The Myth of evolution

[Tomk80]

New alleles are produced as a result of meiosis and represent changes of the existing gene pool.

Meiosis produces a cell with n chromosomes. On these chromosomes are the alleles. Now, if there is a change in the existing gene pool this means that an already existing allele would have changed. We are asking you how this happened.

Now if a mutation could produce a new gene then it might be considered an allele but most often a mutation is nothing more then a rare transcription error.

In other words, if a mutation occurs in an allele, the allele changes. So new alleles are arrived at through mutation.

An allele is not a transcription error and a mutation is not an improvement of the existing gene pool. I don't know what is so confusing about this since it's all readily disernable.

No, an allele is one form of an existing gene. An allele where a transcription error has occurred to produce a point mutation would create a new allele.
The only thing which is confusing is your lack of understanding of genetics.

 

[mark kennedy]

Malthusian philosophy does not insist that living systems be on the brink of extinction. Nor is evolution restricted to species on the brink of extinction. Evolution can and does happen in lush environments. In fact, one of the reasons lush environments exhibit so much diversity is because they offer a wide variety of ecological niches to fill.

Malthusian philosophy insists that populations grow geometriclly and as the resourses are depleted the competition for resourses result in the extinction of inferior individules with natural selection preserving the favored races. This stands in stark contrast to what actually happens in nature since scarcity tends to produce a bottleneck of genes expressed so scarcity retards evolution.

In fact, the other interesting thing about lush tropical environments is that the actual number of individuals in a population can be quite small and scattered, in contrast to the large herds of the African savannahs for example. Or the huge herds of bison that used to roam the American plains. Same with plant life. Large boreal forests consist mostly of relatively similar coniferous trees vs. the many different types of trees found in the tropics.

All evolution requires of populations is that they produce more offspring than can survive to reproduce. This happens in large as well as small populations, in lush areas as well as harsh environments.

What I was thinking of is the diversity in places like rain forests and jungles. In Veitnam they are begining to find new species that have never been seen before. Now I do understand that adaptation happens in all but the rarest of circumstances but mutations have nothing to do with it. Most often natural selection eliminates mutations and the only real problem with this is the building of the genetic code that would be essential for the universal common ancestor to be anything other then a myth.

 

[mark kennedy]

Meiosis produces a cell with n chromosomes. On these chromosomes are the alleles. Now, if there is a change in the existing gene pool this means that an already existing allele would have changed. We are asking you how this happened.

The only change in the existing gene pool is the rearrangement of existing genes. Mutations are assumed to be driving evolution and it is true at a microevoltutionary level. The fact is that you are presuming a big if.

In other words, if a mutation occurs in an allele, the allele changes. So new alleles are arrived at through mutation.

And as I have insisted and demonstrated is that these mutations do not represent a demonstrated mechanism for evoltution.

No, an allele is one form of an existing gene. An allele where a transcription error has occurred to produce a point mutation would create a new allele.
The only thing which is confusing is your lack of understanding of genetics.

I never said that there is never a contribution made by a mutation just that there is no need for a mutation to create an allele.

 

[Tomk80]

Malthusian philosophy insists that populations grow geometriclly and as the resourses are depleted the competition for resourses result in the extinction of inferior individules with natural selection preserving the favored races.

So scarcity according what you write here would lead to the extinction of species.

This stands in stark contrast to what actually happens in nature since scarcity tends to produce a bottleneck of genes expressed so scarcity retards evolution.

Yes, you said so in the preceding sentence. I do not see the contrast, but maybe that's just me. A population grows untill the resources are depleted after which sources get extinct.

What I was thinking of is the diversity in places like rain forests and jungles. In Veitnam they are begining to find new species that have never been seen before. Now I do understand that adaptation happens in all but the rarest of circumstances but mutations have nothing to do with it. Most often natural selection eliminates mutations and the only real problem with this is the building of the genetic code that would be essential for the universal common ancestor to be anything other then a myth.

Your going off topic here Mark. The point of discussion was whether lush tropical environments with lots of species are in accordance with evolution. Answer is yes, they are. As you yourself so aptly demonstrated with your description of malthusian philosophy.

