The Myth of evolution

[mark kennedy]

I have enjoyed watching the evolutionionists on here make fun of their creatonist counterpaarts but it never seems to match the burden of proof that is requried.

Evoluotion fails this on so many levels over the 150 years it has been populare it is not even funny anymore but here is a couple of points that you should be addressing.

1. The lack of a universal common ancestor.
2. The loss of mutations in the genetic strain to make evolution happen.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

1. The lack of a universal common ancestor.

I'm not sure your point here. Are you suggesting that a LUCA does not exist or a LUCA has not been identified?

2. The loss of mutations in the genetic strain to make evolution happen.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please elaborate.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm not sure your point here. Are you suggesting that a LUCA does not exist or a LUCA has not been identified?

I have no idea what you mean by LUCA.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please elaborate.

We are forever lost in how evolution manages to make the transitions that it is credited with. The only way it is even concievable is mutations that it is incapable of turning into a selective advantage. I was wondering what you thoutht was evolutions demonstrated mechancism.

 

[Ondoher]

I have enjoyed watching the evolutionionists on here make fun of their creatonist counterpaarts but it never seems to match the burden of proof that is requried. Evoluotion fails this on so many levels over the 150 years it has been populare it is not even funny anymore

And of course only you a handful of untrained people can see it.

but here is a couple of points that you should be addressing.

1. The lack of a universal common ancestor.

The universal common ancestor is something that is inferred, not found. As it is surely extinct, we would not expect to find it extant. As it would have been microscopic, we would not really expect to find fossils of it.

Here is just one way that common ancestry is inferred, this is a diagram showing how the various genetic codes (coding of codons into amino acids) can be linked back to a single ancestral code:

From this link: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/6249_pr89_10182001__di_fails_aga_10_18_2001.asp

2. The loss of mutations in the genetic strain to make evolution happen.

I'm not even sure what this means.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I have no idea what you mean by LUCA.

LUCA = Last universal common ancestor.

We are forever lost in how evolution manages to make the transitions that it is credited with. The only way it is even concievable is mutations that it is incapable of turning into a selective advantage. I was wondering what you thoutht was evolutions demonstrated mechancism.

You've been in the debate this long and you really think mutations aren't capable of being advantageous?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Btw, I'd also like to ask you, mark, if you can give me details on mutation rates in current organisms, relative to their genome sizes.

 

[mark kennedy]

What exactly is to chart supposed to mean? I am only curious because while it is all very interesting it proves nothing.

 

[mark kennedy]

Btw, I'd also like to ask you, mark, if you can give me details on mutation rates in current organisms, relative to their genome sizes.

Dude, what are you talking about? You do know that there is a difference between a mutation and a random variation right?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Dude, what are you talking about? You do know that there is a difference between a mutation and a random variation right?

Elaborate please.

 

[mark kennedy]

LUCA = Last universal common ancestor.

Thanks for that clarification.

You've been in the debate this long and you really think mutations aren't capable of being advantageous?

No, I never said that I just think they fail the burden of proof to provide the demonstrated mechanism that universal common ancestory needs.

 

[Ondoher]

What exactly is to chart supposed to mean? I am only curious because while it is all very interesting it proves nothing.

It demonstrates that the differences in genetic codings produce a phylogeny that matches other evolutionary phyloegnies and points to a single, ancestral code that existed in a single ancestral population.

 

[Risen Tree]

/me gets some popcorn and subscribes to this thread

 

[Ondoher]

Dude, what are you talking about? You do know that there is a difference between a mutation and a random variation right?

If mutation creates a heritable variation of an existing gene, what else would you call that but a new allele and random variation?

 

[mark kennedy]

Elaborate please.

A mutation is something that goes wrong in the transcription but a random varitation is something that happens in medelian variation. In other words there is something that is expected in creationism (alleles) and is discernably different then a transcription problem. A mutation is a mistake while a random variation is accountable by another explanation.

 

[mark kennedy]

If mutation creates a heritable variation of an existing gene, what else would you call that but a new allele and random variation?

Most often we would call it a defect and a random variation is very different since it is just how the chips fall.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

A mutation is something that goes wrong in the transcription but a random varitation is something that happens in medelian variation. In other words there is something that is expected in creationism (alleles) and is discernably different then a transcription problem. A mutation is a mistake while a random variation is accountable by another explanation.

Just so long as we're on the same page.

Once again, what are the mutation rates of modern organisms? Say, mammals, or bacteria, or whatever...

And how do you account for different alleles in a population if not by mutation?

 

[Ondoher]

Most often we would call it a defect and a random variation is very different since it is just how the chips fall.

Not all mutations are detrimental. Even if this were detrimental, but only marginally so, how would it not be random variation? It is random (as mutations are) and it is variation (different from other alleles).

 

[mark kennedy]

Just so long as we're on the same page.

Once again, what are the mutation rates of modern organisms? Say, mammals, or bacteria, or whatever...

And how do you account for different alleles in a population if not by mutation?

So you concede that there is a difference between the two ways of evolution happening? Am I right?

Now the actual rates I must admitt that I don't have but I am open to anything that you might have.

You're thoughts...

 

[mark kennedy]

Not all mutations are detrimental. Even if this were detrimental, but only marginally so, how would it not be random variation? It is random (as mutations are) and it is variation (different from other alleles).

You do realize that mutations are rare right? What you must also realize is that they are often confused with rearrangements of existing gemonic configurations.

 

[Ondoher]

You do realize that mutations are rare right?

This paper puts mutation rates at 175 per human: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10978293&dopt=Abstract.

That's not that rare, sorry.

What you must also realize is that they are often confused with rearrangements of existing gemonic configurations.

Rearangement of genes is a type of mutation, usually a translocation, or a duplication, or something similar. Again, how is a heritable mutation of an existing gene not a new allele and therefore nor random variation?