The Myth of evolution

Mark,

Are you a Geneticist?
Are you a Biologist?
Are you a Molecular Biologist?
Are you a Paleontologist?

mark kennedy said:

Now tell me which one is responsible for evolution from a single common ancestor?

Click to expand...

is it a common trait amongst creationists that they can only think about a single thing at at time and cannot encompass a number of factors when considering the issues at hand?

mark kennedy said:

Ok, you admit my most important point that there is a difference between mutation as change and mutation as rearrangement. Now tell me which one is responsible for evolution from a single common ancestor?

Click to expand...

No, I am saying that re-arrangement is not mutation.

Also, you need to consider that without mutation there would be nothing to rearrange.

Both play a role in evolution. As do other factors, notably natural selection.

mark kennedy said:

This sounds like projection to me.

Click to expand...

Look, I see qustions like yours alot from creationists "which one does this" when it is a silly question. The fact of the matter is, that something like speciation is a combination of a number of factors, not nescessarily the effect of a single thing or event. why did you ask "which one is responsible...." it only illustrates your lack of understanding of the matter at hand.

mark kennedy said:

I see a lot of arguments from the single common ancestor myth devotees and there is no real discernment between rearrangements of alleles specially created and mutations of the DNA strain.

Click to expand...

so why did you ask the question then? come on mark, stop trying to change the topic here.

mark kennedy said:

So why didn't you quote the question Jet? Why didn't you answer it?

Click to expand...

why did you ask "which one is responsible...." it only illustrates your lack of understanding of the matter at hand.

mark kennedy said:

What is the matter at hand Jet? What is the responsiblity you are so concerned about? What Jet...what?

Click to expand...

the following question mark:

Ok, you admit my most important point that there is a difference between mutation as change and mutation as rearrangement. Now tell me which one is responsible for evolution from a single common ancestor?

Click to expand...

your question illustrates a poor to absent knowledge of biology.

mark kennedy said:

Without mutation of what? What you don't seem to want to accept is that there has to be a genetic code to begin with unless you have some idea how nature can write them without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Click to expand...

Of course there has to be a genetic code to begin with. And as a theistic evolutionist, I am not averse to the concept that the code was created. Once. For all species.

Of course, God may also have used a natural means of creation for generating the code in the first place, as he does in the creation of species by evolution.

And please drop the 2LoT PRATT. It adds nothing to the conversation and just marks you out as an idiot creationist.

gluadys said:

Of course there has to be a genetic code to begin with. And as a theistic evolutionist, I am not averse to the concept that the code was created. Once. For all species.

Of course, God may also have used a natural means of creation for generating the code in the first place, as he does in the creation of species by evolution.

And please drop the 2LoT PRATT. It adds nothing to the conversation and just marks you out as an idiot creationist.

Click to expand...

apparently the cross symple you have doesnt mean much to you. to belittle people is only belittleing yourself more. maybe you should go read the bible a little better. because what you now of it doesnt seem to be helping you be considerate. and your get in trouble posting post like that seeing how your not aloud to call people stupid, only strongly disagree with them.

mark kennedy said:

gladiatrix said:

Wrong! Random mutations are the key to the creation of new alleles. All other methods merely rearrange the existing alleles in the gene pool.

Click to expand...

I am not really sure but I think the quote you based this on was a typo or perhaps an awkwardly worded phrase. At any rate meiosis produces genetic variation and mutation can be a change in the gene expressed in the phenotype.

Click to expand...

Here is what you said originally (Excerpt from Post #59)

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

Click to expand...

New alleles are NOT produced as a result of meiosis. What one can get is a RESHUFFLING of alleles that are close to each other on homologous chromosomes (as the result of crossing over) which is what the phrase implies. You are correct in that what you get is genetic variation (a new combination of alleles can result in a new phenotype). However, if there is a change in gene expression, that is usually the result of a mutation. The phrase "mutation can be a change in the gene expressed" is erroneous because it implies that the gene expression was cause of the mutation (got the "cart", i.e, the mutation, before the "horse", i.e., change in gene expression)

mark kennedy said:

This is a very different thing then a mutated DNA strain that is caused by radiation, chemicals or spontaneously from errors like deletion, insertion or expansion in the gene sequence.

Click to expand...

The MOST common form of mutation, regardless of the mutating agent, is a SINGLE change in a SINGLE base. Most mutations are simple changes like this that can radically alter the expression of a gene...there is no need for there to be expansive changes (deletions, insertions, translocation) in a gene.

mark kennedy said:

The odds of this happening are about 1 in 100,000 copies which is rare enough but a beneficial mutation is even more rare since most of these mutations are of no effect at all or harmful. The mutations I have been most concerned with the last couple of weeks are the genetic misinformation, particularly the ones expressed in somatic cells, there are a number of different kinds though (germinal, somatic, missense, point, frame shift..etc).

Click to expand...

