Where did the laws of nature come from?

[RealityCheck01]

1. Yes and I addressed that by posting some more evidence to show that ancient bacteria has been found that is similar to modern ones, which you havnt addressed.

I did address it: 8 July 2016 stevevw: Morphology showing that bacteria looked similar to their ancient ancestors does not mean that they were genetically identical.

The new articles I included stated that the bacteria was similar in its DNA as well.

That is wrong, stevevw, because there is no DNA analyzed in the new articles !
The blog article AMBER, THE LOOKING GLASS INTO THE PAST does not contain the word DNA and looks at how bacteria look in amber.
Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago?: ""They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species," Schopf recalls."
This seems to be a habit of not understanding what you cite or maybe a "Gish Gallop" of irrelevant citations, e.g. previously we have had
23 June 2016 stevevw: Papers that do not state there is a limit to evolution are not evidence of limits to evolution.
23 June 2016 stevevw: None of the papers you cited state that most mutations are harmful.
11 July 2016 stevevw: Blog articles not mentioning DNA are not evidence of modern bacteria DNA not changing since "day 1".

In geological terms, the Cambrian explosion was sudden (20-25 million years).
In evolutionary terms, whether the Cambrian explosion was sudden or not is still disputed.

What I am saying is that you have still presented any evidence for "day 1" (about 4 billion years ago) bacteria being genetically similar to modern bacteria.
11 July 2016 stevevw: Please present the evidence that modern bacteria have not changed in the last 4 billion years.

And something you may not know - evolutionary theory predicts that modern species (e.g. bacteria) can be similar to ancestral species when there has been no natural selection driving changes.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Evolutionary theory predicts that if a population of bacteria has some individuals with natural resistance to an antibiotic then increasing exposure to the antibiotic will increase the % of individuals with that resistance.

And that is what we see when we expose bacteria to increasing amounts of antibiotics. stevevw: Confirming evolutionary theory yet again !

Evolutionary theory predicts that if a population of bacteria has some individuals with natural resistance to an antibiotic then that population will keep that % of individuals if the natural source of the antibiotic remains constant. It is changes in environment that produce changes in populations.

Antibiotic resistance is ancient (2002)
11 July 2016 stevevw: D’Costa et.al. is a 2002 paper that showed that a bacteria already had resistance to natural antibiotics - standard biology as in the Wikipedia article on antibiotic resistance.

Resistance arises through one of three ways: natural resistance in certain types of bacteria; genetic mutation; or by one species acquiring resistance from another.[4]

(my emphasis added)

Scientists unlock a ‘microbial Pompeii’ – February 23, 2014
11 July 2016 stevevw: A paper on that the same bacteria that cause dental plaque today did so 1000 years ago.

Resistance to antibiotics is ancient (2011)
11 July 2016 stevevw: A paper confirming the well known biology that antibiotic resistance exists to natural antibiotics.

The list of 229 examples of evolution which you supplied and now are ignoring as they dont prove evolution either

I am not ignoring some imaginary list that you seem to be misrepresenting, stevevw. There is enormous evidence for evolution - that is why Darwin wrote his books and why they were widely accepted ! And the evidence has got better in the last ~160 years.
However there is my Jul 3, 2016 post which cited the Talk Origins article 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. That is what you have ignored and misrepresented.
4 July 2016 stevevw: The Talk Origins site does not state that the evidence for macroevolution cannot be verified.
4 July 2016 stevevw: The invalid assertion that the evidence for macroevolution is circular.
4 July 2016 stevevw: The "gaps in the fossil record", "transitional fossil", "Cambrian explosion" creationist claims Index to Creationist Claims

 

[RealityCheck01]

Then why do supporters of evolution say that antibiotic resistance in bacteria is an example of evolution in action.

Because antibiotic resistance includes mutations evolving bacteria to be more resistant to antibiotics as predicted by evolutionary theory.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is when a microbe evolves to become more or fully resistant to antimicrobials which previously could treat it.[2][3] This broader term also covers antibiotic resistance, which applies to bacteria and antibiotics.[3] Resistance arises through one of three ways: natural resistance in certain types of bacteria; genetic mutation; or by one species acquiring resistance from another.[4] Resistance can appear spontaneously due to random mutations; or more commonly following gradual buildup over time, and because of misuse of antibiotics or antimicrobials.[5]
...
Causes
Bacteria with resistance to antibiotics predate medical use of antibiotics by humans;[19][20][21] however, widespread antibiotic use has made more bacteria resistant through the process of evolutionary pressure.[22][23]

 

[RealityCheck01]

So if bacteria had the ability to resist natural antibiotics ....

