Entropy contradict Evolution

[MacM]

First of all, you don't have to download the movie. You only need Real Player to watch.

Wrong. It has to down load and then plays on real player. The down load (clearly marked "Down Load" requires 12 - 14 minutes).

Well, I don't know if I can do a good job at summarizing but here goes. The movies talks about how Natural Selection is not a evolutionary mechanism.

It also talks about the effects of Mutation, and how it can't possibly evolve animals. It also talk's about the Fossil Record, and how it doesn't support the theory. It also talk's about the SKULLs that were considered to show, us evolving from ape. It show's that all of those skulls are dimissed. So they are not considered evidence anymore. This shows the propaganda that is going on in the media, which still considers it as evidence, when it was officially considered not evidence. This is just the points which it talks about. I still recommend you watch the video.

Wrong again. It is more correct to say "It talks down these aspects of evolution and substitutes crass speculation that nothing but creation by God (being Allah) is possible.

The propaganda is to grab three cases of mis-indentfication and three cases of deliberate fraud by those seeking fame, etc and failing to acknowledge that this is not the foundatation of evolution but that they are a mere handful of skulls out of millions of artifacts.

 

[MacM]

James R,

You talk about mutation. Did you see the reaction of RICHARD DAWKINS when he was asked about MUTATION? HE DIDN'T SAY CRAP. HE IS ONE OF THE MOST KNOWN EVOLUTIONIST AND WELL RESPECTED. WHY THE HELL DIDN'T HE HAVE AN ANSWER?

He did give an answer. He has written several articles on the misrepresentation and false editing by these film makers. They made it look like he was stumped by inserting footage of him taken during a break in the interview process.

Where did you find these rebuttals by Mr Dawkins? I did watch the film and that was my very impression and I so posted that comment in my response above. I have infact been searching RD's works looking just for such comments by him or an e-mail to ask him directly.

786,

Now who is spreading propaganda?. A bunch of knowingly lying bastards. A bunch of lippy frauds and you want to take their word over millions of artifacts. Hmmmm.

 

[786]

Wrong. It has to down load and then jplays on real player. The down laod (clearly marked "Down Load" requires 12 - 14 minutes).



Wrong again. It is more correct to say "It talks down these aspects of revolution and substitutes crass speculation that nothing but creation by God (being Allah) is possible.

The propaganda is to grap three cases of mis-indentfication and three cases of deliberate fraud by those seeking fame, etc and failing to acknowledge that this is not the foundatation of evolution but that they are a mere handful of skulls out of millions of artifacts.

Oh really! sorry. The thing is my computer doesn't download it, it just plays. So I assumed you don't have to download either. Maybe it is because of Internet speed. Mine is DSL. That could be the case. Sorry though.

Anyways the thing about Allah. As I said consider it as a opinion. The rest of the movie is based on theory. Yeah sometime they say something like "it sure must have a creator" that is an opinion. You can distinguish between facts and opinion pharses can't you.

 

[MacM]

Oh really! sorry. The thing is my computer doesn't download it, it just plays. So I assumed you don't have to download either. Maybe it is because of Internet speed. Mine is DSL. That could be the case. Sorry though.

Not a problem. I have high speed cable "Roadrunner". I don't know what happens if an AOL or land line user were to try and access it but I know cable took 12-14 minutes and the access had a "Download" button.

Anyways the thing about Allah. As I said consider it as a opinion. The rest of the movie is based on theory. Yeah sometime they say something like "it sure must have a creator" that is an opinion. You can distinguish between facts and opinion pharses can't you.

Sure can and what I (and I believe others) have said is the film expresses an opinion and does not illustrate proof of any kind against evolution. It does present an arguement but that arguement is based on distortions of the true status of the history and current status of our knowledge of the subject. To include the rather poorely contrived film loop which made it "Appear" Richard Dawson was stumped and had no answer when in fact he did - FRAUD by the film editors.

