So Mark is again denying that beneficial mutations are plentiful and build up by natural selection?
I deny the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinians who conflate real world science with pithy rhetoric while neglecting the genuine artlcle of science. Natural selection is nothing more then the death of the less fit and if you don't know that then you don't know the first thing about it.
By the way, addressing me in the third person is something I have very little patience for. If you want to perform I suggest you get a soap box and go down to the local park.
Earlier, I posted a list of examples where Mark posted a falsehood, was shown to be wrong, and then later on posted the same falsehood again as if no one would notice that he's been corrected before.
You mean you went on an error fabrication campaign and succeeded in alienating someone who was trying to share with you what he learned. That's fine, if you want to define the discussion in those terms I'm always ready to defend my position against the fallacious rhetoric of Darwinian minions.
Apparently now we have another example of this behavior. One of the many times Mark has been shown some of these beneficial mutations and how they accumulate was at these posts:
So you cut and past another link that gets us to a discussion of this source material:
To untangle the different possibilities, we performed MA experiments on lines differing by approximately 300-fold in fitness to characterize the distribution of deleterious mutation effects on fitness (Figure 4). This distribution of mutational effects is leptokurtic, with most mutations being of small effect, and a few having large effects (Figure 4A). Across a very wide range of fitness values, this distribution of effects appears to remain approximately constant (Figure S1). Additionally, the shape of the distribution is strongly supported by the genomic data, which show that even when populations are maintained at large population sizes and fitness does not change, substitutions continue to accrue; these must be of very small effect. However, if all mutations were of small effect, they should be immune to selection in small populations. This was not observed; both deleterious and beneficial mutations were subject to selective forces, even in the smallest of the populations (citation unavailable)
- Across a very wide range of fitness values distribution appears to remain approximately constant.
- Even when populations are maintained at large population sizes and fitness this does not change.
- Both deleterious and beneficial mutations were subject to selective forces even in the smallest populations.
Notice my comments below the quote in a three point list is just a summary and paraphrase of the quote. The quote is really just saying that the beneficial and deleterious effects are the same in small and large populations. The comments shrenern makes are aimed exclusively at me, he never makes a substantive point and the topic is hopelessly mired in personal remarks.
Papias is celebrating the fallacious line of reasoning and pretending to prove something.
Shernren is making a mockery of the paper as well as engaging his standard ad hominem attack, it's his whole function on here. If you want to see his intellectual integrity in full swing you should come and see how he refuses to acknowledge that 3 + 1 = 4. Is that science?
I ask a simple question, based on the findings of the Chimpanzee Genome consortium are we 98% the same as Chimpanzees or 96%. Not a single evolutionist will admit this clear statement of fact:
Chimpanzee/Human Genome Difference. 98% or 96%?
- Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23% between copies of the human and chimpanzee genome, with 1.06% or less corresponding to fixed divergence between the species.
- Insertion and deletion (indel) events are fewer in number than single-nucleotide substitutions, but result in ~1.5% of the euchromatic sequence in each species being lineage-specific.
(Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome, Nature 2005)
Not one evolutionist will admit that 3 + 1 = 4 and this is a prime example of that kind of fallacious rhetoric. They don't care about science, they come here to make personal attacks on creationists.
Yea check it out, the argument is so important it is represented here by papias as a cut and paste link and an inflammatory personal attack.
Repeatedly I have told this guy that I do not deny beneficial effects from mutations. Repeatedly he sets up a strawman attack on an argument I have never made. Mutations are a failure of DNA repair, when they have an effect the vast majority are deleterious. Researchers emphasis this point and this in no way distracts them from the fact that mutations are essential to improved fitness in populations over time.
That is not a contradiction of what I'm saying nor is it an indictment against evolution. It's simply a fact of life, especially for single celled populations like bacteria. If you are not well read in the scientific literature it's hard to grasp and papias would know this by now if he were focused on something other then personal attacks.
From there, here are some beneficial mutations:
Notice to this point he has not quoted me once. He calls me a liar but he never quotes the lie. This is called a strawman argument, he sets up an argument against someone who is denying that there is such a thing as a beneficial effect from a mutation. He calls that person Mark but I never said that. Now he is going to do his standard cut and paste link intermingled with his pedantic, sophomoric quips. He doesn't even put a title in the link
This mess is what he is passing off as an argument:
There is plenty of evidence for many observed beneficial mutations.
An argument I never made...
For example, here is an observed beneficial mutation for better immune cells in humans:
This is the first line of the abstract he linked to without any substantive remarks.
We have recently described a C825T polymorphism in the gene encoding for the Gbeta3 subunit of heterotrimeric G proteins. (
Pub Med 1998)
This is describing a polymorphism in highly technical language I guarantee you papias cannot read. He doesn't pick a paper in PLoS where the whole thing is available or make the slightest effort to describe how this spam salad has any relevance. He calls me a liar without quoting me, cut and pastes a link with a one line comment on nothing to nobody.
