The Myth of evolution

[gladiatrix]

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

Wrong! Random mutations are the key to the creation of new alleles. All other methods merely rearrange the existing alleles in the gene pool. During meiosis this rearrangement of alleles is due to crossing-over between the arms of non-sister chromatids during tetrad formation of Prophase I of Meiosis I (there are two parts to meiosis).

For a really good explanation of crossing-over:
DNA from the Beginning:Genes Get Shuffled when chromosomes exchange pieces (CLICK on the ANIMATION icon)

Shuffling genes usually doesn't result in an alteration to any of the genes involved in the crossing-over events. Errors can and do happen and it is the ERRORS that can result in mutations IF the sequence of the gene or genes involved is altered by the crossing-over. Swapping genes around results in genetic diversity, but that is not the same thing a creating new alleles. One may get a new phenotype as the result of a particular new combination of alleles, but the alleles themselves usually have not changed.

Animated Meiosis Tutorial

WHAT IS A MUTATION?

Mutations are any permanent, heritable alterations in DNA. These alterations can be simple as a single base change (most common), insertions/deletions/rearrangements of segments of varying lengths, or can involve large pieces of DNA (visible pieces of chromosomes or whole chromosomes)

Chromosomes Carry Genes

Mutations are changes in genetic information

Mutations (categories with examples)

MUTATIONS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED.....

1. First, there may be an observable change (one that you can actually see) in the phenotype of the individual. For instance, a seed from a plant whose progeny are tall (phenotype or physical manifestation of gene expression) now has some offspring that are short as well as tall.

2. Second, if one can isolate the gene responsible for height, it is possible to take the "height gene" from the tall plant and the one from the short plant and compare the sequence to find the change. How this kind of thing is done and it's history, explained in the following animation:
A gene is a discrete sequence of DNA nucleotides

This is an image of a sequence, showing the individual bases for a gene. (left) If there was a mutation, then one can compare the sequence of the mutant gene to that of the "wild type" gene to find the difference or differences between them. An example of a case where as single base change can result in a dramatic change is sickle-cell anemia.(right).

3. Some mutations involve large segments of DNA (pieces of chromosome, even whole chromosomes)...............
An example of such an extensive mutation is Down's syndrome. The most common reason for this is that the person is born with 3 copies of chromsome 21 instead of just 2 (normal). That is why Down's syndrome is also called Trisomy 21 (tri- means 3).
Here is a picture of the karyotype of a male Down's sufferer showing this:

4. Some types of cancer are the result of unfortunate rearrangements between chromosomes called translocations (2 chromosomes exchange parts). A classic case is Burkitt's lymphoma. Here is a karyotype of a cancer cell showing the translocation between chromosome 8 and chromosome 14 (click on the link for an explanation)

5. Many cancers are the result of many different kinds of mutations (point mutations, deletions, insertions, translocations). Read about that HERE (pdf).

WHAT WOULD CAUSE MUTATIONS?

A. Any number of things can damage DNA in such a way as to cause mutations. They are called mutagens. If the resulting mutations cause cancer, these mutagens are also regarded as carcinogens:

• Many mutations result from copying errors by the molecules that make new copies of the DNA (also mechanisms in place that prevents or repairs most of these)
• Mutations can be the outcome of spontaneous degradation of the DNA due to the fact that it resides in a salty, aqueous environment (conditions inside the cell itself) like the deamination of cytosine mentioned later in this message. Think of it as cellular "wear and tear" on the DNA (repair mechanisms in place that fix the vast majority of these)
• many chemicals
• UV (ultra-violet) light (why tanning is bad for you)
• X-ray
• ionizing radiation

B. There are also cellular mechanisms that can repair certain types of damage or "lesions" before it has a chance to become a mutation (a site of damage that can eventually become a mutation is called a "pre-mutational event"). Not every DNA lesion can be repaired or gets repaired in time. Here are some sites explaining a few of these mechanisms:

• DNA Repair Proteins
• DNA repair in the bacterium E. coli (these mechanisms were first discovered in bacteria)
• DNA repair gene in humans

C. Be aware that every attempt is made by the cell to keep the DNA from acquiring changes. Not only are there mechanisms to repair damage, the molecules that copy the DNA often have "domains" (a site on a molecule that performs a specific function) whose job it is to "proof-read" (check to make sure the base used in copying the parent strand is correct). These molecules are called DNA-polymerases. If the genetic material being copied is RNA, it's it's generically known as an RNA-polymerase (some viruses use these). Not all polymerases have proof-reading domains. An example of this is the reverse transcriptase of the AIDS virus. This virus mutates like mad because the errors made by the transcriptase aren't corrected. Each person who develops AIDS will have a copy of the virus that is unique to him/her because of the mutations it accumulates while replicating in that person (it "evolves" in response to the immune system's attempts to keep it in check and in response to drugs used to foil it's replication).