Is evolution proven? Certainly not. Is it indicated by millions of data inputs and logic. Absolutely. Is the film supported in its claims and conclusions ? Absolutely not. Could it be correct? Possibly but with very little chance. And I do mean very little chance - In the trillions or trillions to one odds range.

That is the simple truth of the state of comparisions between our scientific knowledge, the actual volumes of evidence and the propaganda you are advocating.

The film is powerful but only for those that do not recognize the distortions and falsehoods of what they say. To a lay person it would appear God must be real and that that God is Allah but then that was the purpose of the film wasn't it.

This is a lesson you should learn. Science is not out to advocate a particular view. It attempts to expose the evidence and to rationalize what it means, regardless of results. If it were theoretically possible (and it isn't) that some test for the existance of God could be made, science would make that test and state that there is or is not a God. We have no predetermined conclusion of what the output should be and do not advocate such conclusions in advance of actual evidence or proof.

Religion (and your film) on the other hand have an agenda and advocate the conclusion not only without evidence to support it but in disregard of or of distortion of actual evidence.

 

[786]

Ok. Well you think the video is propaganda, and I think magazine articles are propaganda. But anyways lets forget the movie now and talk common sense. Is that all right with you?

Let's go step by step. Because Evolution contains a lot of things, which one can get confused by. So lets talk about Natural Selection first, which is one of the basic fundementals of the Theory of Evolution. I hope that is all right with you. The reason why I am taking it step-step is because it will be easier to understand and follow.

Anyways, Natural Selection is NOT an evolutionary mechanism. If you go and read the theory you will read that Natural Selection tells us that the weak will die, and the strong will live. and also that the animal fittest to the enviroment will live and the one's who are not fit will die. This does not mean that there is any process of Evolution. This theory only tells us which animals will survive, NOT which animals will evolve. This can be supported by a verse by DARWIN himself.

"Natural Selection can do NOTHING until FAVORABLE variations CHANCE to occur."
Charles Darwin The Origin of Species. 1.ed. p.177

You see that "Natural Selection can do NOTHING". So the discussion about Natural Selection having any Evolutionary mechansims ends here. But lets continue and talk about the "favorable variations".

I also want your attention to draw to this verse, extremely. You see that Natural Selection can do nothing until "FAVORABLE variations", now my question to you is how do you get favorable variations? If I wanted to be superman, will I become one. NO!. Thus we can conclude that these changes do not happen because ONE wants it to happen. So here we are talking about "natural" Favorable variations. Look around in the nature that there are millions of species in the world. Did all of them get "favorable variation"? Didn't even once a mistake occur, or wasn't favorable? Use some common sense here. I also want you to see that these animals play there part in the OVERALL balance to the best of their ability. Let me show you the balance which I am talking about.

Fish eat plankton (or something like that), and some birds eat Fish.
Now see that the Fish prevent planktons from overflowing and in the same way Birds prevent Fish from over-populating. These creatures are perfect in mantaining this balance.

Here is the verse again.
"Natural Selection can do NOTHING until FAVORABLE variations CHANCE to occur."
Charles Darwin The Origin of Species. 1.ed. p.177

Ok, IF(HUGE IF) all of the variations were favorable, but that is not all, read the verse again. These "favorable" variations were to occur by "CHANCE". The word "CHANCE" screws the theory even more. Basically if Evolution depended on Natural Selection, and Natural Selection depended on "Favorable" variations which depended on "CHANCE". Then you can see that the whole theory is depended on "CHANCE." The "CHANCE" of "FAVORABLE" variations.

Let me put it this way. Suppose we are Gambling. Black Jack. Ok.

Dealer=nature
1 card=original specie
2 Card=chance of variation
Hands(cards)=A new specie
Wins=Evolution Process (suscess)
Loss=Evolution Process (failure)

Ok. Now look

The Dealer dealt the 1st card. I have got a Jack. So I need an Ace to have a blackjack.(Moment of suspense ) Dealer dealt the 2nd card I got an Ace (1 win, new specie). This same process repeated many times, until we reach the number of different species in the world. That would be some million hands. The theory of Evolution WON all the hands because it won all the hands by CHANCE. What do you think is the probability is of winning All the hands in Gambling, when you play Million hands? I am talking about winning ALL the hands, not losing any. I think we all know.

