The MYTH of Random Mutations

[JohnR7]

Mutations are changes that occur to genes.

They assume that a mutation changed the gene, but they have no evidence to that effect. There are theorys other then just the mutation theory that explains evolution.

 

[Chalnoth]

They assume that a mutation changed the gene, but they have no evidence to that effect. There are theorys other then just the mutation theory that explains evolution.

Mutation's not a theory. It's an observational fact.

 

[supersport]

No, we haven't learned that Gradualism is "dead" (or at least, the version of "gradualism" you appear to be referring to), but rather that Punctuated Equillibria plays as an additional "mechanism" in Evolutionary Development.

Again wrong, as this process has been shown time and again to lead to the development on beneficial mutations. Your previous attempts at disproof were shown false.

Does "transduction by retrovirus" mean anything to you?
The ToE does not go out of its way to specify all mutations that occur will be pure and perfect randomness; this is you trying to make a strawman. There's more to mutation than just copying errors, however the bulk of mutations are copying errors.

Your use of the term "gradualism" at the end of this point suggests that you don't have a firm understanding of what "gradualism" means.
Completely ridiculous.

Of COURSE.... no Evolutionary Biologist spends time discussing the nature of mutations in Evolution and its mechanics...

*cough*

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16908036&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16913914&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16893475&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

*cough*

As for beneficial mutations...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16903693&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16882283&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

Just two things to think about, in addition to the usual examples for beneficial mutations, mmkay?



It has been shown to you... time and again.



Very poor understanding of genetics. Single nucleotides can have larger affects, depending on what they change, whether they are alterations, indel or perhaps even whether they are naturally caused (tautomers) or not.

Think about this: A change in one amino acid of the Haemoglobin product leads to the development of Sickle Cell anemia.

one amino acid.

Also, think about this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB100.html

Its a short summary, but it introduces one idea you haven't talked about yet: the affects of Sexual reproduction on mutation rates.



Actually, I believe he is incorrect. There are mutations that lead to double stranded separation.

Translocations of entire chromosomes have occured and on a much lower scale, some indel mutations function by nucleotides being broken off by radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_translocation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposable_element

Even by a logical deduction, if one mucleotide is changed, leading to a different amino acid, which has a chain reaction of effects (IE. the Sickle Cell Anemia example I showed you before) then a "single nucleotide" can be selected for.



O RLY?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16893475&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

It is known that phenotypes can change for non genetic reasons. It is also known that there are variations in phenotype for reasons outside of genetic and environmental reasons. We attribute these differences to developmental noise.

(An example: http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/12782415 )



No, the connection between the change and the genetic difference is established in experiments. In papers that do not account for this possibility, the only possible outcome is a shredding by the Peer Review committee.



Naked Assertion.




Fallacy of Composition.



Obviously hasn't been paying much attention to the scientific papers. Odd for a Geneticist, aint it?



Worth considering, for the number of claims that no "beneficial information" was made:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html

As for the nylon bug... its pretty much set that the mutation was neomorphic. The only ones who dispute this are the usual brand of Creationists, who are dismanted in the following articles quite nicely:

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Since the rest is essentially the same things dealt with above, I'll ignore it... except for this:



There's only so many times one can say this before it reflects badly on the individual.

Supersport, your arguments are starting to appear to be more vengeful then academic... Isn't this unsettling to you?

all those links to nonsense sites...all those hand-waving refutes -- the fact is, you have no answer for common sense and truth.

I thank you for bringing up the sickle cell thing though...that's one I forgot to mention that's always brought up when evolutionists start talking about mutations. What this has to do with cumulative selection of beneficial random mutations I have no idea.

 

[Chalnoth]

all those links to nonsense sites...all those hand-waving refutes -- the fact is, you have no answer for common sense and truth.

Please, pick one and try to refute it.

 

[fromdownunder]

I have no idea.

Exactly.

Norm (I have been borrowing fron John's technique, and yours!)

 

[Silent Bob]

all those links to nonsense sites...all those hand-waving refutes -- the fact is, you have no answer for common sense and truth.

Wow what an amazing refutation. I am convinced Supersport, I no longer accept modern synthesis from now on!!!!

 

[nvxplorer]

How ironic that the OP title uses "MYTH" to describe mutations.

Do you know the true meaning of "myth," supersport?

 

[ushishir]

I don't know about your first example...but just from your descriptions I can tell your bottom two examples of mutations adding information are not random. Random would mean RANDOM -- not as a result of an enviornmental change.

The mutations mentioned are highly likely to be random as all the available evidence indicates that this is the only type of mutation that has been shown to exist. There is not a single experiment that proves non random (with respect to function) mutation, therefore your assertion that the mutation is non random is not based on any evidence.

It was shown in the 1940s by Luria and Delbruck that beneficial mutations that were selected in a particular environment occured randomly and not as a result of the environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luria-Delbruck_experiment

 

[Gus2009]

all those links to nonsense sites...all those hand-waving refutes -- the fact is, you have no answer for common sense and truth.

Ha, and this is the whole rebuttal.

Translation: all those links to sites to show me im completely wrong....all those refutes to my flawed arguments-- the fact is, i have nothing else to say because my arguments have been thoroughly squashed.

 

[c'mon sense]

The genetic information was there all along, but they try to use their magic to demonstrate that it just showed up out of nowhere.

How ironic that YOU should say that!

What evolution actually says is that genetic information was there, was passed on down the line of descent with modification which amounted to the diversification of life forms. It doesn't ever say that it just showed up out of nowhere [...].

Besides, evolution doesn't aim either to disprove or prove God, it is quite content with offering an explanation to what we observe based on the multiple lines of evidence that we have.