There is a logical fallacy called faulty generalization, stevevw.
Some bacteria having existing resistance to some natural antibiotics does not mean that all bacteria have resistance to all (natural and artificial!) antibiotics. You need to learn what antibiotic resistance means and how it is caused.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I dont think evolution can even attempt to explain how a single celled organism could evolve into complex multi celled life.

How evolution explains how a single celled organism could evolve into complex multi celled life.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Unless the required ability and info was there to begin with a random and blind process could find the right paths in billions of years.

An argument from incredulity or maybe: Claim CF002.1: Order does not spontaneously form from disorder. A tornado passing through a junkyard would never assemble a 747.
Or is this the idea that all DNA already contains all of the genes for every creature? For example a bacteria has the genes for a human being?
Paris japonica "has the largest genome of any plant yet assayed, about 150 billion base pairs long. An octoploid and suspected allopolyploid hybrid of four species, it has 40 chromosomes. With 150 billion base pairs of DNA per cell (a genome 50 times larger than that of a human)..."
You Have 46 Chromosomes. This Pond Creature Has 15,600

 

[KCfromNC]

So if bacteria had the ability to resist natural antibiotics then they would have had the basic genetic info to draw upon or modify to resist man made artificial antibiotics.

Sure, they had a working genome upon which mutation and natural selection could operate.

 

[stevevw]

It's not that simple. Both natural and artificial antibiotics come in many different types and act in different ways. Some bacteria do have dormant genetic sequences for resistance to antibiotics they were once threatened by, and can reactivate them when the same threat returns - either by a genetic or epigenetic switch, or by mutation in the case of inactivation by genetic drift. But many synthetic antibiotics act in entirely new ways, and some bacteria do not appear to have used dormant mechanisms to resist unfamiliar natural antibiotics, and we've seen the evolution of resistance to them from scratch. When you can sequence the genome of both resistant and unresistant strains, it's possible to see what has changed.

As far as I understand and have read it is not really the gain or addition of truly new info. It may not be a new way that the bacteria works because recombining the letters in a gene does not add a net gain of new info because entirely new letters need to be added. There is also a change to their original genetic makeup that can leave slight errors behind that can eventually affect the fitness. Any change is more or less a cost as it changes what was suppose to be OK and thats why we have such efficient mechanisms to try and rectify those errors.

Table I. Mutation Phenotypes Leading to Resistances of Specific Antibiotics.
Antibiotic Phenotype Providing Resistance
Actinonin Loss of enzyme activity
Ampicillin SOS response halting cell division
Azithromycin Loss of a regulatory protein
Chloramphenicol Reduced formation of a porin or a regulatory protein
Ciprofloxacin Loss of a porin or loss of a regulatory protein
Erythromycin Reduced affinity to 23S rRNA or loss of a regulatory protein
Fluoroquinolones Loss of affinity to gyrase
Imioenem Reduced formation of a porin
Kanamycin Reduced formation of a transport protein
Nalidixic Acid Loss or inactivation of a regulatory protein
Rifampin Loss of affinity to RNA polymerase
Streptomycin Reduced affinity to 16S rRNA or reduction of transport activity
Tetracycline Reduced formation of a porin or a regulatory protein
Zittermicin A Loss of proton motive force

Just because there is a change in the genetic makeup doesn't mean its positive in the long run or that it proves evolution. It may well be that these changes are altering what was needed in the first place. Its introducing alterations that may have far reaching effects on the finely tuned balance that is needed for life to be functional and fit. Look what has happened with artificial antibiotic resistance. We perceived the benefits of antibiotics in helping combat disease and infection. But we are altering the natural balance of how these micro organisms work with the rest of the bio-system. So we are creating a monster in the long run. There may have been a natural way to do things but we have played God and therefore affected the natural balance of things.

Plus bacteria have a great capacity for HGT and because bacteria are in the millions they may have a great amount of genetic variability to draw upon which they can use to help change to different situations. It seems some of the changes witnessed in labs has been almost instantaneous as though much of what was needed was already there to quickly use.