D. The fact that HIV mutates rapidly was used to convict a killer. Dr. Richard Schmidt was convicted of purposely injecting Janice Trayhan, a former lover, with blood tainted with HIV and hepatitis C after she called off their affair. The blood was believed to have been drawn from an HIV- and HCV-positive patient around the time of the breakup. The state's expert witnesses established that PCR-based analysis of human HIV can be used to identify HIV strains

Although the DNA sequences used to establish the source of the infections were not identical with the sequences in the infected individuals, HIV is known to mutate rapidly. Even within an infected individual, the virus changes over time. The biological or statistical question, therefore, is how the viral sequence variation in individuals infected from a common source compares to the extent of variation among individuals infected from disparate sources. For a full explanation click on the following link:

1. Guilty Sequence (or Evolution via Phylogenetic Analysis gets its day in court)

2. Gretchen Vogel, Phylogenetic Analysis: Getting Its Day in Court, 275 Science 1559 (1997) (NOTE: this case cited in 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

3.Ancient Remnants of Viral Infection Demonstrate Evolution Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

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.

A mutation a rare transcription error?? Wrong again!


Think of DNA as an instruction book. When you need information about something you make a copy of the pages (genes) you're interested in, returning the book to the library. This way you don't have to risk losing or destroying the book. Transcription is a cell's way of simply copying the gene (instruction) of interest into a DISPOSABLE RNA copy (known as a "messenger"-RNA or m-RNA). The cytoplasm is a dangerous environment for the DNA and the daily transcription of genes to proteins would be very harmful to the DNA, which has to stay intact in order to maintain life. Therefore, RNA works as a sort of throw-away version of DNA (like the copies from the reference book) - good for limited work but not for long-term storage.

Here's an overview(click on link for an outline of the process of transcription)

The fact is that mutations usually DO NOT occur during transcription. DNA can become damaged during transcription, but DNA damage is NOT the same thing as a mutation, rather it is a "pre-mutational event". For instance a cytosine (C) may be deaminated (an amino group removed and as a result, becomes a uracil (U). Uracil is not "tolerated" in DNA and is quickly repaired.


If the repair machinery doesn't remove the uracil (U, found in RNA instead of thymine, T), it will be "read" by the DNA polymerase of replication machinery as a "thymine (T)". The DNA polymerase will put an adenine (A) in the new daughter strand and THEN you would have a mutation. Remember that if the cytosine(C) were there, a guanine (G) would be put into the new strand by the DNA polymerase like it should be. What you would get if the uracil is not repaired is a G ==>A, a type of point mutation known as a transition mutation.

The effect the mutation has depends on whether the mutation occurs in a somatic cell or in a germline cell

See Somatic vs Germline Mutations

The significance of mutations is profoundly influenced by the distinction between germline and soma. Mutations that occur in a somatic cell, in the bone marrow or liver for example, may

* damage the cell
* make the cell cancerous
* kill the cell

Whatever the effect, the ultimate fate of that somatic mutation is to disappear when the cell in which it occurred, or its owner, dies.

Germline mutations, in contrast, will be found in every cell descended from the zygote to which that mutant gamete contributed. If an adult is successfully produced, every one of its cells will contain the mutation. Included among these will be the next generation of gametes, so if the owner is able to become a parent, that mutation will pass down to yet another generation

Helpful sites that explain these mechanism:

Types of Mutations

DNA Repair Mechanisms

DNA Replication

An allele is not a transcription error.

Well, finally a true statement, however, mutations are the result of transcription errors, either. The end results of a transcription error may be no product (protein, r-RNA or t-RNA), but more usually just a faulty protein, r-RNA or t-RNA.

and a mutation is not an improvement of the existing gene pool

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.

Mutations and Evolution

I don't know what is so confusing about this since it's all readily disernable.

If your remarks above weren't so totally off the mark, I'd laugh at the profound irony of the hubris of the above remark. In other words,you certainly have NOT "diserned" one iota of the facts about genetics or how DNA, RNA function.