[Edited at moderator's request]

 

[MrGoodBytes]

all those links to nonsense sites...all those hand-waving refutes -- the fact is, you have no answer for common sense and truth.

I thank you for bringing up the sickle cell thing though...that's one I forgot to mention that's always brought up when evolutionists start talking about mutations. What this has to do with cumulative selection of beneficial random mutations I have no idea.

supersport, you obviously don't have the slightest idea about the things you post -or should I better say cut and paste -on a daily basis, and yet you act like the sole authority on the subject.

Your behaviour is incredibly insulting to the people who spend a good amount of time writing lenghty and detailed posts, while your only reaction is saying "Well, Im right anyway." in an unbelievable condescending way without even addressing a single point.

 

[JohnR7]

multiple lines of evidence that we have.

There is no mutiple lines of evidence that the things they call mutations are mutations at all. They have not shown or demonstrated that a mutation has taken place and they admit that they can not tell the difference between a mutated gene and a gene that has never "mutated".

Far to often instead of using Mendels genetics to explain something they try to use Darwin's theory with no evidence at all to back up what they are claiming.

You never once heard mendal say that the gene must have become mutated so that the pea came out wrinkled. Yet that is the nonsense you hear today.

 

[JohnR7]

Mutation's not a theory. It's an observational fact.

They have observed mutations. But they have not been observed in all the various places they claim they are happening.

Mendel explained about recessive genes. Yet today they want to say that a the gene mutated and a new trait has been created out of no where.

In hampsters they talk about mutations that have taken place in the last 50 years. Not recessive genes that had not expressed themselves but do to isolation they began to find their expression.

This does not falsify evolution, not does it falsify natural selection. What it says is the genetic information was already there for selection to take place.

Evos try to claim without a speck of evidence that there was a mutation and the genetic information all of a sudden in the last 50 years appeared out of no where.

Yet no one anytime, anyplace has ever produced any evidence that hair color or pattern has anything at all to do with mutations.

Oh, they can give me 50 referances where they call it a mutation or assume that a mutation has taken place. But not one of their referances makes any attempt to actually demonstrate or show a mutation took place.

They can show you the exact difference between a dog and a cat. They can line up all the DNA and show you the matches and the differences. Then line up the DNA from a 50 year old hampster and a recent hampster and show me where the DNA has mutated and changed.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

There is no mutiple lines of evidence that the things they call mutations are mutations at all. They have not shown or demonstrated that a mutation has taken place and they admit that they can not tell the difference between a mutated gene and a gene that has never "mutated".

Ever heard of a thing called sickle cell anemia?

Far to often instead of using Mendels genetics to explain something they try to use Darwin's theory with no evidence at all to back up what they are claiming.

Perhaps it could be that science has made some progress since 1866.

You never once heard mendal say that the gene must have become mutated so that the pea came out wrinkled. Yet that is the nonsense you hear today.

Yes, and Thomas Edison didn't use a microwave, so those can't possibly be working either.

 

[JohnR7]

Mutation's not a theory. It's an observational fact.

If it is a observed fact in the hampsters then show me your observations. Line up the 50 year old DNA and show me where the DNA has mutated in order for all the vast array of different fur colors to be able to manifest themselves. They have a perfect control group to demonstrate their theory.

 

[JohnR7]

Ever heard of a thing called sickle cell anemia?

Ever hear of a syrian hampster?

Yes I heard of sickle cell. It has been highly researched. It is what they call a evolutionary trade off. If someone inherits one gene from one parent then they will have some resistance to malaria. But if they inherit the gene from both the parents then they will die from sickle cell.

So how can you demonstrate that some sort of a defective gene in the hampsters is causing the different color fur to appear? Just when in the last 50 years do you feel this genetic "defect" first occured?

 

[MewtwoX]

Sickle cell anemia is a useful example, in the sense that its presence in a heterozygous form is resistant to malaria.

This example also serves to illustrate the ambiguity in defining certain mutations as "good" or "bad". Good in one place can be bad in another...

 

[JohnR7]

This example also serves to illustrate the ambiguity in defining certain mutations as "good" or "bad". Good in one place can be bad in another...

I am wondering, why do you think that this was caused by a mutation? Because it can be "good" & "bad" or because you do not find it in everyone.

Or do you call it a mutation because you have a control group and you can demonstrate where a copy error first took place and the sickle cell first appeared?

Or do you just assume a mutation created the gene?

 

[MewtwoX]

I am wondering, why do you think that this was caused by a mutation? Because it can be "good" & "bad" or because you do not find it in everyone.

Or do you call it a mutation because you have a control group and you can demonstrate where a copy error first took place and the sickle cell first appeared?

Or do you just assume a mutation created the gene?

There's a difference between the amino acid groups made by the genes in question. This means that there was a mutation in the genes encoding the protein and it lead to a missense mutation.

We CAN demonstrate that it was a copy error. We don't need to know the specific time a mutation developed though... only that it did eventually develop.

 

[c'mon sense]

There is no mutiple lines of evidence that the things they call mutations are mutations at all. They have not shown or demonstrated that a mutation has taken place and they admit that they can not tell the difference between a mutated gene and a gene that has never "mutated".

Mutations have been positively identified and even induced in the lab in the case of the fruit fly, which is still the most popular experimental organism. Don't forget the fusion of two chimp chromosomes to form human chromosome II.

Far to often instead of using Mendels genetics to explain something they try to use Darwin's theory with no evidence at all to back up what they are claiming.

You never once heard mendal say that the gene must have become mutated so that the pea came out wrinkled. Yet that is the nonsense you hear today.

Sexual recombination is not enough to explain genetic diversity. However, in the process of crossing-over, strange things can happen to chromosomes and genes thereon.