 

[KCfromNC]

As far as I understand and have read it is not really the gain or addition of truly new info.It may not be a new way that the bacteria works because recombining the letters in a gene does not add a net gain of new info because entirely new letters need to be added.

Which formulation of information are you using? Let's see the calculations which show that no new information is added when new base pairs are.

There is also a change to their original genetic makeup that can leave slight errors behind that can eventually affect the fitness. Any change is more or less a cost as it changes what was suppose to be OK and thats why we have such efficient mechanisms to try and rectify those errors.

Citation needed.

Table I. Mutation Phenotypes Leading to Resistances of Specific Antibiotics.
Antibiotic

Phenotype Providing Resistance
Actinonin Loss of enzyme activity
Ampicillin SOS response halting cell division
Azithromycin Loss of a regulatory protein
Chloramphenicol Reduced formation of a porin or a regulatory protein
Ciprofloxacin Loss of a porin or loss of a regulatory protein
Erythromycin Reduced affinity to 23S rRNA or loss of a regulatory protein
Fluoroquinolones Loss of affinity to gyrase
Imioenem Reduced formation of a porin
Kanamycin Reduced formation of a transport protein
Nalidixic Acid Loss or inactivation of a regulatory protein
Rifampin Loss of affinity to RNA polymerase
Streptomycin Reduced affinity to 16S rRNA or reduction of transport activity
Tetracycline Reduced formation of a porin or a regulatory protein
Zittermicin A Loss of proton motive force

Listing a few example doesn't show that this is a universal rule. Time to get to work - show that every possible mutation which leads to an increase in any sort of antibiotic resistance must be accompanied by a corresponding loss of fitness.

Just because there is a change in the genetic makeup doesn't mean its positive in the long run or that it proves evolution.

A change in the genetic makeup of a population is pretty much the definition of evolution.

It may well be that these changes are altering what was needed in the first place.

Oh well, environments change. Luckily mutations can generate new phenotype which make species better fit to live in those changed environments.

Its introducing alterations that may have far reaching effects on the finely tuned balance that is needed for life to be functional and fit. Look what has happened with artificial antibiotic resistance. We perceived the benefits of antibiotics in helping combat disease and infection. But we are altering the natural balance of how these micro organisms work with the rest of the bio-system. So we are creating a monster in the long run.

Yep, the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria is a great example of evolution via natural selection. Thanks for bringing it up.

There may have been a natural way to do things but we have played God and therefore affected the natural balance of things.

You really need to get away from the idea that there is some ideal that god created which we are getting the way of.

Plus bacteria have a great capacity for HGT and because bacteria are in the millions they may have a great amount of genetic variability to draw upon which they can use to help change to different situations.

Sure, that plus mutation and recombination do a good job introducing novel genetic information.

It seems some of the changes witnessed in labs has been almost instantaneous as though much of what was needed was already there to quickly use.

Seems to who?

 

[stevevw]

An argument from incredulity or maybe: Claim CF002.1: Order does not spontaneously form from disorder. A tornado passing through a junkyard would never assemble a 747.

The point is the proteins that build life are very specific and occupy a very narrow place in a very wide space of possible alternative sequences. Evolution has not even begun to show how it could find and build the proteins for life. Evolution is blind so the step by step process to find each needed piece which is exactly right and fits like a multi dimensional jigsaw puzzle would seem impossible to find without stumbling upon the wrong ones time and time again. In doing that it will be forever finding non function and therefore hit dead ends over and over again. To say that time will eventually find all those right pieces is unreal because its not just about time. Tests have shown that it doesn't work and thats all that matters. Saying it works or assuming it works isn't verification. You have to show it works with the science.

Or is this the idea that all DNA already contains all of the genes for every creature? For example a bacteria has the genes for a human being?

I dont know how it exactly pans out of started way back then. All I know is the evidence shows that the mechanism of evolution through random mutations and natural selection dont explain how life came about and changes. In fact as I have shown with the evidence it causes things to become less fit and there are road blocks to evolution producing a progressive increase in information, function and complexity.

Non adaptive mechanism seem to provide better answers to explain many of the things that evolution can't explain. Non adaptive mechanism seem to support pre existing genetic info and that life has other ways it can use to change that are inbuilt or connected with other life and the environment. I dont know if humans were created the way they were or they come from another form of animal. But what I do know is the ability to do so was already there and is part of a design for life that was intended to be there from the beginning.

