The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again..

[Sayre]

Ah...I see. Great tactic. When you find yourself being boxed into corners with questions that embarrass you, find an excuse to play the aggrieved victim...

Very sound.....very adult....

 

[bhsmte]

I told you your question was nonsensical. That's why.

Translation = I don't want to answer your question.

 

[biggles53]

Nah....he doesn't strike me as playground bully....I'm sticking with aggrieved victim....

 

[Smidlee]

I would rename macro evolution, call it reverse micro evolution, because it sounds like macro evolution is just a lot of micro evolution. Bu that's not what we are saying. We are saying you can derive species from a kind ie. you can get every species on earth from a few kinds, but you can not derive kinds from species.

In the development of the embryo, microevolution happens in the later end of development while macroevolution has to have changes in the early stages of development before the body plans are set. So macroevolution is not the same as microevolution as dGRN resist changes, as noted embryos only develop one way.
P.S Maybe I misunderstood you since you seem to disagree with the statement " Macro is a bunch of micro changes overtime."
It seems Davidson, even though believes dGRN were different in the past, disagrees with this as dGRN would need a lot of changes (rewiring ) at once.

Sorry for the confusion, but that is not what we mean by macro evolution. What we are saying is species can not give rise to kinds. You will never get a dog by mutating fish genes. The only thing you can derive from a species is another species of the same kind.

Exactly. They (Davidson and Marshall) agree with this as show in the lab but they still believe somehow things were different in the past. So they believe in evolution in spite of the evidence showed in the labs. This is what creationists have been saying all along.

 

[MarkT]

Genes are composed of DNA and DNA is composed of base pairs. There are only four base pairs that form the entirety of all genetic material. The same exact building blocks are used to make fish genes and dog genes.

Lets say their gene codes are:

Dog:ACCTTACATGGCC

Fish:ATGGTAGCATTCA

Obviously they are, in reality, MUCH longer than that.

If we to switch two base pairs around for fish:

Dog: ACCTTACATGGCC

Fish: ACCGTAGCATTCA

And again:

Dog: ACCTTACATGGCC

Fish: ACCTTAGCATTCC

Looking a lot closer?

This is what happens during mutations. Obviously on a MUCH more subtle and small level, but it happens none the less.

Of course I see what you are doing. You think you can get a dog by corrupting the fish genome. OK Go for it.

Prove me wrong. I said you can derive new species from a kind, but you can not derive a kind from a species.

To use a computer analogy, you can write a program for an operating system, but you can not change the operating system.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

In the development of the embryo, microevolution happens in the later end of development while macroevolution has to have changes in the early stages of development before the body plans are set. So macroevolution is not the same as microevolution as dGRN resist changes, as noted embryos only develop one way.

Except that both micro and macro result from mutations, and contrary to evolutionary theory 50+ years of actual mutational research (not theory) has shown mutations are incapable of explaining the creation of new genetic material. It also runs into the problem of recurring variations once a saturation limit is reached.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Mutation can result in several different types of change in sequences. Mutations in genes can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. Mutations can also occur in nongenic regions. One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggests that, if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms that have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#cite_note-Sawyer2007-4 Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to prevent or correct (revert the mutated sequence back to its original state) mutations."


Only mutations in the reproductive genes would ever hope to be passed on to the next generation. A mutation that changed the eye of an individual for example, would never be passed on to the next generation. The genes passed on from generation to generation originate in the gonads and gametes, and only from them.

You are asking random mutations not to change an existing individual to be more fit for conditions, but to change the reproductive genes to affect the next generation if individuals. Such reproduction process is poorly understood.

http://www.ssr.org/comm/pubaff/articles/Gene-targeting-in-repro.pdf

"or diagnostic purposes, some genetic analyses for known defects and other tests are conducted in fertility clinics. However, almost a quarter of infertility cases are idiopathic, depicting our lack of knowledge in the underlying mechanisms of reproduction."

You are asking that random mutation be selectively targeting to the reproductive genes to ensure the next generations survival, not the current generations. You are asking for directed application of a random process, a process that until the individual is born and experiences conditions in the world, its fitness is undetermined. Then if conditions change, you somehow again want a random mutation to occur in the individuals reproductive genes that will enable its offspring to better survivability, not that individual itself.