If you were to think of Evolution as the player. Than you can see that Evolution never lost a hand. It always had the benefit of CHANCE.

Maybe this is not a good example. Just my try to show you the impossiblity of a creature so complex forming by CHANCES.

I just want you to notice this. That "Favorable variations CHANCE to occur" is the one of the BUILDING BLOCK of the Theory of EVOLUTION. So basically we are a product of CHANCES!!!!!!!. Life is so complicated. You believe that it was a BIG CHANCE.

The theory of Evolution is no better than saying "Some million years ago a tornado blew through a junkyard and by CHANCE it created a MERCEDES. Then every year the tornado came and by CHANCE added new material to the MERCEDES which BY CHANCE evolved it into a model 2000. Then the tornado came again and by CHANCE added new material to the MERCEDES which BY CHANCE evolved it into a model 2001, and this process kept going on, and on, and on."

A lot depending on CHANCES don't you think?

First of all, a "single" cell is more complex then a Mercedes. If a Mercedes was created by a creator (some person, I don't know), then why do you have a problem believing that life, which is more complex than a mercedes, had a Creator?

 

[James R]

786:

Me: One common mutation is duplication of various sequences of DNA, which results in a longer genetic sequence.

You: Could you explain this?

Sure. Suppose you have a genetic sequence:

ATACCTAAG

as a random example. During duplication of the DNA in the normal process of cell division, it is possible to have deletions or additions to a section of code, due to copying errors. So, for example, when the above section is copied, it is possible to end up with a sequence like:

ATACCTCCTAAG

Notice that here 3 "letters" have been added to the genome. Information has been added to the genetic code, which may result in changes to the organism.

I will start another thread on the issue of random mutations never making positive changes to the genome, which you seem to rely on a lot, but which is simply not true.

 

[786]

786:



Sure. Suppose you have a genetic sequence:

ATACCTAAG

as a random example. During duplication of the DNA in the normal process of cell division, it is possible to have deletions or additions to a section of code, due to copying errors. So, for example, when the above section is copied, it is possible to end up with a sequence like:

ATACCTCCTAAG

Notice that here 3 "letters" have been added to the genome. Information has been added to the genetic code, which may result in changes to the organism.

I will start another thread on the issue of random mutations never making positive changes to the genome, which you seem to rely on a lot, but which is simply not true.

I have never heard of such a case. Could you site your sources. Let me tell you what I know.

ONLY Mutation that I have read, heard, and witnessed only deletes or damages the DNA, never have I heard or read anything about addition information to the DNA

DNA goes through a process called "replication" in which DNA is copied EXACTLY without any changes.

Anyhow, even if what you are saying is true, then you can also conclude that this occurs by "CHANCE" because it is not normal for this thing to happen. Even if this happened once, this doesn't mean it will happen many times. In this case millions of times. Theory of Evolution is still based on CHANCE even if this type of Mutation was true. Although I don't think it is.

If this is DNA into RNA then this is what happens, I think.

mRNA goes through a process called "translation" which is the process when the DNA is converted into RNA. Then mRNA goes to the tRNA which then makes the protiens, process called "transcription", then rRNA makes the ribosome. I think this what happens.

 

[James R]

I have never heard of such a case. Could you site your sources.

Read any introductory text on genetics or biology. This is a basic fact.

DNA goes through a process called "replication" in which DNA is copied EXACTLY without any changes.

Most of the time that is true, but sometimes mistakes occur. The copying process is very good, but not perfect. Sometimes the wrong "letter" gets copied. Sometimes sections of code are deleted. Sometimes sections are added.

Anyhow, even if what you are saying is true, then you can also concluds that this occurs by "CHANCE" because it is not normal for this thing to happen. Even if this happened once, this doesn't mean it will happen many times. In this case millions of times. Theory of Evolution is still based on CHANCE even if this type of Mutation was true. Although I don't think it is.