 

[Tomk80]

The only change in the existing gene pool is the rearrangement of existing genes. Mutations are assumed to be driving evolution and it is true at a microevoltutionary level. The fact is that you are presuming a big if.

No, existing genes are also changed to form new alleles. Even in your scenario this has to happen. So how does it happen if not by mutation Mark?

And as I have insisted and demonstrated is that these mutations do not represent a demonstrated mechanism for evoltution.

Insisted yes. Demonstrated no.

I never said that there is never a contribution made by a mutation just that there is no need for a mutation to create an allele.

Well, name some other mechanisms. Rearrangement of existing genes does not create new alleles.

 

[gluadys]

New alleles are produced as a result of meiosis and represent changes of the existing gene pool. Now if a mutation could produce a new gene then it might be considered an allele but most often a mutation is nothing more then a rare transcription error. An allele is not a transcription error and a mutation is not an improvement of the existing gene pool. I don't know what is so confusing about this since it's all readily disernable.

Meiosis is the process of cell division which reduces the diploid number of chromosomes to the haploid number of chromosomes. That is not a mechanism for producing new alleles.

Since meiosis (like mitosis, the more usual form of cell replication) involves making copies of chromosomes (and that means making copies of the genes), then a transcription error can occur during meiosis.

But it is the transcription error which introduces the change in the DNA, not the process of meiosis itself. Meiosis can occur without transcription errors occurring at the same time.

A mutation does not have to produce a new gene to produce a new allele. What it has to do is produce a change in an existing gene.

A transcription error introduces such a change in an existing gene. The changed gene is a new allele.

Doesn't make any difference whether it is an improvement or not. It is still a new allele.

I don't know how you can tangle yourself up in such confusion as your post represents either.

 

[gluadys]

Malthusian philosophy insists that populations grow geometriclly and as the resourses are depleted the competition for resourses result in the extinction of inferior individules with natural selection preserving the favored races. This stands in stark contrast to what actually happens in nature since scarcity tends to produce a bottleneck of genes expressed so scarcity retards evolution.

Partially right. What you are forgetting is that you can end up with an equilibrium. Suppose a certain ecological niche can support a population of 100,000. Suppose the population regularly produces, on average, 300,000 offspring per generation.

As long as 200,000 die without reproducing, the population remains within the carrying capacity of its environment and the resources are not depleted.

You are right in saying that scarcity can reduce the carrying capacity of the ecological niche and result in a reduced population, even to the point of a bottleneck.

But the normal effect of natural selection is to keep the population in equilbrium with its resource base. It also encourages adaptations to different ecological niches to reduce the pressure on the current resource base.

What I was thinking of is the diversity in places like rain forests and jungles. In Veitnam they are begining to find new species that have never been seen before. Now I do understand that adaptation happens in all but the rarest of circumstances but mutations have nothing to do with it. Most often natural selection eliminates mutations and the only real problem with this is the building of the genetic code that would be essential for the universal common ancestor to be anything other then a myth.

That's what I was thinking of too. There are a lot more ecological niches in a sub-tropical jungle than in a desert or prairie or tundra. So you get many more species, and the jungles are just beginning to be systematically explored, so we can expect many new discoveries to be made as long as they are not clear-cut too fast.

How does adaptation occur without mutations?

Sure natural selection eliminates mutations. But it also preserves and spreads beneficial mutations. This has been observed Mark; it's not imagination. That is the basis of adaptation. Besides "adaptation" is just a creationist smokescreen term for "evolution". The mechanism for adaptation is evolution. May as well be honest and call it what it is.

 

[gluadys]

The only change in the existing gene pool is the rearrangement of existing genes.

You still have not explained what you mean by a "rearrangement" of existing genes. What is the mechanism of rearrangement, and what is the effect?

Mutations are assumed to be driving evolution and it is true at a microevoltutionary level.

(Emphasis added)

And since there is no difference between the mechanisms of evolution within species and between species, what is true at the micro-evolutionary level is true of all evolution.