 

[bubba0315]

Wrong! Random mutations are the key to the creation of new alleles. All other methods merely rearrange the existing alleles in the gene pool. During meiosis this rearrangement of alleles is due to crossing-over between the arms of non-sister chromatids during tetrad formation of Prophase I of Meiosis I (there are two parts to meiosis).

For a really good explanation of crossing-over:
DNA from the Beginning:Genes Get Shuffled when chromosomes exchange pieces (CLICK on the ANIMATION icon)

Shuffling genes usually doesn't result in an alteration to any of the genes involved in the crossing-over events. Errors can and do happen and it is the ERRORS that can result in mutations IF the sequence of the gene or genes involved is altered by the crossing-over. Swapping genes around results in genetic diversity, but that is not the same thing a creating new alleles. One may get a new phenotype as the result of a particular new combination of alleles, but the alleles themselves usually have not changed.

Animated Meiosis Tutorial

WHAT IS A MUTATION?

Mutations are any permanent, heritable alterations in DNA. These alterations can be simple as a single base change (most common), insertions/deletions/rearrangements of segments of varying lengths, or can involve large pieces of DNA (visible pieces of chromosomes or whole chromosomes)

Chromosomes Carry Genes

Mutations are changes in genetic information

Mutations (categories with examples)

MUTATIONS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED.....

1. First, there may be an observable change (one that you can actually see) in the phenotype of the individual. For instance, a seed from a plant whose progeny are tall (phenotype or physical manifestation of gene expression) now has some offspring that are short as well as tall.

2. Second, if one can isolate the gene responsible for height, it is possible to take the "height gene" from the tall plant and the one from the short plant and compare the sequence to find the change. How this kind of thing is done and it's history, explained in the following animation:
A gene is a discrete sequence of DNA nucleotides

This is an image of a sequence, showing the individual bases for a gene. (left) If there was a mutation, then one can compare the sequence of the mutant gene to that of the "wild type" gene to find the difference or differences between them. An example of a case where as single base change can result in a dramatic change is sickle-cell anemia.(right).

3. Some mutations involve large segments of DNA (pieces of chromosome, even whole chromosomes)...............
An example of such an extensive mutation is Down's syndrome. The most common reason for this is that the person is born with 3 copies of chromsome 21 instead of just 2 (normal). That is why Down's syndrome is also called Trisomy 21 (tri- means 3).
Here is a picture of the karyotype of a male Down's sufferer showing this:

4. Some types of cancer are the result of unfortunate rearrangements between chromosomes called translocations (2 chromosomes exchange parts). A classic case is Burkitt's lymphoma. Here is a karyotype of a cancer cell showing the translocation between chromosome 8 and chromosome 14 (click on the link for an explanation)

5. Many cancers are the result of many different kinds of mutations (point mutations, deletions, insertions, translocations). Read about that HERE (pdf).

WHAT WOULD CAUSE MUTATIONS?

A. Any number of things can damage DNA in such a way as to cause mutations. They are called mutagens. If the resulting mutations cause cancer, these mutagens are also regarded as carcinogens:

• Many mutations result from copying errors by the molecules that make new copies of the DNA (also mechanisms in place that prevents or repairs most of these)
• Mutations can be the outcome of spontaneous degradation of the DNA due to the fact that it resides in a salty, aqueous environment (conditions inside the cell itself) like the deamination of cytosine mentioned later in this message. Think of it as cellular "wear and tear" on the DNA (repair mechanisms in place that fix the vast majority of these)
• many chemicals
• UV (ultra-violet) light (why tanning is bad for you)
• X-ray
• ionizing radiation

B. There are also cellular mechanisms that can repair certain types of damage or "lesions" before it has a chance to become a mutation (a site of damage that can eventually become a mutation is called a "pre-mutational event"). Not every DNA lesion can be repaired or gets repaired in time. Here are some sites explaining a few of these mechanisms:

• DNA Repair Proteins
• DNA repair in the bacterium E. coli (these mechanisms were first discovered in bacteria)
• DNA repair gene in humans

C. Be aware that every attempt is made by the cell to keep the DNA from acquiring changes. Not only are there mechanisms to repair damage, the molecules that copy the DNA often have "domains" (a site on a molecule that performs a specific function) whose job it is to "proof-read" (check to make sure the base used in copying the parent strand is correct). These molecules are called DNA-polymerases. If the genetic material being copied is RNA, it's it's generically known as an RNA-polymerase (some viruses use these). Not all polymerases have proof-reading domains. An example of this is the reverse transcriptase of the AIDS virus. This virus mutates like mad because the errors made by the transcriptase aren't corrected. Each person who develops AIDS will have a copy of the virus that is unique to him/her because of the mutations it accumulates while replicating in that person (it "evolves" in response to the immune system's attempts to keep it in check and in response to drugs used to foil it's replication).