Yes, this comes about entirely by chance, as you say. It is a random process. However, some of these random changes will cause the organism to be better adapted to its environment, while others will make it less well adapted. The process of natural selection then tells us that the better adapted organisms will be more likely to pass on the new gene to their offspring, while the worse adapted ones will either die or not reproduce successfully. Note: it is not an all-or-nothing thing. Even a 1% difference in reproductive success makes a huge difference over many generations.

mRNA goes through a process called "translation" which is the process when the DNA is converted into RNA. Then mRNA goes to the tRNA which then makes the protiens, process called "transcription", then rRNA makes the ribosome. I think this what happens.

Sounds right to me.

 

[786]

Yes, this comes about entirely by chance, as you say. It is a random process. However, some of these random changes will cause the organism to be better adapted to its environment, while others will make it less well adapted. The process of natural selection then tells us that the better adapted organisms will be more likely to pass on the new gene to their offspring, while the worse adapted ones will either die or not reproduce successfully. Note: it is not an all-or-nothing thing. Even a 1% difference in reproductive success makes a huge difference over many generations.

Here is where you are wrong, or maybe I misinterpreted what you said.

The science of Genetics that developed at the beginning of the 20th century proved that it was not acquired physical traits but only genes, that were transmitted to subsiquent generations. This discovery made it clear that a scenerio suggesting that acquired traits accumilated from generation to generation and generated different living species was implausible. In other words there were no inheritable variations for Darwin's proposed mechanism of Natural Selection to choose from.

 

[Raithere]

This shows the propaganda that is going on in the media, which still considers it as evidence, when it was officially considered not evidence.

The popular media is not a proper reflection of the current state of science and never has been. Refuting what comes across in the popular media is just a straw man argument. If you want to know what the current state of science is you need to read scientific publications.

Natural Selection is NOT an evolutionary mechanism. If you go and read the theory you will read that Natural Selection tells us that the weak will die, and the strong will live. and also that the animal fittest to the enviroment will live and the one's who are not fit will die.

No. Natural selection does not tell us this. When thinking about Evolution you must think in terms of populations, not individuals. When we're talking about survival we're basically talking about reproduction. There are many different strategies for successful reproduction, sometimes individual strength is advantageous but producing massive numbers of offspring is typically more advantageous (insects and bacteria, for instance). It is not simply a matter of living or dieing.

This does not mean that there is any process of Evolution. This theory only tells us which animals will survive, NOT which animals will evolve.

All animals evolve. DNA mutates and changes from generation to generation, most of the time these changes are neutral, neither positive nor negative. Sometimes they are harmful and sometimes they are beneficial. Beneficial mutations give the organism a slight reproductive advantage and are more likely to be passed on while harmful ones cause a disadvantage. Over many generations beneficial mutations propagate in a population while harmful ones die out.

You see that "Natural Selection can do NOTHING"

You should now be able to see that Natural Selection promotes the abundance of beneficial mutations within a population. It's quite simple. If you acquired a mutation that allowed your progeny to raise just a few more offspring every generation than mine, over time your progeny will be more numerous than mine. If I acquire a mutation that hampers my reproductive success (say my sperm are just a little less motile) my progeny will be even less populous than yours. Over time the genetic composition of the species changes, your genes propagate throughout the population while mine decrease and perhaps die out.

Now add further complexity to the situation; not all of our genes are passed to each of our descendents. Some of your descendents will have the advantageous gene while others will not. Those that carry the gene have more descendants than those who don't. It is the gene itself that contributes to the success of its own propagation. Genes that contribute to the success of the organism spread within the population. Now multiply this by the number of individuals in the population, mutations (good, bad, or neutral) are happening constantly.