Paris japonica

"has the largest genome of any plant yet assayed, about 150 billion base pairs long. An octoploid and suspected allopolyploid hybrid of four species, it has 40 chromosomes. With 150 billion base pairs of DNA per cell (a genome 50 times larger than that of a human)..."
You Have 46 Chromosomes. This Pond Creature Has 15,600

So isn't that saying that genetic info may have much more ability and info in it than we think. Look at the ENCODE project. Evolutionists said that most of our DNA was junk. A prediction of ID was that our DNA would be mostly functional. So far its proving that the DNA has more function. So therefore evolution has more explaining to do. If it was mostly junk then its easier to account and explain how a limited amount of functional info could create itself through a random and blind process. But when it becomes twice, three times, 10 times or more functional and complicated thats a whole lot harder to account for.

So maybe there is a vast amount of genetic ability that is there available to be used and switched on. Maybe all life is just variations of that code according to what is needed. Its just that evolution sees it as gradually being built bit by bit and design states it has been that way all the time and uses the mechanism it already has to change. This seems to fit the evidence better for events like the Cambrian explosion and how complexity of life shows up very early and is similar to today's life. The evidence doesn't show very simple life morphing to complex life and tests show evolution cant create more fitter function out of what is. Evolution maintains the status quo. From the initial genetic basis that was more pure and fit life is gradually deteriorating and losing info and becoming less fit. That is what the evidence seems to be showing. Only time will tell.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As far as I understand and have read it is not really the gain or addition of truly new info. It may not be a new way that the bacteria works because recombining the letters in a gene does not add a net gain of new info because entirely new letters need to be added.

Wait, are you redefining 'new'? because it sounds like you're saying that if a gene sequence is rearranged to code for a protein that the cell hasn't produced before, it isn't a new protein because it came from the same letters rearranged? Lol... how many different letters do you think there are to code for the millions of different proteins?

But in any case, there are many different kinds of mutations - insertions, deletions, duplications, overlapping, changes to start and end codons, changes to expression regulation, etc., that don't just involve one gene's letters.

There is also a change to their original genetic makeup that can leave slight errors behind that can eventually affect the fitness.

What about a gene duplication where the duplicate is subsequently modified to produce an antibiotic-resistant version of its protein? the slight 'error' that affects fitness does it by making the organism fitter. If mutations eventually affected fitness, you wouldn't expect to see organisms with high mutation rates thriving (you wouldn't expect to see life on Earth today, after 3 billion years of decreasing fitness!)

Any change is more or less a cost as it changes what was suppose to be OK and thats why we have such efficient mechanisms to try and rectify those errors.

It's not necessarily a cost (see above), and if it is a cost in one respect, it may not matter if the overall benefit outweighs the cost (for example, a human's large brain has considerable metabolic, anatomical, and developmental costs, but the overall benefits clearly outweigh those costs). We have efficient mechanisms to repair genetic damage because having a large number of damaged genes is likely to be deleterious and increases the likelihood of damage in critical areas. Also, infrequent advantageous mutations are more likely to be lost to the gene pool.

Just because there is a change in the genetic makeup doesn't mean its positive in the long run or that it proves evolution.

Straw man; nobody has claimed it is or it does.

Look what has happened with artificial antibiotic resistance. We perceived the benefits of antibiotics in helping combat disease and infection. But we are altering the natural balance of how these micro organisms work with the rest of the bio-system. So we are creating a monster in the long run. There may have been a natural way to do things but we have played God and therefore affected the natural balance of things.

I agree to some extent; it's overuse and incorrect use of antibiotics that have caused our problem. Natural ecosystems have been using antibiotics for millenia without significant disruption. But the antibiotic resistance that we see as a major problem is probably only a major problem for us; Earth's ecosystems in general are likely to become far healthier if we are decimated by bacterial infections.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The point is ...

The point should be not to write a mostly irrelevant reply to a post, stevevw.
So what we seem to have is an argument from your incredibility that leads to a fantasy about "Unless the required ability and info was there to begin with a random and blind process could find the right paths in billions of years.".

Adding arguments from ignorance is not good. This is evolution.
12 July 2016 stevevw: Evolution is not abiogenesis.
12 July 2016 stevevw: Evolution is not a "step by step process" that builds up like a jigsaw puzzle.
12 July 2016 stevevw: An imaginary "non adaptive mechanism" cannot explain anything.