And as I have insisted and demonstrated is that these mutations do not represent a demonstrated mechanism for evoltution.

Actually, you just admitted above that they do.

I never said that there is never a contribution made by a mutation just that there is no need for a mutation to create an allele.

So, what mechanism other than mutation creates a new allele?

 

[Jet Black]

New alleles are produced as a result of meiosis and represent changes of the existing gene pool.

wrong. meiosis results in the separation of chromatids, and results in the production of a haploid cell. If crossing over occurs in the middle of a gene, then it may result in a new allele, but crossing over is itself a mutational type.

Now if a mutation could produce a new gene then it might be considered an allele but most often a mutation is nothing more then a rare transcription error.

That is a nonsensical statement.

The use of the word "but" usually indicates a contrary case or an exception to the case being presented prior to the "but". A definition of an allele is a particular variant of a gene at a particular locus on a chromosome. a transcription error results in a new variant of that particular gene, and is by definition a new allele.

It's like saying "an error in the paint mixer might be considered a new colour but most often, an error is nothing more than a different mix of paint" a different mix of paint is by definition a new colour.

your use of transcription error is also incorrect, since transcription is the process in which RNA is synthesized from DNA. normally a transcription error would only result in a single faulty RNA strand, which would have a limited effect.

An allele is not a transcription [sic] error #

alleles are the result of copying errors i.e. DNA copying processes in which an exact copy of the original gene is not made.

If you still object, then please tell me why a new version of a gene (i.e. a new allele) at a particular locus, which has occured as the result of changes to its sequence is not a new allele, and also please back this up with your definition of allele.

and a mutation is not an improvement of the existing gene pool. I don't know what is so confusing about this since it's all readily disernable.

I don't see how you are making this statement.

The decision as to whether a mutation is an improvement in the gene pool or not is purely the result of environmental factors, so you cannot categorically deny that a mutation is an improvement in the gene pool. It is only not an improvement if it causes a detrimental effect on the breeding success of that organism*. In the case of the nylon oligomer, a mutation in a gene there was an improvement in that gene pool since it allowed that bacterium to survive in an otherwise lethal environment. Further mutations of this gene then resulted in a twohundredfold increase in the efficiency of the gene, again the judgement was by the environment.

*hymenoptera and other eusocial organisms aside.

 

[anunbeliever]

People here seem to be arguing semantics. Mark says that 'mutations' are detrimental and rarely inherited as they cause disadvantage. Others argue that 'mutation' is a term covering all changes to alleles. Mark seems to indicate that another mechanism is at work. But others here say the "other mechanism" can be described as a form of mutation.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

New alleles are produced as a result of meiosis and represent changes of the existing gene pool. Now if a mutation could produce a new gene then it might be considered an allele but most often a mutation is nothing more then a rare transcription error. An allele is not a transcription error and a mutation is not an improvement of the existing gene pool. I don't know what is so confusing about this since it's all readily disernable.

It's confusing, because it appears you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm going to bring out a concrete example of a gene variant (allele) in a population which conveys a benefit, in an effort to see if you can explain how it would have gotten there if not by mutation.

There's a gene in humans called CCR5. It produces chemokine receptors that exist in the membranes of white blood cells and allow for the binding of chemokines to said white blood cells. (Chemokines are chemicals that direct white blood cells to sources of infection.)

Now, the HIV virus happens to use CCR5 chemokine receptors as a coreceptor for infection of certain white blood cells called helper T-cells. This is why HIV decimates a person's immune system.

Which brings me to this: The coreceptor mutation CCR5(delta)32 influences the dynamics of HIV epidemics and is selected for by HIV. What this article details is a variant of the CCR5 gene (CCR5 delta 32; characterized by a deletion of 32 base pairs), which conveys resistance to HIV (particularly among those with 2 copies of the gene). It also discusses selection for this gene in populations with HIV infection present.

My question is this: Where did this variation on the CCR5 gene come from? If not by mutation (in this case, deletion of 32 base pairs), what other possible mechanism could produce this variant gene? And if this gene variant conveys a benefit (in light of HIV), then does this not constitute a *gasp* beneficial mutation?