The effect of this is extremely important to us. For one example, this is why it's important to complete an entire course of antibiotics and not stop taking them as soon as you feel better. As you take the antibiotics not all of the bacteria die at once. The weaker, more susceptible bacteria die first while the hardier more resistant bacteria live longer. If you stop taking antibiotics too soon you have killed off the weak bacteria but have left a large portion of hardier bacteria. As the population grows again they will all consist of hardier bacteria. Do this repeatedly and you wind up with bacteria that are resistant to certain antibiotics, a major medical concern today.

now my question to you is how do you get favorable variations?

Mutation.

Did all of them get "favorable variation". Didn't even once a mistake occur, or wasn't favorable.

This isn't a requirement. Remember, think in terms of populations. Detrimental mutations don't reproduce as successfully. Over time the number of my progeny will tend to remain small while yours will increase. Assuming all else is equal eventually the entire population will carry your successful genes while my unsuccessful genes will die out.

These creatures are perfect in mantaining this balance.

Not even close. Predator prey populations are in constant flux, typically waxing and waning one after the other. The deer population booms, then because of the food surplus the wolf population booms. The wolves start killing too many of the deer and the deer population crashes. The wolves have no food so the wolf population crashes. The deer population then booms again. And so on.

Then you can see that the whole theory is depended on "CHANCE." The "CHANCE" of "FAVORABLE" variations.

You're misunderstanding 'chance'. What we're talking about is mutation. But mutations are not completely random. Quite often DNA replication goes awry and whole segments of DNA are copied more than once. Now let's say that a particular segment codes for a protein that improves the ability of blood to convey oxygen. A mistake in replication causes you to have two such proteins and your blood cells convey O2 twice as well. One very small mutation causes you and you progeny to be better equipped than mine, particularly for high altitude climates.

Or say we're talking about the ancestors of the giraffe. Giraffes eat leaves along with many other animals so competition for food is fierce. Then one of these giraffes gets a mutation that causes her neck to be just a little bit longer, this giraffe is a little bit taller than the others and it can reach leaves that not many others can reach. It's therefore more successful. Down the generations another similar mutation occurs and the giraffe is just a little taller; again, more food, more success, more descendants. Meanwhile the short giraffes have heavy competition for food so they aren't as successful. Over time, Natural Selection (the competition for leaves) promotes longer and longer necks. It becomes a positive feedback loop.

The theory of Evolution is no better than saying "Some million years ago a tornado blew through a junkyard and by CHANCE it created a MERCEDES.

Absolutely not. This is in complete opposition to what Evolution says has and does occur. Evolution occurs as very small changes accruing over many generations within a population.

If a Mercedes was created by a creator (some person, I don't know), then why do you have a problem believing that life, which is more complex than a mercedes, had a Creator.

Because upon examining life we find that everything taking place is caused by natural forces. A thunderstorm is an incredibly complex phenomenon but people don't think that God creates thunderstorms using miracles because we know that each component is caused by natural forces. Life is more complex but none the less reduces to naturally occurring events.

You are right, that it must change the animal in some way. But it doesn't mean creating something "distinct" and in perfect working condition.

Evolution never states that mutation will create a distinct and perfect descendant. The changes are very, very small. But even very, very small changes accruing over time add up to tremendous differences. If you take a shovel full of dirt from your front yard and dump it in the back yard, that's not much of a change. Everything appears pretty much the same. But what if you did that once a day for a year, and then a decade, and then 100 years?

The DNA is extremely damaged. The person dies in a day, or very very close. Or someone is born with unnormal features.

Mutations can be detrimental. But you're only proving Evolutions case. Detrimental mutations don't survive to reproduce.

But in no way does it ADD any information to the genome. First of all the DNA is too complicated. You cannot add things to DNA by CHANCE. Yes, we have done things to DNA. But it REQUIRES PRECISION, and it requries a lot of concentration. It is in no way done BY CHANCE.