Yo want natural selection to operate in a directed manner, as if by intelligent design from a totally random process that must occur only in the reproductive genes, as any mutations in any other gene is completely useless in being passed on to the next generation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#cite_note-Bertram-1

 

[MarkT]

You got it.

Mr. Bigglesworth got it wrong as usual.

 

[biggles53]

Of course I see what you are doing. You think you can get a dog by corrupting the fish genome. OK Go for it.

Prove me wrong. I said you can derive new species from a kind, but you can not derive a kind from a species.

To use a computer analogy, you can write a program for an operating system, but you can not change the operating system.

And tell us......what's the definition of a "kind" this week.....?

 

[createdtoworship]

Study: 2 Million U.S. Scientists Identify As Evangelical | Christianity Today

we got 2 million on our side.

And if you question evangelicalism's views on evolution check here:

Commission on Creation

yes there are many evolutionists that are evangelical, but the majority is not and that was the reason for the paper

 

[biggles53]

Study: 2 Million U.S. Scientists Identify As Evangelical | Christianity Today

we got 2 million on our side.

And if you question evangelicalism's views on evolution check here:

Commission on Creation

yes there are many evolutionists that are evangelical, but the majority is not and that was the reason for the paper

So what...?

The purpose of this thread was to see if you, or any of your ilk, could describe a biological mechanism which would limit the extent to which mutations could occur.....NONE have been able to do so at this point...

And your contribution...? "We gots lotsa people what believe dumb stuff jest like us..."

 

[Kylie]

I don't care about all that.

Why does it not surprise me that you don't care about reality or facts?

I am stating that a universe that has only been in existence for 6000 years would be a viable non-biological barrier to evolution.

Are you telling me you don't agree with that???

I do agree with that. Evolution can't really occur in 6000 years. At least, not anything more than small changes.

But that's irrelevant to reality isn't it? Because we live in a universe much older than 6000 years.

 

[Kylie]

Do you guys like asking these kinds of questions?

If the Bible says 2+2=5 ...

If the Bible says Earth has existed for 5 billion years ...

Answering these kinds of questions just results in page after page of needless yakking.

*ahem*

 

[biggles53]

Missed this one earlier...

Good question, one to which science has no answer. Just as they have no answer as to why mutation, when it occurs beneficially (about 40,000:1 for plants and about 400,000:1 for animals), always reaches a saturation point and will not then produce any new variations, and is incapable of explaining the addition of new genetic material.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf


So I don't want to hear nature did it, or mutations just do it. I want to hear a valid scientific explanation as to why you ignore mutation research results for the last 50+ years and claim it has produced all the existing life from simple life, contrary to that research????????

Ok....let's give you the 400,000:1 ratio for beneficial mutations....I don't know if that's accurate or not, but let's give you the benefit.....

Right....each year, around 130 million babies are born. Estimates are that each one of those babies will have 100-200 mutations not present in either of their parents...let's again give you the benefit and take the low figure....thats a total of 13,000,000,000 mutations occurring.....13 billion...

Now, if you're assertion is correct and 1 in every 400,000 is beneficial, that's approximately 30,000 beneficialmutations entering the human genome every year...!!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Missed this one earlier...



Ok....let's give you the 400,000:1 ratio for beneficial mutations....I don't know if that's accurate or not, but let's give you the benefit.....

Right....each year, around 130 million babies are born. Estimates are that each one of those babies will have 100-200 mutations not present in either of their parents...let's again give you the benefit and take the low figure....thats a total of 13,000,000,000 mutations occurring.....13 billion...

Now, if you're assertion is correct and 1 in every 400,000 is beneficial, that's approximately 30,000 beneficialmutations entering the human genome every year...!!

Ok, let's give you those 30,000 beneficial mutations per year. Of those 30,000 beneficial mutations how many occur in the reproductive genes? Because ONLY those that occur in the reproductive genes have ANY hope of being passed on to the next generation. And since the vast majority of mutations are neutral or harmful, why are not mutations killing off populations? You want to ignore half the data since it doesn't fit your theory, and then pretend mutations in any gene but that of the reproductive system would be passed on. It DOES NOT work that way, only in your Fairie Dust theories.

It DOES NOT MATTER if a mutation increases an animals chance of survivability or chance to reproduce. Because that mutation will NEVER be passed on to the next generation UNLESS it occurs in the reproductive genes, and those mutations DO NOT benefit the current host in the slightest.