12 July 2016 stevevw: The ENCODE project did not debunk junk DNA.
The ENCODE project showed that 76% of the human genome is transcribed which is not the definition of junk DNA.

Genomes & Junk DNA lists known junk DNA in 2008.

• Transposable Elements: (44% junk)
• Viruses (9% junk)
• Pseudogenes (1.2% junk)

"Evolutionists" did not say that most of our DNA was junk. Biologists noted the scientific evidence that most of all DNA is junk.
Five Things You Should Know if You Want to Participate in the Junk DNA Debate

Here are five things you should know if you want to engage in a legitimate scientific discussion about the amount of junk DNA in a genome.

1. Genetic Load
   Every newborn human baby has about 100 mutations not found in either parent. If most of our genome contained functional sequence information, then this would be an intolerable genetic load. Only a small percentage of our genome can contain important sequence information suggesting strongly that most of our genome is junk.
2. C-Value Paradox
   A comparison of genomes from closely related species shows that genome size can vary by a factor of ten or more. The only reasonable explanation is that most of the DNA in the larger genomes is junk.
3. Modern Evolutionary Theory
   Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of population genetics. The modern understanding of evolution is perfectly consistent with the presence of large amounts of junk DNA in a genome.
4. Pseudogenes and broken genes are junk
   More than half of our genomes consists of pseudogenes, including broken transposons and bits and pieces of transposons. A few may have secondarily acquired a function but, to a first approximation, broken genes are junk.
5. Most of the genome is not conserved
   Most of the DNA sequences in large genomes is not conserved. These sequences diverge at a rate consistent with fixation of neutral alleles by random genetic drift. This strongly suggests that it does not have a function although one can't rule out some unknown function that doesn't depend on sequence.

If you want to argue against junk DNA then you need to refute or rationalize all five of these observations.

 

[RealityCheck01]

As far as I understand and have read it is not really the gain or addition of truly new info.

12 July 2016 stevevw: This is the debunked creationist claim CB102. Mutations do not add information.

It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not according to some scientists.

Which scientists are these?

According to evolution its capable of almost anything.

That is something you have made up.

Thats where is begin to think that it is trying to account for what the evidence is really showing which is design and capabilities that are beyond what evolution can explain.

Yet another empty assertion.

It seems that when we find contradictions for evolution there is always a reason ie convergent evolution, ghost lineages, punctuated evolution, or conservation evolution over millions and millions of years.

Which of those are you saying is in contradiction to evolution?

But if evolution is to be able to evolve all the complex variation that has ever existed and what we see today then it would sure need to be working at it most of the time to be able to achieve those levels.

Is there a lineage that is not under selective pressure?

I have shown this in previous posts which I am sure you reviewed.

The following paper shows that protein folds are unique structures that are universal and have been much the same all along. They occupy a very small area of very big possible alternative forms which mean that they would take more time than what evolution claims to find those specific structures with random mutations and blind natural selection. There is no evidence that these structures evolved through gradual hit and miss evolution. The structures for building life are not receptive to changes and even small changes can affect their fitness. Any change would have to go through non functional sequences points which would render the attempt useless and lethal to life and therefore not selected for. It is doubtful that evolution could find the specific sequences through multi mutations in one go.
The protein folds as platonic forms: new support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12419661

I have already shown you that by the definitions you are using, there is not a single functional human protein.

The following paper supports the idea that life has been complex from the beginning and any changes are adjustments and the switching on and off of that complexity.
Universal genome in the origin of metazoa: thoughts about evolution.

Metazoans are not the first life forms.

This is a good example of the circular reasoning and assumption of those who support evolution. To say that single celled life could have become more complex doesn't mean anything. You need to explain how that is possible and show evidence for it.

You only have the bare assertion that modern bacteria are representative of the first life forms found billions of years ago. Obviously, your bare assertion has nothing to stand on.

To say that because we have complex life now proves evolution because it started from simple life is circular reasoning based on assumption.

The fossil record is not an assumption. We have billions of years where the only evidence of life is single celled life.

Genetic entropy is based on most mutations having a slightly deleterious effect. Because the effect is so small they are not picked up and selected out and therefore build up in our genomes. That is what the evidence is showing. Humans for example are accumulating small deleterious mutations which are deteriorating our genomes.