Actually, there is a large amount of redundancy in a genome. No one has 'perfect' DNA, no animal, no human. We all have mutations. Your DNA is not a perfect copy of the portions your parents gave to you, it contains mutations. The precision you are speaking of is only needed to affect a specific change but essentially random changes occur all the time. Most of your DNA is actually non-functional, where mutations have no effect at all. Additionally, mutation can easily add information as I pointed out above when duplications occur. Random mutations can also improve upon existing function. Remember that DNA is not literally a set of instructions it is functional. The 'code' is a sort of frame used to construct proteins. A small change in this frame does not mean that the protein built upon it will necessarily be useless just a bit different in structure. Sometimes the 'new' protein will be better than the old.

First of all, I can never believe that we are a product of "FAVORABLE varations" which "CHANCED" to occur. But if I were to believe in Evolution, then I would need to actually see the process of Evolution.

You can. We see it all the time and the evidence is everywhere. Creationists like to call it microevolution but the only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is time. Remember, small changes accruing over many generations.

I'm suprised. But evolutionists believe that things evolved from "simple to complex" beings.

Evolution does not mandate ever increasing complexity although complexity can increase. Bacteria, for instance, have remained at essentially the same level of complexity for billions of years, yet they continue to evolve.

~Raithere

 

[James R]

786 and others:

I have started a new thread showing how greater fitness can arise from random genetic changes. Hopefully this will make some things clearer for you.

Please look here:

[thread]39617[/thread]

 

[Raithere]

I have never heard of such a case.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Mutations.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

DNA goes through a process called "replication" in which DNA is copied EXACTLY without any changes.

No. The rate of such mutations is such that pretty much everyone has at least one.

~Raithere

 

[786]

First of all I want you to know that you are confusing Natural Selection with mutation. Everything I wrote was about Natural Selection. But on the contrary all the answers you provided were talking about Mutation. I think you'll notice that if you read your post.

If you are intentionally trying to confuse me with Mutation, then let me just tell you that it won't work.

Have you ever read "Origin of Species" it says The Origin of Species by the means of Natural Selection not mutation. We will talk about Mutation later. My information was on Natural Selection if you didn't notice.

Your answers are all about Mutation not NATURAL SELECTION. I aee that Mutation is a mechanism that can change an animal. So unless you have anything to support Natural Selection capable of having evolutionary mechanim, then we must stick to the point that Natural Selection has no evolutionary mechanism.

Natural Selection doesn't have any evolutionary mechanism. Do you agree, so far? or do you have anything in support of Natural Selection having evolutionary mechanism. I am repeating don't give me answers about Mutation wn i am aking about Natural Selection. This only shows how desperate you are about proving the mechanism of Natural Selection by using Mutation as your answer.

We will discuss Mutation later. I want to make clear that Natural Selection doesn't have any evolutionary mechanism.

So I'll ask you again. Do you agree that Natural Selection does not have any evolutionary mechanism? Support you thoughts if your answr is No. Don't give me Mutation. That is a different thing to talk about.

 

[James R]

786:

You are obviously confused. Please read the new thread I have created.

 

[786]

786:

You are obviously confused. Please read the new thread I have created.

My previous post was not to you but to Raithre. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Raithere]

Have you ever read "Origin of Species" it says The Origin of Species by the means of Natural Selection not mutation. We will talk about Mutation later. My information was on Natural Selection if you didn't notice.

Even though the Origin of Species was written before the discovery of DNA Darwin expressed the concept as 'descent with modification'. Though he did not know what the mechanism of modification was he knew one must exist. This is a primary example of how a good Theory works. Evolution predicted in advance that something like DNA and mutation must occur.

Your answers are all about Mutation not NATURAL SELECTION. I aee that Mutation is a mechanism that can change an animal. So unless you have anything to support Natural Selection capable of having evolutionary mechanim, then we must stick to the point that Natural Selection has no evolutionary mechanism.

You can't look at Evolution without both Mutation and Natural Selection. Your statement is akin to looking at a car that has had its engine removed and stating that this proves cars can't move because they don't have engines.

Natural Selection doesn't have any evolutionary mechanism. Do you agree, so far?

Not in the least. Natural Selection is the mechanism that promotes or inhibits the statistical propagation of a gene within a population.