D. The fact that HIV mutates rapidly was used to convict a killer. Dr. Richard Schmidt was convicted of purposely injecting Janice Trayhan, a former lover, with blood tainted with HIV and hepatitis C after she called off their affair. The blood was believed to have been drawn from an HIV- and HCV-positive patient around the time of the breakup. The state's expert witnesses established that PCR-based analysis of human HIV can be used to identify HIV strains

Although the DNA sequences used to establish the source of the infections were not identical with the sequences in the infected individuals, HIV is known to mutate rapidly. Even within an infected individual, the virus changes over time. The biological or statistical question, therefore, is how the viral sequence variation in individuals infected from a common source compares to the extent of variation among individuals infected from disparate sources. For a full explanation click on the following link:

1. Guilty Sequence (or Evolution via Phylogenetic Analysis gets its day in court)

2. Gretchen Vogel, Phylogenetic Analysis: Getting Its Day in Court, 275 Science 1559 (1997) (NOTE: this case cited in 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

3.Ancient Remnants of Viral Infection Demonstrate Evolution Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

A mutation a rare transcription error?? Wrong again!


Think of DNA as an instruction book. When you need information about something you make a copy of the pages (genes) you're interested in, returning the book to the library. This way you don't have to risk losing or destroying the book. Transcription is a cell's way of simply copying the gene (instruction) of interest into a DISPOSABLE RNA copy (known as a "messenger"-RNA or m-RNA). The cytoplasm is a dangerous environment for the DNA and the daily transcription of genes to proteins would be very harmful to the DNA, which has to stay intact in order to maintain life. Therefore, RNA works as a sort of throw-away version of DNA (like the copies from the reference book) - good for limited work but not for long-term storage.

Here's an overview(click on link for an outline of the process of transcription)

The fact is that mutations usually DO NOT occur during transcription. DNA can become damaged during transcription, but DNA damage is NOT the same thing as a mutation, rather it is a "pre-mutational event". For instance a cytosine (C) may be deaminated (an amino group removed and as a result, becomes a uracil (U). Uracil is not "tolerated" in DNA and is quickly repaired.


If the repair machinery doesn't remove the uracil (U, found in RNA instead of thymine, T), it will be "read" by the DNA polymerase of replication machinery as a "thymine (T)". The DNA polymerase will put an adenine (A) in the new daughter strand and THEN you would have a mutation. Remember that if the cytosine(C) were there, a guanine (G) would be put into the new strand by the DNA polymerase like it should be. What you would get if the uracil is not repaired is a G ==>A, a type of point mutation known as a transition mutation.

The effect the mutation has depends on whether the mutation occurs in a somatic cell or in a germline cell
Helpful sites that explain these mechanism:

Types of Mutations

DNA Repair Mechanisms

DNA Replication

Well, finally a true statement, however, mutations are the result of transcription errors, either. The end results of a transcription error may be no product (protein, r-RNA or t-RNA), but more usually just a faulty protein, r-RNA or t-RNA.

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.

Mutations and Evolution


If your remarks above weren't so totally off the mark, I'd laugh at the profound irony of the hubris of the above remark. In other words,you certainly have NOT "diserned" one iota of the facts about genetics or how DNA, RNA function.

Wow! That is all I learned in the whole last 2 quarters of school in a nutshell! Very good point, also.