The effect becomes larger when the organism attains a specific mutational load, increasing the selective pressure on subsequent mutations.

"A decrease in nucleotide substitution rates over time suggests that selection may be limiting the effects of Muller's ratchet by removing individuals with the highest mutational loads and decreasing the rate at which new mutations become fixed."
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0004969

You were saying that evolution doesn't evolve from simple to complex.

I said that evolution can go in both directions, from simple to complex and complex to simple. It can also stay simple.

I was showing that evolution claims that life started with simple single celled life and then to multi celled life which included the evolution things like brains.

I can show that Lindberg went from the US to Europe in one flight. Does this mean that Linderberg could not fly from NY to Georgia, or from Georgia to NY?

You also ignore all of the lineages where life stayed simple.

One of the basic tenets of evolution is the gradual accumulation of more complex life through small step by step evolution.

No, it isn't. You have made that up.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Genetic drift would not guarantee that and it is more likely to encourage negative mutations.

This is genetic drift, stevevw.

Genetic drift (also known as allelic drift or the Sewall Wright effect[1] after biologist Sewall Wright) is the change in the frequency of a gene variant (allele) in a population due to random sampling of organisms.[2] The alleles in the offspring are a sample of those in the parents, and chance has a role in determining whether a given individual survives and reproduces. A population's allele frequency is the fraction of the copies of one gene that share a particular form.[3] Genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely and thereby reduce genetic variation.
When there are few copies of an allele, the effect of genetic drift is larger, and when there are many copies the effect is smaller. In the early 20th century, vigorous debates occurred over the relative importance of natural selection versus neutral processes, including genetic drift. Ronald Fisher, who explained natural selection using Mendelian genetics,[4] held the view that genetic drift plays at the most a minor role in evolution, and this remained the dominant view for several decades. In 1968, population geneticist Motoo Kimura rekindled the debate with his neutral theory of molecular evolution, which claims that most instances where a genetic change spreads across a population (although not necessarily changes in phenotypes) are caused by genetic drift acting on neutral mutations.[5][6] There is currently a scientific debate about how much of unguided evolution has been caused by natural selection, and how much by genetic drift.[7]

As you can read, your assertion is wrong. Genetic drift acts on positive and negative mutations equally because it is a random sampling. Genetic drift is one of several neutral processes in evolution.

 

[stevevw]

This is genetic drift, stevevw.

As you can read, your assertion is wrong. Genetic drift acts on positive and negative mutations equally because it is a random sampling. Genetic drift is one of several neutral processes in evolution.

At last you are acknowledging what I have been saying for some time now that adaptive changes through natural selection is not the only force that can influence change. That in fact adaptive evolution through natural selection is a minor player for life changing and finding complexity and other non adaptive forces in which one is genetic drift can influence and effect life more. According to population development genetic drift can overtake natural selection and put a spanner in the work for what evolution claims about natural selection finding positive mutations that build orgasmic complexity.

It seems that unless the benefit is great natural selection won't find those positive mutations and they will be lost. For complex proteins to form they need to find multiple positive mutations. But because drift is random the chances of finding multiple positive mutations that continue to build upon the previous mutations towards the specific and complex sequences needed for functional life is unlikely. So in the end natural selection is overcome by genetic drift and instead it ends up accumulating negative mutations. So it seems drift can be influenced and pushed into a particular direction of negative mutations simply because its random and random chance will find the lowest common denominator of negative mutations rather than the rare and specific positive mutations.

The Frailty of the Darwinian Hypothesis
It is impossible to understand evolution purely in terms of natural selection, and many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement. Because all three nonadaptive forces of evolution are stochastic in nature, this conclusion raises some significant technical challenges. It is tempting to think that stochastic processes have no implications for the direction of evolution. However, the effects of mutation and recombination are nonrandom, and by magnifying the role of chance, genetic drift indirectly imposes directionality on evolution by encouraging the fixation of mildly deleterious mutations and discouraging the promotion of beneficial mutations.