I await your explanation for this.

(Note: If I pooched a description somewhere, please correct me.)

 

[Pete Harcoff]

People here seem to be arguing semantics. Mark says that 'mutations' are detrimental and rarely inherited as they cause disadvantage. Others argue that 'mutation' is a term covering all changes to alleles. Mark seems to indicate that another mechanism is at work. But others here say the "other mechanism" can be described as a form of mutation.

I think part of the confusion stems from the fact that mark appears to be arguing about the variation of allele frequencies in a population as opposed to variation on genes themselves.

In the example I just posted, you have people with two CCR5 genes, 1 CCR5 and 1 CCR5d32 gene, and 2 CCR5d32 genes. This is a variation in the frequency of these genes in a population. However, none of this governs the where the two versions of these genes appeared in the first place.

 

[mark kennedy]

It's confusing, because it appears you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm going to bring out a concrete example of a gene variant (allele) in a population which conveys a benefit, in an effort to see if you can explain how it would have gotten there if not by mutation.

There's a gene in humans called CCR5. It produces chemokine receptors that exist in the membranes of white blood cells and allow for the binding of chemokines to said white blood cells. (Chemokines are chemicals that direct white blood cells to sources of infection.)

Now, the HIV virus happens to use CCR5 chemokine receptors as a coreceptor for infection of certain white blood cells called helper T-cells. This is why HIV decimates a person's immune system.

Which brings me to this: The coreceptor mutation CCR5(delta)32 influences the dynamics of HIV epidemics and is selected for by HIV. What this article details is a variant of the CCR5 gene (CCR5 delta 32; characterized by a deletion of 32 base pairs), which conveys resistance to HIV (particularly among those with 2 copies of the gene). It also discusses selection for this gene in populations with HIV infection present.

My question is this: Where did this variation on the CCR5 gene come from? If not by mutation (in this case, deletion of 32 base pairs), what other possible mechanism could produce this variant gene? And if this gene variant conveys a benefit (in light of HIV), then does this not constitute a *gasp* beneficial mutation?

I await your explanation for this.

(Note: If I pooched a description somewhere, please correct me.)

Well here is one explanation that they were not actually looking at but made mention of:

"In comparison, heterosexual epidemics in developed, market-economy countries have not reached such severe levels."

Congradulations you found a beneficial mutation in the area of virus resistance. I have a more elaborate response but I lost my connection when I was writting it. I'll just add this small quote and see where it goes from there.


"Homozygous mutations for this 32-bp deletion offer almost complete protection from HIV infection, and heterozygous mutations are associated with lower pre-AIDS viral loads and delayed progression to AIDS "

 

[Ron21647]

There is a web site you should check out about Evolution being a myth.

www.drdino.com

I'm a Magic Rock Ape.

Ron

 

[Asimov]

There is a web site you should check out about Evolution being a myth.

www.drdino.com

You might as well remove your brain out of your nose.

 

[Novaknight1]

If you're refering to Lucy, it was shown to be purely ape. Of course, that fact was suppressed by the media.

 

[Event Horizon]

If you're refering to Lucy, it was shown to be purely ape. Of course, that fact was suppressed by the media.

Name one scientific resource that says that.

 

[Novaknight1]

Evolution and Christianity are incompatible, though.

Creation says plants came before the Sun.
Creation says humans were coexistant with dinosaurs.
Creation says light shown on Earth, but not from the Sun.

At least, Biblical Creation does.

 

[Event Horizon]

Evolution and Christianity are incompatible, though.

Not according to the majority of Christians. A flat earther could say the same about a round earth, but you are able to believe the world isn't flat. It's the same with a Christian evolutionist. Can you tell who you are addressing or replying to next time, please?

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Evolution and Christianity are incompatible, though.

No they are not. Saying they are incompatable you say that TEs are not true Chrisitans and break the site rules.

Biblical literalism and Evolution are incompatable, but biblical literalism =/= Christianity.

Ghost