It's a polymorphism in a protein coding gene, so what?
an observed beneficial mutation for bigger muscles in humans...
This kid has a deactivated gene that has this effect on him:
''At first we thought it might be epilepsy,'' Dr. Schuelke said.
After two months, the jerking movements had subsided, but the puzzle of the baby's muscles remained. Then Dr. Schuelke had an idea. He knew that Dr. Se-Jin Lee at Johns Hopkins University, working with mice, had found that when both copies of a gene for a protein called myostatin were inactivated, the animals grew up lean and so muscular that Dr. Lee called them ''mighty mice.''
It turned out that cattle breeders, decades ago, had stumbled upon the same genetic trick, developing a strain known as Belgian Blue, or double muscle cattle. The cattle are hefty, very meaty and lean, and they, too, researchers later found, had inactive myostatin genes...
...The mother had one nonfunctioning copy of the gene. In the boy, both copies of the gene were inactive; he was making no myostatin at all. (A Very Muscular Baby Offers Hope Against Diseases - NYTimes.com)
That's the new article he is going to submit, a kid that jerked so much that they thought he have epilepsy. There you have it, two inactive copies of a gene presented as an example of a beneficial effect from a mutation.
, in bacteria, an observed beneficial mutation for the ability to eat citrate
My often made statement that the overwhelming majority of effects from mutations that have an effect are deleterious is confirmed in no uncertain terms here:
No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation.(
PNAS 2008)
I don't know if he thinks this will scare me away from the scientific literature but he has still, not quoted me once. He has still not made a single substantive remark or elaborated with more then a single off the wall remark on the sources he uses.
This is nothing more then spam intended to flood the thread and discourage creationists from posting to their own forum. It is a shameless empty post that unfortunately is typical of his tactics.
Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli” PNAS[/I][/URL] ,
and an observed beneficial mutation for the ability to digest nylon
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=7646041
I'll make my last point with this one because it's the best one I've ever seen. All the evolutionists love using this one because it's an example of a frameshift mutation that improves a protein product that is not only beneficial but adaptive. A frameshift in the protein coding genes are highly disruptive, this is what happens most of the time:
Indels involving one or two base pairs (or multiples thereof) can have devastating consequences to the gene because translation of the gene is "frameshifted". This figure shows how by shifting the reading frame one nucleotide to the right, the same sequence of nucleotides encodes a different sequence of amino acids. The mRNA is translated in new groups of three nucleotides and the protein specified by these new codons will be worthless. Scroll up to see two other examples (Patients C and D). ([URL="http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Mutations.html"]mutations
)
Frameshifts often create new STOP codons and thus generate nonsense mutations. Perhaps that is just as well as the protein would probably be too garbled anyway to be useful to the cell.
Ok, that's what a frameshift mutation does the overwelmning majority of the time. In the case of the nylon bug a frameshift created the ability of this population to digest nylon right?
Wrong!!!!
The mechanism of gene duplication as the means to acquire new genes with previously nonexistent functions is inherently self limiting in that the function possessed by a new protein, in reality, is but a mere variation of the preexisted theme. As the source of a truly unique protein, I suggest an unused open reading frame of the existing coding sequence. Only those coding sequences that started from oligomeric repeats are likely to retain alternative long open reading frames.
Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence.
This swapped out reading frame of simple repeats is very similar to the Arctic fish that not only had a unique sequence but a new gene. I won't go into the details any further because I doubt seriously anyone is reading these insufferable cut and paste spam attacks. I'll tell you this, what you are looking at with the nylon bug is not a random mutation or natural selection. What you are seeing is an adaptation from a molecular mechanism.
and if all those weren't enough (and there are plenty more),
No body is reading these cut and paste spam ramblings. I sorted through them because I enjoy the literature and I've read a lot of it, something you should try at least once in a while.
Plus, simple common sense shows that there are plenty of beneficial mutations. A mutation will cause a change in the offspring. So look at your arm - a mutation would make it longer, or shorter. Which is "beneficial", and which is "harmful"? Well, that depends on the environment. If you are living in the trees, the longer arm is beneficial for reaching branches. If you are a runner on the plains,the longer arm is harmful, because it's more weight to carry.
Pure, undiluted Darwinian rhetoric without scientific merit and requiring no substantive or empirical support.
Mark was also directed to post #75, here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7512492-8/
I'm through following you down these pointless rabbit hole posts.
Which shows mathematically that natural selection will cause beneficial mutations to be dominant, even if the mutation rate makes many more harmful mutations than beneficial mutations.
Mark, do you remember those instances?
Do you agree there are beneficial mutations, and that natural selection will naturally multiply them, while removing the harmful mutations?
Papias
I don't agree with anything you say. I think you are a shameless liar. You didn't have the decency to even quote me your fallacious debate tactics, frankly, disgust me.
Have a nice day 
Mark
You inferred that yourself - "You have the unmitigated gall to come in here and pretend that these contrived fossils turn the Word of God into a lie?" I wrote that if God created the world and everything in it presumably he also created the fossils.
