Entropy contradict Evolution

[Raithere]

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.

Your argument seems divisive to me. But yes, I concur that Natural Selection alone does not account for the formation of anything new, it is not "creative". Of course, I now expect you to go on to state that mutation is not creative either since it is essentially 'random' and thus you hope to disprove evolution. However this argument is untenable since Evolution shows how these two mechanisms operate together to provide new utility.

But please go on.

~Raithere

 

[786]

I agree that Mutation has the ability to change an animal. Maybe not completely different animal, but I am not sure about this. But ok lets talk about Mutation now.
Wait up, let me gather my information first. I'll write in, maybe an hour or so.

I want this to be a good discussion, that is why I want to know everything about mutation, this will require me maybe an hour to find things about Mutation.

 

[Lemming3k]

786:

My friend, you really DON'T know the INHERITENCE process. Go take a science class. I've just went through this stuff. If you don't have time I'll explain it to you.

Dont tell me what i do and dont know, especially after i explained it to you.

I wonder why? Because mostly it's PROPAGANDA.

Then this debate is pointless, your mind is made up and you refuse to read any evidence contrary to what you believe.

We are still evolving? Huh?. Why don't the scientist provide this as evidence.
Wouldn't it make there case STRONGER. You are just making this BULLSHIT UP. Give me a SCIENCE ARTICLE or a SCIENCE SOURCE that says we are EVOLVING!!!.

We know what we evolved from already, how can i tell you what we will evolve into? It may take another million years. However it is a fact that man is growing taller, that might be considered evolution.

Despite all the fossil research of the last 150 years, the fact that these links are still just a dream shows that the theory of evolution is nothing but a fantasy.

I'll start with the fact the picture is too small to see and ask you to post a link to where you found it, now secondly your statement is incorrect, the fact these links havnt been found means they havnt been found, nothing more, it took a very long time for the first dinosaur fossils to be found, let alone anything else, and you are expecting every fossil ever predicted to show up in the space of 150 years? This is called an absence of proof, it is not the proof of absence, if you wish to claim its a dream please PROVE that these fossils cannot and do not exist anywhere on earth(i think you've got a lot of digging to do to prove that).

The part about carrots. This is HEREDITY, it is NOT MUTATION.

Now i know you dont understand evolution at all, hereditary means something has been passed on, how can the pygment required to make an orange carrot be passed on when carrots have never been orange before? Granted it could be the recessive gene but it hadnt showed itself, even as a freak, for hundreds of years, unless you can prove it had?

Excuse me. But go read the theory again. It is not the CHOICE of the animal, to change. IT JUST HAPPENS, BY CHANCE. Variations occur by CHANCE.

I never said the animal chooses when to evolve, nice try at putting words in my mouth though, and i repeat if it didnt need to evolve further why would it? Evolution is effectively a battle of predator versus prey, the prey will evolve faster and stronger to survive, so the predator must evolve also to survive, if it is surviving prefectly well already it may not evolve much if at all.

These systems and organs will not function even if a single component of them is lacking. This characteristic called the Irreducible Complexity of Life is evidence that these structures must have emerged at once and fully formed.

No it could mean that over gradual time through evolution the components became more and more dependant on each other to improve effeciancy and eventually they became fully dependant.

Effects of Mutation are NOT beneficial but destructive, or fatal.

Technically no, but generally if it was beneficial it would be considered evolution as opposed to mutation, scientifically mutations can be beneficial, if a nuclear reactor exploded and your genes mutated to be immune to a disease, that is beneficial, and still a mutation. New organs is a specifac type of mutation, you ignored all others, also it doesnt have to add to the gene to improve it, only change it, in theory if we could identify which genes were responsible for say cystic fibrosis, it is possible to mutate that gene so it doesnt occur anymore.

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. A creator who has the power, the knowledge, and the wisdom to create something so complex and beautiful.

1. A single cell is more complex than a mercedes and so more difficult to create.
2. A cell is a living organism, a mercedes is not.
3. Once man creates a living cell out of something not living, we will have solved the mystery of how life started, and you wont have so much trouble believing there isnt a creator will you?

First of all, I can never believe that we are a product of "FAVORABLE varations" which "CHANCED" to occur.

This debate does seem somewhat pointless then, if you dont believe in chance then your wasting our time.

But if I were to believe in Evolution, then I would need to actually see the process of Evolution.

Lets say you live 110 years, the only evolution you could witness in that time would be a creature that has an incredably short lifespan and a need to evolve to actually be able to watch enough generations of it for it to evolve, it took humans and other animals millions of years, you have probably at absolute best no more than 110 years to observe something similar, it may be possible though, but for you to believe in evolution you have to be able to believe life can be created by chance.