1. Whoa, whoa... a mutation in a SOMATIC cell (a body cell) is irrelevant because these are NOT passed on to the next generation. Now these mutated cells can have unfortunate consequences for the host if they happen to be proto-oncogenes and the mutation turns them into oncogenes. The host could end up dying of cancer, but this cancerous change would not be passed to an offspring (must happen for the gene to get into the POPULATION which is what natural selection works one, not individuals).

I have a great deal of trouble taking you seriously if you don't seem to understand the difference between a somatic and a germline cell (eggs, sperm which DO pass on genetic information to future generations).

2. Then you say "genetic misinformation, particularly the ones expressed in somatic cells, there are a number of different kinds though (germinal, somatic, missense, point, frame shift..etc)."

A. One problem here is that the words "germinal" and "somatic" refer to cell types not kinds of mutation.

B. Now you also show that you don't know what the "kinds" of mutation are when you mix these together "missense, point, frameshift"). The word "point" refers to a base substitution, it is NOT a kind of mutation unto itself. (Quoting from Mutations )

A single base, say an A, becomes replaced by another. Single base substitutions are also called point mutations. (If one purine [A or G] or pyrimidine [C or T] is replaced by the other, the substitution is called a transition. If a purine is replaced by a pyrimidine or vice-versa, the substitution is called a transversion.)

Missense mutations -With a missense mutation, the new nucleotide alters the codon so as to produce an altered amino acid in the protein product.

EXAMPLE A: sickle-cell disease The replacement of A by T at the 17th nucleotide of the gene for the beta chain of hemoglobin changes the codon GAG (for glutamic acid) to GTG (which encodes valine). Thus the 6th amino acid in the chain becomes valine instead of glutamic acid




Nonsense mutations (Note: these are also known as frameshift mutations)--With a nonsense mutation, the new nucleotide changes a codon that specified an amino acid to one of the STOP codons (TAA, TAG, or TGA). Therefore, translation of the messenger RNA transcribed from this mutant gene will stop prematurely. The earlier in the gene that this occurs, the more truncated the protein product and the more likely that it will be unable to function.

EXAMPLE: Here is a sampling of the more than 1000 different mutations that have been found in patients with cystic fibrosis. Each of these mutations occurs in a huge gene that encodes a protein (of 1480 amino acids) called the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR). The protein is responsible for transporting chloride ions out of cells. Patient B has the substitution of a T for a C at nucleotide 1609 converted a glutamine codon (CAG) to a STOP codon (TAG). The protein produced by this patient had only the first 493 amino acids of the normal chain of 1480 and could not function.



I snipped your example because it seems to me that you really don't understand what your example means.

mark kennedy said:

Of course this is purely Medelian independent assortment and descends from the diploid reproductive cell through metaphase to the gametes.

Click to expand...

Diploid reproductive cell through metaphase to the gametes? Do you mean meiosis because it requires two rounds of meiosis (each one has a "metaphase" stage) to produce that gamete.

mark kennedy said:

Now the gene expression can alter Medelian ratios (lethal allele combinations, multiple alleles, penetrance and expressivity, epitasis). So at this point I am usually told that there are lots of beneficial mutations that have been documented but most of the time they don’t produce a selective advantage.

Click to expand...

If your claim of "no selective advantage" is "documented" you won't mind posting that reference(s?) will you? In the meantime:

From Answer to Creations Clalims CB101
2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests [e.g. Newcomb et al. 1997]. (No, these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations [Wichman et al. 1999]. Other examples include:

• Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon [Prijambada et al. 1995].
• Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones [FAO/IAEA 1977].
• Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS [Dean et al. 1996]
• . . . or to heart disease [Weisgraber et al. 1983; Long 1994].
• A mutation in humans makes bones strong [Boyden et al. 2002].
• Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity [Moffat 2000].
• Mutation and selection in vitro can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules such as a ribozyme [Wright and Joyce 1997].

3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation which helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations which once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations don't do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly [Elena et al. 1996].

4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa were found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability [Oliver et al. 2000].

Click to expand...

I want you to tell me how antibiotic resistance genes (mutations in other genes, often on extrachromosomal elements), the gene that makes people resistant ot AIDS and heart disease would NOT confer a selective advantage. Take the case of the AIDS resistance gene (let's designate it AIDSR+). AIDS is sexually transmitted and sex can result in babies. Now if I am a very sexually active person who carries AIDSR+ then I am much more likely to live long enough to reproduce (the "survivial of the fittest" means those who produce the most offspring) than my equally sexually-active counterpart who is AIDSR- (no resistance). I and my offspring will survive to serve as reserviors for the gene which will eventually predominate in the population (my descendants) as those who are AIDR- die off or leave vulnerable offspring (reproduce before they get the virus and/or the fetus escapes without being infected).

Now to your example:

mark kennedy said:

For instance; the Drosophila melanogaster and the temperature-sensitive mutant gene that transform normal mouthparts into leg parts at high temperatures and antennal structures at low temperatures. Now obviously neither mutation produces a selective advantage and the experiments with these fruit flies that mixed mutated genes with wild type and produced red eyes, different colors probably again would be of very little importance to the survival of the populations.

