The Myth of evolution

[Pete Harcoff]

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

Which two ways? How do new alleles arise in a gene pool if not by mutation?

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

But you're the one claiming that mutations are inadequate for evolution. But if you don't know the mutation rates, how can you make this claim?

Anyway, it's late here and I'm off to bed for now. I'll dig up some references tomorrow when I have more time.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

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.

Yes, this is the paper I was trying to find.

I also have a reference in mind that put the number of mutations in protein-coding DNA at around 1-4 (I don't remember the exact numbers) per genome per generation. I'll have to dig it up.

 

[mark kennedy]

Which two ways? How do new alleles arise in a gene pool if not by mutation?

I think you are aware that there is a discernable difference between mendilian genetics and the introduction of mutations which are copies of existing genetic sequences gone wrong.

But you're the one claiming that mutations are inadequate for evolution. But if you don't know the mutation rates, how can you make this claim?

It's simple really, they cannot handle to burden of proof. Rare and most often dangerous mutations cannot provide evolution with the demonstrated mechansim it so desperatly needs even if it occasionally has a beneficial effect.

Anyway, it's late here and I'm off to bed for now. I'll dig up some references tomorrow when I have more time.

I fully understand since I have a busy day ahead of me and behind me for that matter. We will talk of these things again, rest assured.

 

[Jet Black]

What exactly is to chart supposed to mean? ......it proves nothing.

pre-emptive judgement.

 

[Jet Black]

I think you are aware that there is a discernable difference between mendilian genetics and the introduction of mutations which are copies of existing genetic sequences gone wrong.

why are you comparing chalk and cheese mark? you keep going on about mendelian genetics, where this is merely models the inheritance patterns of different alleles already assumed to be present in the genome. mutations have nothing to do with this, except for the fact that mutations create those different alleles, on which mendelian inheritance works. Another problem with focussing so tightly on mendelian genetics is that in terms of phenotypical traits, it simply does not work; such effects as plieotropy, reduced penetrance and such render the phenotypical analysis of the majority of traits worthless in terms of a purely mendelian fashion. To be honest (as usual) I think you have latched onto something without fully understanding it.

 

[gluadys]

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.

This is such an incredible mish mash of misunderstandings of both mutations and Mendelian genetics. It looks like you took bits and pieces of each and rammed them together in a food processer till neither is recognizable.

Are you totally unaware that mutations are the basis for Mendels' findings?

Do you know what an allele is?

Can you describe a way for a new allele to form without involving mutations?

All variations rely ultimately on mutations. There can be a temporal difference between the occurrence of a mutation and the occurrence of a variation in the phenotype of an organism. But without mutations there is no possibility of variation.

 

[Minax]

Mark Kennedy -- don't you check the sources that people give you? It would be a good idea! By reading scientific papers, you'd both learn a LOT and you'd have a more appropriate response when evolutionists give you data that is obviously based very heavily on evolution's assumptions.

Given that I'm a Theistic Evolutionist (I wasn't always, but I converted simply because I DID read these scientific papers that clearly outline their assumptions -- not all assume this much) I agree with the paper's findings. However, if you had read the source, you would have found that they estimate 175 mutations per human given the following

Underlying the average mutation rate is heterogeneity in rates for different sites and for different classes of mutations. We calculated rates for different types of mutations on the basis of a divergence time of 5 mya, ancestral population size of 104, and generation time of 20 years

They basically compared the genes of a chimpanzee to humans, corrected to account for a common ancestor, and then used elementary math to calculate mutation rates.

Of course, the field of genetics that allows such comparisons is largely what lead me to Theistic Evolution, so I do urge you to read more actual articles on the topic (scientific articles, not the summary junk both sides of this debate spews) and you might find, as I did, that most of the evidence cited FOR evolution is quite compelling.

 

[gluadys]

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

You do realize that mutations are rare right?

Contradiction noted. If you don't know the rates of mutation, how do you know they are rare.

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

Please describe what you mean by rearrangements of genomic configurations.

 

[gluadys]

I think you are aware that there is a discernable difference between mendilian genetics and the introduction of mutations which are copies of existing genetic sequences gone wrong.

Mendelian genetics only explains the distribution of alleles. It does not explain the origin of alleles.

How do you account for the existence of alleles without mutations?

It's simple really, they cannot handle to burden of proof. Rare and most often dangerous mutations cannot provide evolution with the demonstrated mechansim it so desperatly needs even if it occasionally has a beneficial effect.

1. You have not substantiated that mutations are rare. You have not provided a refutation of the evidence presented to you that mutations are not rare.

2. You have not substantiated that all mutations are harmful. Most are neutral and some are beneficial. And even the terms harmful/neutral/beneficial are relative to the current environmental conditions. There is no such thing as a mutation which is harmful or beneficial in an absolute sense.

3. You are not considering the differential effect of natural selection on harmful and beneficial mutations.

 

[Asimov]

deleted.