“The net effect of genetic drift in such (vertebrate) populations is “to encourage the fixation of mildly deleterious mutations and discourage the promotion of beneficial mutations,”
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

The consequences of genetic drift for bacterial genome complexity – Howard Ochman – 2009
The increased availability of sequenced bacterial genomes allows application of an alternative estimator of drift, the genome-wide ratio of replacement to silent substitutions in protein-coding sequences. This ratio, which reflects the action of purifying selection across the entire genome, shows a strong inverse relationship with genome size, indicating that drift promotes genome reduction in bacteria.
http://genome.cshlp.org/conten.....091785.109
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
The founders of population genetics, in particular, Sewall Wright, emphasized that chance could play a substantial role in the fixation of changes during evolution not only in their emergence, via the phenomenon of genetic drift that entails random fixation of neutral or even deleterious changes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19213802

I won't be able to reply as much now as my studies have commenced again for this semester and I need to dedicate more time to this. I will endeavor to reply as much as time permits.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Frailty of the Darwinian Hypothesis
It is impossible to understand evolution purely in terms of natural selection, and many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement. Because all three nonadaptive forces of evolution are stochastic in nature, this conclusion raises some significant technical challenges. It is tempting to think that stochastic processes have no implications for the direction of evolution. However, the effects of mutation and recombination are nonrandom, and by magnifying the role of chance, genetic drift indirectly imposes directionality on evolution by encouraging the fixation of mildly deleterious mutations and discouraging the promotion of beneficial mutations.

Whereas negative selection removes deleterious mutations and positive selection promotes beneficial mutations. Genetic drift is not the only force acting on genomes. It's not that hard to figure out.

 

[stevevw]

Whereas negative selection removes deleterious mutations and positive selection promotes beneficial mutations. Genetic drift is not the only force acting on genomes. It's not that hard to figure out.

Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop. Therefore Darwin's theory of evolution has little influence on how life changes and has been over estimated. Random changes to genes just can’t explain remarkable innovations of structures we see in life.

If there is a benefit from mutations which is questionable then they are very small and unless the benefit is great which is not the case most of the time they wont be selected and will be overcome and lost. Because most mutations are only slight, the negative ones won't be selected out and can build up which is what we are seeing. But positive mutations don't build up into something great because they operate in a blind and random process that never finds the very specific functional structures needed to build life. They end up being hijacked by negative mutations and even if they may find a way through to something, anything thats functional and fit it will take more time than evolution claims.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
We believe that the EES (extended evolutionary synthesis) will shed new light on how evolution works. We hold that organisms are constructed in development, not simply ‘programmed’ to develop by genes. Living things do not evolve to fit into pre-existing environments, but co-construct and coevolve with their environments, in the process changing the structure of ecosystems.

The story that SET (standard evolutionary theory) tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/

So it seems that other non adaptive forces that dont rely on a blind process of natural selection acting on random chance mutations which supporters of evolution make out are just consequences of evolution are more responsible for how life changes. Supporters of Darwin's theory (Modern Synthesis) make out these other non adaptive forces are minor players but it seems its the other way around. Darwin's theory is the minor player and other non adaptive forces are the major reason for what we see in how life changes.

 

[stevevw]

12 July 2016 stevevw: This is the debunked creationist claim CB102. Mutations do not add information.

The point is what is classed as information according to the Shannon meaning isn't the same thing when it comes to biological complex info and doesn't say anything about how evolution can create that complex genetic functional ability. According to the Shannon interpretation of new information a dysfunctional jumble of genetic sequences is new information.

 

[stevevw]

And that is what we see when we expose bacteria to increasing amounts of antibiotics. stevevw: Confirming evolutionary theory yet again !

Thats great but it tells us little about how the bacteria gained that ability to resist natural antibiotics. Just because an organism can do something doesn't mean that it was gained by Darwinian evolution. This is where the big assumption comes in and evolution makes claims with little evidence. Evolution claimed that the ability for bacteria to resist modern artificial antibiotics was an example of evolution at work. But as we can see bacteria has been able to resist antibiotics for a long time. So bacteria being able to accommodate exposure to increasing amounts of artificial antibiotics or different types of antibiotics isn't because of evolution but because they had that ability already and that is what the evidence shows.

The other point that has been mentioned many times is that the so called benefit is often the result of a loss of biological info and function which has come at a cost in others ways that cause a fitness loss in the long run. As shown before in the list of many different bacteria that can resist antibiotics we find that they have also had losses in other functions. Supporters of evolution get fixated on the small so called benefits and doesn't look at the bigger picture as to what those so called benefits cost to fitness.

Evolutionary theory predicts that if a population of bacteria has some individuals with natural resistance to an antibiotic then that population will keep that % of individuals if the natural source of the antibiotic remains constant. It is changes in environment that produce changes in populations.