 

[mark kennedy]

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

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. 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. 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). Here is an illustration of the various mutations and how they compare to one another. It should be noted that the wild type does not represent a damaged gene and is the most common mutation expressed in the phenotype:

Wild type- THE ONE BIG FLY HAD ONE RED EYE.
Missense- THQ ONE BIG FLY HAD ONE RED EYE
Nonsense- THE ONE BIG
Frameshift- THE ONE QBI GFL YHA DON ERE DEY
Deletion of three letters- THE ONE BIG HAD ONE RED EYE
Duplication- THE ONE BIG FLY FLY HAD ONE RED EYE
Insertion- THE ONE BIG WET FLY HAD ONE RED EYE

Expanding- P1 THE ONE BIG FLY HAD ONE RED EYE
F1 THE ONE BIG FLY FLY FLY HAD ONE RED EYE
F2 THE ONE BIG FLY FLY FLY FLY LFY HAD ONE RED EYE​

(Life 4th ed. Mcgraw Hill Publications)

Shuffling genes usually doesn't result in an alteration to any of the genes involved in the crossing-over events. Errors can and do happen and it is the ERRORS that can result in mutations IF the sequence of the gene or genes involved is altered by the crossing-over. Swapping genes around results in genetic diversity, but that is not the same thing a creating new alleles. One may get a new phenotype as the result of a particular new combination of alleles, but the alleles themselves usually have not changed.

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

Mutations are any permanent, heritable alterations in DNA.[/b] These alterations can be simple as a single base change (most common), insertions/deletions/rearrangements of segments of varying lengths, or can involve large pieces of DNA (visible pieces of chromosomes or whole chromosomes)

A germinal mutation occurs before meiosis and effects the gametes. A somatic mutation occurs during the DNA replication prior to mitosis and is perpetuated in the daughter cells. I think the one you are referring to here is the point mutations (missense and nonsense) or if you had something else in mind I am sure you will correct me.

MUTATIONS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED..…

Yes they have and they are most often of no effect at all, harmful or in very rare instances they may be beneficial. From the definition offered and linked“…the outward physical manifestation of internally coded, inheritable, information.” Now this could include everything from the wild type down and the wild type is not an actual change in the genetic code per se but a rearrangement of the genes through meiosis and when you have a deletion for example you could develop anemia. Missing genetic material-even a single base- can greatly effect gene function and result in cystic fibrosis. Muscular dystrophy, and Huntington disease are disorders that result from expanded genes.

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.

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.

"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."

Genetics, the enemy of evolution?

 

[Valkhorn]

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_4a.html

Genetics, the enemy of evolution?

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_4a.html

You know, I almost read through your whole post, but when I skimmed down and saw that link it just destroyed the whole post.

You cannot punctuate an argument with a silly creationist website. It's been attempted before, and all it does is show that you don't know what you're talking about.

Creationist sites are biased, unfair, propoganda, and do not reflect the truth. They spread lies and dishonesty to those that are gullible enough to believe it. I'm sorry it had to be you.

 

[mark kennedy]

You know, I almost read through your whole post, but when I skimmed down and saw that link it just destroyed the whole post.

You cannot punctuate an argument with a silly creationist website. It's been attempted before, and all it does is show that you don't know what you're talking about.

Creationist sites are biased, unfair, propoganda, and do not reflect the truth. They spread lies and dishonesty to those that are gullible enough to believe it. I'm sorry it had to be you.

That was added as a post script and I really only added it because I liked the way he worded the statement. Creationist website have no more influence on my actual thinking on the subject then Talk Origins or the many other proevolution websites out there. Frankly I think you are over reacting to the brief quote whats more I thought his statement was substantive, sorry you didn't like it. This was actually what caught my attention:

...One never observes wings or eyes being produced on creatures on which they have never existed

 

[william jay schroeder]

That was added as a post script and I really only added it because I liked the way he worded the statement. Creationist website have no more influence on my actual thinking on the subject then Talk Origins or the many other proevolution websites out there. Frankly I think you are over reacting to the brief quote whats more I thought his statement was substantive, sorry you didn't like it. This was actually what caught my attention:

Mark you kmow your doing a good job when evolutionist throw out statements like that. he should of just said ye well whatever. Mark why do they use diseases to show evolution like sickle cell.

 

[Ondoher]

Mark you kmow your doing a good job when evolutionist throw out statements like that. he should of just said ye well whatever. Mark why do they use diseases to show evolution like sickle cell.

Sickle cell is an interesting case. One copy of the gene protects from malaria, which is why it is prevelent in malaria prone regions.

 

[william jay schroeder]

Sickle cell is an interesting case. One copy of the gene protects from malaria, which is why it is prevelent in malaria prone regions.

thats nice but what does it got to do with how everything became at it is. Is it helpfull to the individual, especially if there was no medicine to give the person.

 

[AirPo]

thats nice but what does it got to do with how everything became at it is. Is it helpfull to the individual, especially if there was no medicine to give the person.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that not getting malaria is helpful.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark you kmow your doing a good job when evolutionist throw out statements like that. he should of just said ye well whatever. Mark why do they use diseases to show evolution like sickle cell.