 

[Skeptic Pete]

Why would you guys bother to debate someone who cannot even spell the words correctly?

evolutionionists ( even if he spelled it correctly it's not a real word)
creatonist (remind me of cretin?)
counterpaarts
requried.
Evoluotion (evil-ution?)
populare

 

[Jet Black]

Why would you guys bother to debate someone who cannot even spell the words correctly?

evolutionionists ( even if he spelled it correctly it's not a real word)
creatonist (remind me of cretin?)
counterpaarts
requried.
Evoluotion (evil-ution?)
populare

one can only debate with someone who knows what they are talking about. we are attempting to educate mark, however Morton's Demon is busy.

 

[Skeptic Pete]

fair enough....educate away.....

Don't like your chances though.

 

[Jet Black]

fair enough....educate away.....

Don't like your chances though.

I personally gave up a long time ago. he makes fundamental errors, gets corrected, and then repeats them.

 

[Tomk80]

Why would you guys bother to debate someone who cannot even spell the words correctly?

evolutionionists ( even if he spelled it correctly it's not a real word)
creatonist (remind me of cretin?)
counterpaarts
requried.
Evoluotion (evil-ution?)
populare

Because we will criticize peoples' arguments on the merit of the arguments, not on the writing skills of the person involved. Not everyone here is a spelling buff.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

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?

From the PubMed abstracted linked above:

"This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common."

Now what you have to realize is that most often the synergistic epistasis is offset by antagonistic and this was demonstrated to be not only consistant but log-linear. Just curious but what would you expect the effects of mutations to be in this scenerio:

"The most direct approach for determining the relationship between mutation number and fitness is to construct genotypes with different numbers of random mutations and measure their relative fitness. The bacterium E. coli provides an excellent system for this approach."

(Testofsynergistic interactions among deleterious mutations in bacteria,
Santiago F. Elena & Richard E. Lenski, Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing,Michigan 48824, USA)

 

[Tomk80]

From the PubMed abstracted linked above:

"This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common."

Now what you have to realize is that most often the synergistic epistasis is offset by antagonistic and this was demonstrated to be not only consistant but log-linear. Just curious but what would you expect the effects of deleterious mutations to be in this scenerio:

"The most direct approach for determining the relationship between mutation number and fitness is to construct genotypes with different numbers of random mutations and measure their relative fitness. The bacterium E. coli provides an excellent system for this approach."

(Testofsynergistic interactions among deleterious mutations in bacteria,
Santiago F. Elena & Richard E. Lenski, Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing,Michigan 48824, USA)

Correction in bold, because that is the only thing the article is researching.

 

[mark kennedy]

why are you comparing chalk and cheese mark? you keep going on about mendelian genetics, where this is merely models the inheritance patterns of different alleles already assumed to be present in the genome. mutations have nothing to do with this, except for the fact that mutations create those different alleles, on which mendelian inheritance works. Another problem with focussing so tightly on mendelian genetics is that in terms of phenotypical traits, it simply does not work; such effects as plieotropy, reduced penetrance and such render the phenotypical analysis of the majority of traits worthless in terms of a purely mendelian fashion. To be honest (as usual) I think you have latched onto something without fully understanding it.

We are discussing the differences between mutations and modifications. Now while it is presumed that mutations create the genetic load the effects of mutations are negative.

"Mutations are contrasted by modifications. The term describes changes in the phenotype that are caused by environmental influences...Modifications are very common, especially in plants...Today, it is common knowledge that the environment shapes the phenotype, but exerts no directed influence on the genotype...These mutagens have nearly without exception a negative outcome on the organism, their effect is time- and dose-dependent and often lethal."

Botany Online- Mendelian laws and mutations

Mutagens (the actual cause of mutations) are most often negative in their effects. Now what should I believe because we have two seemingly contradictory principle being taught. On the one hand in real world biology that only the phenotype is effected by mutations. One the other hand the imliacations of the universal common ancestor model is that genotypes are tranformed into alltogether new genotypes.

 

[mark kennedy]

Correction in bold, because that is the only thing the article is researching.

It is the effect of these deletreous mutations that is being examined and modern science has no answer for how living systems transformed from single celled asexual reproduction to sexual. There was no selective advantage found because that is not how things actually work in reality.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

We are discussing the differences between mutations and modifications. Now while it is presumed that mutations create the genetic load the effects of mutations are negative.

"Mutations are contrasted by modifications. The term describes changes in the phenotype that are caused by environmental influences...Modifications are very common, especially in plants...Today, it is common knowledge that the environment shapes the phenotype, but exerts no directed influence on the genotype...These mutagens have nearly without exception a negative outcome on the organism, their effect is time- and dose-dependent and often lethal."

IOW, these environmental modifications are NOT heritable. Therefore they can't be a source of new alleles. Unless you're advocating Lamarkism?

At this point, I'm really curious as to where you are going in this thread. One minute you're talking about Mendelian genetics, the next you're talking about environmental influence on phenotype development.