And that still does not get you around the problem of the creation of new genetic material or the fact that in EVERY SINGLE MUTATION STUDY, saturation limits are reached and then no new variations are EVER produced.

 

[Dizredux]

Ok, let's give you those 30,000 beneficial mutations per year. Of those 30,000 beneficial mutations how many occur in the reproductive genes? Because ONLY those that occur in the reproductive genes have ANY hope of being passed on to the next generation. And since the vast majority of mutations are neutral or harmful, why are not mutations killing off populations? You want to ignore half the data since it doesn't fit your theory, and then pretend mutations in any gene but that of the reproductive system would be passed on. It DOES NOT work that way, only in your Fairie Dust theories.

Interesting, can you give an example of someone on the forum or better yet in science who is saying that mutations in any gene would be passed on? Now we know that sometimes epigenetic markers are passed on but that is a different issue.

It DOES NOT MATTER if a mutation increases an animals chance of survivability or chance to reproduce. Because that mutation will NEVER be passed on to the next generation UNLESS it occurs in the reproductive genes, and those mutations DO NOT benefit the current host in the slightest.

I don't understand, what is the problem here? Of course only those changes that are available in replication would be passed on and if those changes make it more possible for the organism to reproduce then those traits will more likely to be passed on again.

And that still does not get you around the problem of the creation of new genetic material or the fact that in EVERY SINGLE MUTATION STUDY, saturation limits are reached and then no new variations are EVER produced.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you but I don't recall seeing this. Could you care to cite a few?


Dizredux

 

[Smidlee]

Ok, let's give you those 30,000 beneficial mutations per year. Of those 30,000 beneficial mutations how many occur in the reproductive genes?

He left out the rest of the story. Most deleterious mutations are "near-neutral" which means NS can't weed them out which greatly out number all other mutations. If you net-loss is much greater than your net-gain then it puts you in the red.
Some evolutionist reminds me of a gambler who spent $1000 to win $500 then going around bragging he won $500.

 

[createdtoworship]

So what...?

The purpose of this thread was to see if you, or any of your ilk, could describe a biological mechanism which would limit the extent to which mutations could occur.....NONE have been able to do so at this point...

And your contribution...? "We gots lotsa people what believe dumb stuff jest like us..."

We got lotsa scientists who believe in evangelicalism and a good majority who believe in creationism or Intelligent design that is the point. 2 million and counting. How many evolutionists r scientists?

 

[Chany]

We got lotsa scientists who believe in evangelicalism and a good majority who believe in creationism or Intelligent design that is the point. 2 million and counting. How many evolutionists r scientists?

I can't be sure if this is sarcastic or not, so I'll reply seriously:

It's hard to find an exact number, simply because it's pretty much all of them. I think it's around 95% of scientists, and even that seems low.

 

[biggles53]

Ok, let's give you those 30,000 beneficial mutations per year. Of those 30,000 beneficial mutations how many occur in the reproductive genes? Because ONLY those that occur in the reproductive genes have ANY hope of being passed on to the next generation. And since the vast majority of mutations are neutral or harmful, why are not mutations killing off populations? You want to ignore half the data since it doesn't fit your theory, and then pretend mutations in any gene but that of the reproductive system would be passed on. It DOES NOT work that way, only in your Fairie Dust theories.

It DOES NOT MATTER if a mutation increases an animals chance of survivability or chance to reproduce. Because that mutation will NEVER be passed on to the next generation UNLESS it occurs in the reproductive genes, and those mutations DO NOT benefit the current host in the slightest.

And that still does not get you around the problem of the creation of new genetic material or the fact that in EVERY SINGLE MUTATION STUDY, saturation limits are reached and then no new variations are EVER produced.

Nice rant....what a shame it misses it's target by a mile...!

Where do I claim that all of those 30,000 are germ line mutations...? Oh, that's right.....I didn't...!

But, how many do you think, on average, ARE heritable.........hmmmmm...?

 

[createdtoworship]

I can't be sure if this is sarcastic or not, so I'll reply seriously:

It's hard to find an exact number, simply because it's pretty much all of them. I think it's around 95% of scientists, and even that seems low.

presuppositions hurt all of us.

I would just stick with what you know.