Well because if you are suffering from maleria this particular mutation is actually a beneficial one. However, if you are removed from this area then the mutation is harmfull. They would have you believe that this is a result of preservation of benefical mutation and like to encourage the illusion that this is the same as a wild type mutation since it clearly is not. A little discernment goes a long way here.

 

[Valkhorn]

That was added as a post script and I really only added it because I liked the way he worded the statement. Creationist website have no more influence on my actual thinking on the subject then Talk Origins or the many other proevolution websites out there. Frankly I think you are over reacting to the brief quote whats more I thought his statement was substantive, sorry you didn't like it. This was actually what caught my attention:

Well TalkOrigins ought to provide you real evidence because after all, they know what they're talking about. You do not.

I went back and read your post, and all I can say is that you just don't know enough about what you're trying to argue against. In fact if you remember there have been biologists on this thread replying to your argument, and yet you cannot listen to what they have to say. I am willing to bet 100 bucks that a biologist would know much more about evolution than you would - yet you choose to not listen to them and to argue with them.

The error is not on our side of the table, it is with the side of the table - your side I might add - that ignores factual evidence in favor of a literal interpretation of selective verses of an ancient book written a very long time ago and which has since then has been revised and edited, etc. many many times.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

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.

<snip>

Except there *are* cases of mutations producing novel functions in organisms (you've been given examples before). **

Also, the quote is misleading in that it implies that the only way for an organism to gain something like an apendage is single-step. This is not the way evolution works and it's disingenuous to suggest it is. It doesn't allow for functional changes using existing parts. Take, for example, the flying squirrel. Excess skin flaps between its arms allow it to glide. This is functionally different than regular squirrels.

** edited to add: There's was an interesting reference in New Scientist a couple weeks ago to an experiment with microorganisms. A scientist knocked out a specific gene that produced a certain function, and the organisms evolved a different way to achieve the same function. I'll have to visit the library for the specific reference, unless someone else has it off-hand.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well TalkOrigins ought to provide you real evidence because after all, they know what they're talking about. You do not.

I am well aquainted with the TalkOrigins website and I have been less then impressed with their approach to the entire subject.

I went back and read your post, and all I can say is that you just don't know enough about what you're trying to argue against. In fact if you remember there have been biologists on this thread replying to your argument, and yet you cannot listen to what they have to say. I am willing to bet 100 bucks that a biologist would know much more about evolution than you would - yet you choose to not listen to them and to argue with them.

Oh sure and that is why I spent a couple of hours this morning preparing a response after having carefully read a lengthy post.

The error is not on our side of the table, it is with the side of the table - your side I might add - that ignores factual evidence in favor of a literal interpretation of selective verses of an ancient book written a very long time ago and which has since then has been revised and edited, etc. many many times.

First off the Bible has not been edited or revised and bibliographical testing has supported this with all available evidence. What this has to do with the role of mutations in evolution is a mystery to me but I suppose you are entitled to you're opinion.

 

[Split Rock]

Well because if you are suffering from maleria this particular mutation is actually a beneficial one. However, if you are removed from this area then the mutation is harmfull. They would have you believe that this is a result of preservation of benefical mutation and like to encourage the illusion that this is the same as a wild type mutation since it clearly is not. A little discernment goes a long way here.

Whether or not a mutation or a particular allele is benifical or not is entirely dependent on the environment the individual or population happens to be in.

What the heck is a "wildtype mutation?" How is such a mutation different from sickle-cell anemia? How about a little discernment from you, Mark?

 

[mark kennedy]

Except there *are* cases of mutations producing novel functions in organisms (you've been given examples before). **

For a couple of weeks I have fielded these kind of objections and there seems to be a lack of discernment between genetic misinformation and wild type mutations.

Also, the quote is misleading in that it implies that the only way for an organism to gain something like an apendage is single-step. This is not the way evolution works and it's disingenuous to suggest it is. It doesn't allow for functional changes using existing parts. Take, for example, the flying squirrel. Excess skin flaps between its arms allow it to glide. This is functionally different than regular squirrels.

That is the result of random variations through independant assortment and I have discussed this at length. When we can discern the difference between genetic misinformation, effects the alter Medelian ratios we might be ablt to make sense of all of this. A wild type mutation does not alter the DNA it just rearranges the existing gene pool.