~Raithere

P.S. Don't worry about it. Hope you two don't mind my jumping in.

 

[786]

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Mutations.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

No. The rate of such mutations is such that pretty much everyone has at least one.

~Raithere

Did you read the first article that you gave me the link for. All the mutations have some kind of disease involved. you think that is beneficial. LOL and confused too. .

Only to are without any disease.

"Silent mutations
Most amino acids are encoded by several different codons. For example, if the third base in the TCT codon for serine is changed to any one of the other three bases, serine will still be encoded. Such mutations are said to be silent because they cause no change in their product and cannot be detected without sequencing the gene (or its mRNA)."

Obviously you can tell the difference between one animal an another. In other words this mutation could have possibly never occured, since the animal can surely be detected.

The second one is.

"Splice-site mutations
The removal of intron sequences, as pre-mRNA is being processed to form mRNA, must be done with great precision. Nucleotide signals at the splice sites guide the enzymatic machinery. If a mutation alters one of these signals, then the intron is not removed and remains as part of the final RNA molecule. The translation of its sequence alters the sequence of the protein product."

Keywords "great precision". Are you telling me nature has hidden micropipettes doing the mutation. you really making me crack. Mutation by "CHANCE" doesn't have precision.

I'm surprised you provided that article. It supports my claim than yours. Anyways we are talking about NATURAL SELECTION not MUTATION

 

[Godless]

Extremely extensive genetic change has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. We have seen genomes irreversibly and heritably altered by numerous phenomena, including gene flow, random genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation. Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements. Chromosomal rearrangements include genome duplication (e.g. polyploidy), unequal crossing over, inversions, translocations, fissions, fusions, chromosome duplications and chromosome deletions (Futuyma 1998, pp. 267-271, 283-294).

Want more go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#genetic_change

Godless.

 

[Raithere]

You must not have read the article completely. I've included some excerpts below. We tend to know much more about disease causing mutations because the disease signals us that something is wrong and thus it gets investigated. But beneficial mutations do occur, they just tend to be less obvious.

"Such gene duplication can be beneficial. Over time, one of the duplicates can acquire a new function. This can provide the basis for adaptive evolution. But even while two paralogous genes are still similar in sequence and function, their existence provides redundancy ("belt and suspenders"). This may be a major reason why knocking out genes in yeast, "knockout mice", etc. so often has such a mild effect on the phenotype. The function of the knocked out gene can be taken over by a paralog."

"After gene duplication, random loss — or inactivation — of one of these genes at a later time in one group of descendants different from the loss in another group could provide a barrier (a "post-zygotic isolating mechanism") to the two groups interbreeding. Such a barrier could cause speciation: the evolution of two different species from a single ancestral species."

"In humans and other mammals, uncorrected errors (= mutations) occur at the rate of about 1 in every 50 million (5 x 107) nucleotides added to the chain. (Not bad - I wish that I could type so accurately.) But with 6 x 109 base pairs in a human cell, that mean that each new cell contains some 120 new mutations."

~Raithere

 

[786]

Look you peple are posting interesting stuff. But I am talking about Natural Selection, not Mutation. We will talk abou Mutation after Natural Selection.

Ok some of you believe that Natural Selection is linked with Mutation. In others words we can't talk about one topic without the other.

"Natural Selection can do nothing unless favorable variations chance to occur."

Why do you have a hard time understanding a simple sentence?
Natural Selection tells us which will survive. So don't try to change the theory.

Mutation on the other hand can happen to anyone, even the weak. You don't have to be the fittest to go through mutation. So really there is no need of Natural Selection, go through a process of Mutation.

I'm just trying to tell you that Natural selection ALONE cannot do anything. As stated by Darwin himself.

I still have 99% doubt that you people don't get it.
Below I'll provide some quotes from evolutionists.

