yourself (purposely). Relativist are people who feel they need their dope, free-sex, and make-it-all-up-as-you-go morality. They reject God because they don't want to acknowledge the right and wrong factor of the 10-commandments.

I truely hope that somebody on this board gets this. Im getting tired of repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over again.
Im just hoping just one atheist will understand and realize that Christ is really the Lord.

 

[Nathan Poe]

so if u believe that we evolve, prove it to me in geology.

You want us to use geology to prove biology?

You haven't just shifted the goalposts, you've torn them down and announced a cricket match...

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Gen.1:1 is a big problem for evolutionist. The bible seems to point out the fact the God designed everything. Whether He used a natural process or a special process to create, God is the creator has mentioned in Genesis.

Okay, so God made stuff. How is this a problem for evolutionists again?

 

[jluke]

It is easy to make broad statements about a subject you really have not studied, if you are near a university, you should take or audit a class on invertebrate paleontology, it may change your mind about evolution.
When you all are talking about belief in God, do you mean belief in Yahweh? Would someone who believes in another creator still be considered as believing in God?

 

[billwald]

"The Hebrews used the word "circle" to decribe any round object. The word sphere was not in the Hebrew diction. If you look up "round" in the bible you'll see a broad definition:Ball, Circle, or Sphere."

Evdence that ancent Hebrew was not satsfactory for techncal discusson.

 

[David Gould]

You want us to use geology to prove biology?

You haven't just shifted the goalposts, you've torn them down and announced a cricket match...

There's a Christian Forums cricket match? Cool. Who's batting first?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Gen.1:1 is a big problem for evolutionist. The bible seems to point out the fact the God designed everything.

It's a fact because the Bible says it?

Whether He used a natural process or a special process to create, God is the creator has mentioned in Genesis.

Not even Darwin denied that. As you said, the only issue is how He did it.

Why trust Darwin over Moses? Moses had all the knowledge of the Egyptians plus a one on one relationship with God. Moses also knew about Joseph who was a governer of Egypt. These people had a knowledge that Darwin could not match. Darwin did alot of guess work and failed in everything he ever did. He called Micro-evolution, Macro. The Hebrews knew it was God and so they wrote about it.

Whoa... where to begin...

First of all, why are you dragging Moses into this? It's plainly obvious that Moses did not write Genesis.

Let us assume that the same writer wrote the other four books of the Pentaleuch (sp?). Let us also assume, for a giggle, that this person was the man we know as "Moses." The fact that the writing style is so radically different, the themes so divergent, that once we take the theology blinders off, a literary critic with shoe polish for brains could deduce that someone else wrote Genesis.

Second, Darwin's "guess work" as you call it, was at least the result of hisown observation. When exactly did God "reveal" his little creation story to Moses?
The burning bush? In between plagues of Egypt?

Was God even speaking to Moses at this point? Every other book of the Pentaleuch swats us over the head with their conversations: "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying..." appears everywhere else in the Pentaleuch, but nowhere in Genesis.

So let's not drop a name like Moses unless it's relevent.

Isaiah 40:22 is hard core science. Isaiah was one of the greatest of all the old testament prophets. To call this verse a 2-d flat object is to be completely stupid and ignorant in the highest degree of all pathetic impulses that carve the words "porpusely blinded." The Hebrews used the word "circle" to decribe any round object. The word sphere was not in the Hebrew diction. If you look up "round" in the bible you'll see a broad definition:Ball, Circle, or Sphere.

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. --Isaiah 40:22

the problem here is that the curtain and tent similes simply would not work on a 3-D object such as a sphere. The passage clearly says that the Earth is a circle, and it is on a circle, a flat circle, that crtains and tents are more apt to fit.

So, you can admit that a circle is not a sphere, (although both are indeed round) or admit that "The Word of God" uses symbolic language (in this case tents and curtains) poorly.

Job 26:7 descibes the earth suspended over nothing.
While Job:26:10 describes the equator.

As you yourself said, Moses was taught by the Egyptians, who were, bar none, the best astronomers of their time. Nothing in the passages mentioned would be particularly shocking to any such educated civilization, even an ancient one.

In all realms of realness, this is academical proof of Gods existence. anyone who denies after reading this scientific biblical proof is only fooling yourself (purposely).

And at what point did you make the leap from a handful of scientific facts to the existence of God?

Relativist are people who feel they need their dope, free-sex, and make-it-all-up-as-you-go morality. They reject God because they don't want to acknowledge the right and wrong factor of the 10-commandments.

Since you have nothing to support your argument, you now completely shift the topic to some good old-fashioned Atheist-bashing. How tedious.

I truely hope that somebody on this board gets this. Im getting tired of repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over again.

Ditto.

Im just hoping just one atheist will understand and realize that Christ is really the Lord.

Well, they're not going to realize it here.