** edited to add: There's was an interesting reference in New Scientist a couple weeks ago to an experiment with microorganisms. A scientist knocked out a specific gene that produced a certain function, and the organisms evolved a different way to achieve the same function. I'll have to visit the library for the specific reference, unless someone else has it off-hand.

Sorry but I can't help with that.

 

[Valkhorn]

I am well aquainted with the TalkOrigins website and I have been less then impressed with their approach to the entire subject.

Evidently, not. You fail to see that it is an unbiased and scientific source of every issue of Evolution. Maybe you don't like their approach because you use a priori argument - that is to say that your conclusion is already there which is something to do with a literal interpretation of the Bible or something before any research is done. It's not the way to find anything out, because you just might be wrong, you know.

Oh sure and that is why I spent a couple of hours this morning preparing a response after having carefully read a lengthy post.

Well you don't do research scientifically that's for sure. You seem to have preconcieved notions, then try to fit what you find to them, rather than just looking at the facts then coming up with a conclusion.

First off the Bible has not been edited or revised and bibliographical testing has supported this with all available evidence. What this has to do with the role of mutations in evolution is a mystery to me but I suppose you are entitled to you're opinion.

The Bible has been edited and revised MANY times. I suppose you've never heard of Emporer Constantine, or King James, or even Flavius Josephus. I suppose you've never heard of the many books of the Bible that are no longer included in todays book - including the Apocrypha and non-canonical books like the Book of Eve and the Book of Jubilees.

I can't believe you actually think the same Bible that you buy on store shelves today is the same thing that people had 1800 years ago.

I'm speechless.

Oh yeah, and the reason this has to do with the OP is that you still think Evolution is a myth, and your basis is basically back to the point of it conflicting with your interpretation of the Bible.

Evolution doesn't conflict with any known scientific or biological principles.

Do you honestly think with the millions of scientists out there that the elementary misinformations that you have about evolution would be overlooked if they were actually true? Do you honestly think there's some great conspiracy out there?

I just don't get it. The bible and your interpretation of it is the only reason I can find as to why you repeatedly ignore the truth.

 

[Split Rock]

The Bible has been edited and revised MANY times. I suppose you've never heard of Emporer Constantine, or King James, or even Flavius Josephus. I suppose you've never heard of the many books of the Bible that are no longer included in todays book - including the Apocrypha and non-canonical books like the Book of Eve and the Book of Jubilees.

I can't believe you actually think the same Bible that you buy on store shelves today is the same thing that people had 1800 years ago.

Don't be so surprised. Creationists never take the history of the bible or the context of how and for who it was written into account. They also tend to be masterful history revisionists.

 

[JohnR7]

Don't be so surprised. Creationists never take the history of the bible or the context of how and for who it was written into account. They also tend to be masterful history revisionists.

Actually, I would be the first in line when it comes to complaining about christians today and how little they know. Back before Darwin came along and screwed everything up, they use to take theology serious and they use to put a lot more into the study of the Bible. I do not even take it as serious as I use to, because there does not seem to be anyone around anymore to really get into a indepth conversation about the Bible. I spend most of my time talking to people on a third grade level about the Bible. Even people who have warmed the pews on sundays all their lives. It's a shame really, how little people know.

But I am not ashamed, because I feel that I have dedicated 10 years of my life to a serious study and a attempt to understand the word of God for us today.

 

[Valkhorn]

Actually, I would be the first in line when it comes to complaining about christians today and how little they know. Back before Darwin came along and screwed everything up, they use to take theology serious and they use to put a lot more into the study of the Bible. I do not even take it as serious as I use to, because there does not seem to be anyone around anymore to really get into a indepth conversation about the Bible. I spend most of my time talking to people on a third grade level about the Bible. Even people who have warmed the pews on sundays all their lives. It's a shame really, how little people know.

I'm willing to wager there are many people on this forum in other boards that are willing to argue or converse with you about the history of the Bible and where it came from and how it has changed throughout history.

However, if you're expecting them to limit their conversations to King James 1611 or your specific interpretation, you may be disappointed. Most qualified theologians and Bible scholars cover ALL aspects of the bible, including apocryphal books and holy texts from other religions.

 

[JohnR7]

You fail to see that it is an unbiased and scientific source of every issue of Evolution.

Actually, talk origin is one of the best places to go to get arguements against evolution, because they do tend to be honest about the weakness & short coming of the theory there. I do not agree with what they believe of course.