The correct definition of natural selection, which was known well before Darwin, is this: Those living things whose features are best suited to the conditions in their surroundings naturally have a better chance of survival. For instance, in a place where winters are long and the ground remains covered with snow for extended periods, white-furred rabbits will be better camouflaged and fall prey to predators less often than darker ones, giving them a greater chance of surviving, and thus of reproducing. This being the case, the proportion of white-furred rabbits in the population will keep rising, while the relative number of dark-furred rabbits will decline. To give another example, in a herd of zebras which constantly have to flee from leopards, those which run fastest will survive while the others die. Since fast runners will survive in every generation, the herd will come to consist of nothing but fast runners in a few generations' time.

That is the definition of natural selection: the best-adapted survive, while the others are eliminated. That is why the species in question continues to become ever better adapted. This may not always apply, of course. For example, in an area where the climate is changing and the snow covering is disappearing-say, due to global warming-the white rabbits would suddenly be at a disadvantage compared to dark rabbits, and so, having now become poorly adapted, they would be doomed to disappear. Therefore, natural selection cannot always be expected always to select the same features for a given species.

Evolutionists, however, believe that natural selection selects and gradually accumulates the same features in a species over millions of years, acting on variation within a species and then somehow giving rise to entirely different species. The fact is, however, that even if natural selection did always select the same characteristics, this would only lead to the improvement of certain features in living species by spreading advantageous characteristics throughout the whole population. It could not lead to these beings' acquiring totally new characteristics. Much less, then, could it afford them the opportunity to turn into other species.

A species can only change to the extent that its genes permit.
Rabbits always remain rabbits, and zebras remain zebras. That is because the genetic pool (genome) of a species prevents it from turning into another one. A species can only change to the extent permitted by its genes.

Darwin, however, loaded an extra meaning onto natural selection over and above this scientific definition, and suggested that it was the basic mechanism of evolution. According to Darwin and contemporary evolutionists, natural selection, devoid of any reason or consciousness, began with a single-celled bacterium and gradually, over billions of years, created such marvels as trees, birds, flowers, ants, deer, parrots, strawberries, oranges, horses, peacocks, and human beings. It is clear that this claim is inconsistent and unscientific, because natural selection cannot bring about new characteristics or new genetic information; it can only select between among what already exists.

Stephen Jay Gould, one of the theory of evolution's most prominent supporters, says that evolutionists are seeking from natural selection a power it does not possess:

"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the major creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."
Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," History, vol. 86, July-August 1977, p. 28.

In an article published in Scientific American in 1994, Gould describes the limitations of natural selection in these terms:

"Natural selection is therefore a principle of local adaptation, not of general advance or progress."
S.J. Gould, Scientific American, October 1994, p. 85.

In his comments on a new mechanism for evolution postulated by Edward Wiley and Daniel Brooks, Roger Lewin says:

"Natural selection, a central feature of neo-Darwinism, is allowed for in Brooks and Wiley's theory, but only as a minor influence. "It can affect survivorship" says Brooks. "It can weed out some of the complexity and so slow down the information decay that results in speciation. It may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested."
Science, 1982, no. 217, pp. 1239-1240.

A book by four evolutionary biologists titled Parasitology makes the following statement about natural selection:

"Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs."
Noble, et al., Lea and Febiger, "Evolution of Parasitism," Parasitology, sixth edition, 1989, p. 516

The subject which evolutionists really need to explain is how the above "biologic properties that already exist" came to be. Evolutionists themselves confess that natural selection is unable to provide an answer. That is why the neo-Darwinist theory was proposed. Neo-Darwinism suggests that the biological changes expected to be chosen by natural selection came about by means of mutations. As we shall be seeing, however, mutations are incapable of bringing about the beneficial changes necessary for a living thing to evolve.

But is it clear that Natural Selection is "not a creative force". It has no evolutionary mechanism. Only thing that can do anything is Mutation.

So basically Mutation is the important part to discuss not Natural Selection.
Does everyone get it now, that Natural Selection doesn't make you evovle? Then we will start talking about Mutation. But do you agree that Natural Selection does not have any evolutionary mechanism?