Yes that's what evolutionary theory claims but that is not what happens in reality. As posted earlier organisms are not always changing as a response to changing environments. If the ability to resist antibiotics was already an ability that could be tapped into and switched on then how or why would bacteria need to be in a position to select or not select that ability. Antibiotic ability isn't something that happens in one go. So the many stages to build an ability or new function through protein sequence changes would need to be a step by step process where each and every step is aligned with the previous steps as well as in the direction of future steps.

Random mutations and blind natural selection have to find the specific and rare correct sequences in a massive amount of non functional sequences. Each and every step needs to be functional to continue to be accepted so that the next stage can be added. That is something we dont see happening and tests show that there are limits where negative mutations get in the way to cause any possible building on complex features thwarted. What we do see is complexity that is well defined and complete and if anything mutations are causing that optimal ability and deleicate stability of functional life to be diminished and less fit.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
We hold that organisms are constructed in development, not simply ‘programmed’ to develop by genes. Living things do not evolve to fit into pre-existing environments, but co-construct and coevolve with their environments, in the process changing the structure of ecosystems.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

Antibiotic resistance is ancient (2002)
11 July 2016 stevevw: D’Costa et.al. is a 2002 paper that showed that a bacteria already had resistance to natural antibiotics - standard biology as in the Wikipedia article on antibiotic resistance.

(my emphasis added)

Scientists unlock a ‘microbial Pompeii’ – February 23, 2014
11 July 2016 stevevw: A paper on that the same bacteria that cause dental plaque today did so 1000 years ago.

Resistance to antibiotics is ancient (2011)
11 July 2016 stevevw: A paper confirming the well known biology that antibiotic resistance exists to natural antibiotics.

I am not ignoring some imaginary list that you seem to be misrepresenting, stevevw.

So if you are acknowledging that antibiotic resistance is ancient then how can you say that modern resistance is caused by new evolutionary changes and not the result of a pre existing ability that is ancient.

There is enormous evidence for evolution - that is why Darwin wrote his books and why they were widely accepted !

Such as what evidence. Don't show me so called evidence of some saying its true or the assumptive evidence of fossils and observation which can be subjective. Give evidence that proves it true in the engine room where the actual process takes place with the changing genetic processes.

And the evidence has got better in the last ~160 years.

No it hasn't, Darwin didn't have genomic evidence and based everything on observation when he came up with things like the tree of life. Since the genomic evidence has come out it is showing that his tree of life is wrong. Many new discoveries of non adaptive forces such as developmental biology, HGT, epigentics, symbiosis, and other influences are all non adaptive which come from forces that are not based on Darwin's theory. So if anything darwins theory has competition against it that is taking the limelight and becoming more popular for explaining how life changes.

However there is my Jul 3, 2016 post which cited the Talk Origins article 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. That is what you have ignored and misrepresented.
4 July 2016 stevevw: The Talk Origins site does not state that the evidence for macroevolution cannot be verified.
4 July 2016 stevevw: The invalid assertion that the evidence for macroevolution is circular.
4 July 2016 stevevw: The "gaps in the fossil record", "transitional fossil", "Cambrian explosion" creationist claims Index to Creationist Claims

How can I ignore it if I replied to it which you are saying I misrepresented. Thats a contradiction in itself. maybe you are saying I am ignoring or misrepresented your post because you didn't like the answers. I stated that most of the evidence from the talk origin article was based on specialization and gave some support for how speciation is interpreted differently by scientists ie (lumpers and splitters for how taxonomists fall into two camps. One saying that variations are all part of the same creature and the other saying that variations are support for new species and therefore transitions).

What can be viewed as speciation or transitions between creatures is just the normal variation within the same kind of creature. By evolution conflating that normal variation into transitions it can build a case for supporting the theory. But as you can see this type of evidence is based on personal interpretations which are subjective and are not a reliable way to prove something. A person already looking for anything that represents a transition to prove evolution will see everything as a transition and make the mistake of turning normal variation of the same animals into new species.

Your dismissals that these claims are creationists claims is baseless as non creationists also make these claims as I have shown before. The Cambrian explosion has been a problem that mainstream scientists have said is a problem for evolution. Some have tried to come up with their own claims which are probably more along the lines of creationists type claims that anything else and have no evidence.