Click to expand...

The above is an example of a harmful mutation so of course it's not going to confer a selective advantage in the environment in which they live. BUT NOT all mutations are harmful (just gave a link to a short list of benefical ones).

mark kennedy said:

gladiatrix said:

There are beneficial mutations, but do continue to bury your head in the sand and deny that they happen, despite repeated examples being shown to you on that subject. There is no need for a drastic change to occur in the gene pool for a radical alteration to occur in a phenotype.

Click to expand...

A change in the genetic expression can be considered a mutation but this is not the kind of mutation that would be necessary for the single common ancestor model to be true. The creationist model further affirms this and in fact emphasises it.

Click to expand...

1.There you go again... "A change in the genetic expression can be considered a mutation " No, a mutation if required BEFORE you can have a change in gene expression. Neither you nor your fellow creationists know what you are talking about if you don't know the difference between gene expression and a mutation. IF one sees a "change in gene expression" then a mutation that probably visible alters the phenotype has occurred...what have you got? Something for natural selection to act upon, the individual with the mutation. Does the individual survive to produce offspring and/or does that particular mutation (resulting in altered gene expression) enable that individual to survive to better/produce more offspring? If the answer is YES to either question then that new gene (the mutation) will probably eventually predominate in the population. What have you just gotten? Evolution! More than enough of a process to produce a "common ancestor".

2. Your example:

mark kennnedy said:

"A type of change of a rather more significant nature involves the decrease or loss of some structure or function. Darwin called attention to wingless beetles on the island of Madeira. For a beetle living on a windy island, wings can be a definite disadvantage. Mutations producing the loss of flight could be helpful. Similar would be the case of sightless cave fish. Eyes are quite vulnerable to injury, and a creature that lives in pitch dark would benefit from mutations that would reduce that vulnerability. While these mutations produce a drastic and beneficial change, it is important to notice that they always involve loss and never gain. One never observes wings or eyes being produced on creatures on which they have never existed."

Click to expand...

This type of change for the beetles and the cavefish is an example of where the mutation in their respective parts was actually allowed them to function BETTER in their enviroments.

• Do remember that for a mutation to be considered BENEFICIAL it has to confer a survival advantage on those populations in which it predominates.
• A loss of a part might actually be a good thing IF it helps one survive in the environment in which one lives.

Not having wings on a windy island (good) not having eyes in a dark cave (good) confer survival advantages. Looks like you have just shot down your/YEC position (no such thing as beneficial mutations, no survival advantage) in the proverbial foot with the above example.

Gladiatrix,

You rule.

Gladiatrix how does any of this prove evolution it proves a good design to be able to change to the environment or different circumstances in life. none of these prove that any species came from another species. best it does is explain ring species. used on me a lot but within the ring species is still a bird or a horse or dog or what ever it may be. i have not seen a completly different organism within the ring species examble. A gull was used for an examble but in the end there were only birds and i believe just a wide variety of gulls. Speciation doesnt show a mammal evolving to a reptile or vice versa. There should be plenty of exambles of ring species that include a reptile and mammal within the ring. For evolution being random mutations and natural selection life seems rather unrandom to me. But alas im just an ignorant blinded creationist, just added that so you didnt have to think it up and tell me because i already have been told.

william jay schroeder said:

Gladiatrix how does any of this prove evolution it proves a good design to be able to change to the environment or different circumstances in life. none of these prove that any species came from another species. best it does is explain ring species. used on me a lot but within the ring species is still a bird or a horse or dog or what ever it may be. i have not seen a completly different organism within the ring species examble. A gull was used for an examble but in the end there were only birds and i believe just a wide variety of gulls. Speciation doesnt show a mammal evolving to a reptile or vice versa. There should be plenty of exambles of ring species that include a reptile and mammal within the ring. For evolution being random mutations and natural selection life seems rather unrandom to me. But alas im just an ignorant blinded creationist, just added that so you didnt have to think it up and tell me because i already have been told.

Click to expand...

If you understood evolution you would NOT expect a ring species that include a reptile and a mammal. You are still presenting things and stating that evolution should show them and if it doesn't evolution is wrong. The only problem with that is that you keep presenting things that evolution never predicts or doesn't detail. If we found a ring species that did include a reptile and a mammal, it would falsify evolutionary theory, not prove it. You are presenting strawmen of evolution.

william jay schroeder said:

Speciation doesnt show a mammal evolving to a reptile or vice versa.

Click to expand...

the only difference is that the transition from reptile to mammal took many millions of years, as opposed to the kind of changes that can take place within a few decades. if new species can form through evolution, what would stop them from changing even more over a longer period of time? we're not talking about jumping a mile here, we're talking about crossing a mile in single steps.

There should be plenty of exambles of ring species that include a reptile and mammal within the ring.

Click to expand...

why would we expect that? as far as i can see, there is no reason to expect that kind of thing.

For evolution being random mutations and natural selection life seems rather unrandom to me.

Click to expand...

that is because selection is non-random.