 

[786]

786:

Dont tell me what i do and dont know, especially after i explained it to you.

Then this debate is pointless, your mind is made up and you refuse to read any evidence contrary to what you believe.

We know what we evolved from already, how can i tell you what we will evolve into? It may take another million years. However it is a fact that man is growing taller, that might be considered evolution.

I'll start with the fact the picture is too small to see and ask you to post a link to where you found it, now secondly your statement is incorrect, the fact these links havnt been found means they havnt been found, nothing more, it took a very long time for the first dinosaur fossils to be found, let alone anything else, and you are expecting every fossil ever predicted to show up in the space of 150 years? This is called an absence of proof, it is not the proof of absence, if you wish to claim its a dream please PROVE that these fossils cannot and do not exist anywhere on earth(i think you've got a lot of digging to do to prove that).

Now i know you dont understand evolution at all, hereditary means something has been passed on, how can the pygment required to make an orange carrot be passed on when carrots have never been orange before? Granted it could be the recessive gene but it hadnt showed itself, even as a freak, for hundreds of years, unless you can prove it had?

I never said the animal chooses when to evolve, nice try at putting words in my mouth though, and i repeat if it didnt need to evolve further why would it? Evolution is effectively a battle of predator versus prey, the prey will evolve faster and stronger to survive, so the predator must evolve also to survive, if it is surviving prefectly well already it may not evolve much if at all.

No it could mean that over gradual time through evolution the components became more and more dependant on each other to improve effeciancy and eventually they became fully dependant.

Technically no, but generally if it was beneficial it would be considered evolution as opposed to mutation, scientifically mutations can be beneficial, if a nuclear reactor exploded and your genes mutated to be immune to a disease, that is beneficial, and still a mutation. New organs is a specifac type of mutation, you ignored all others, also it doesnt have to add to the gene to improve it, only change it, in theory if we could identify which genes were responsible for say cystic fibrosis, it is possible to mutate that gene so it doesnt occur anymore.

1. A single cell is more complex than a mercedes and so more difficult to create.
2. A cell is a living organism, a mercedes is not.
3. Once man creates a living cell out of something not living, we will have solved the mystery of how life started, and you wont have so much trouble believing there isnt a creator will you?

This debate does seem somewhat pointless then, if you dont believe in chance then your wasting our time.

Lets say you live 110 years, the only evolution you could witness in that time would be a creature that has an incredably short lifespan and a need to evolve to actually be able to watch enough generations of it for it to evolve, it took humans and other animals millions of years, you have probably at absolute best no more than 110 years to observe something similar, it may be possible though, but for you to believe in evolution you have to be able to believe life can be created by chance.

We are into the debate of Mutation. You will soon see that Mutation is not beneficial. You want to talk facts with me. We are about to get into some serious facts that the media doesn't tell you. Evolutionist shouldn't push on the part about facts, because they know that facts are against them. We will get into fossil records after talking about Mutation. Because Fossil Record is a major component.

So stick around for the Mutation part of the debate. Forget what I have said earlier. Because the thing is you believed that the video is a propaganda, and I believe most articles are propaganda. So basically you considered that I didn't prove shit and I beleived you didn't prove shit, so the result is obviously going to be shit. That is why I am going over part by part. I have already explained Natural Selection, you can read the posts if you wish. Now we will talk about Mutation, and how beneficial Mutation really is. I'm just collecting some basic information on Mutation, which the evolutionists believe in. Because if I know the beliefs of Evolutionists then it would be easier for me to continue the debate, because then I won't be hit with something UNEXPECTED, hopefully.

Just stick around for the Mutation part. Because that is a crucial part for Evolution.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Ok. I think I have gathered enough information to talk about Mutation.

Lets see some major points made by REAL SCIENTISTS. In other words lets look at facts.

THE LAST HOPE—It is well-known among many knowledgeable scientists that if evolution could possibly occur, mutations would have to accomplish it. There simply is no other mechanism that can make changes within the DNA. Natural selection has consistently failed, so mutations are the last hope of a majority of the evolutionists today.

"It must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the only new material available for natural selection to work upon."—*E. Mayr, Populations, Species and Evolution (1970), p. 103.

"The process of mutation is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution."—*T. Dobzansky in American Scientist, 45 (1957), p. 385.

Yet they have not been able to provide proof that mutations produce evolution.

"The complete proof of the utilization of mutations in evolution under natural conditions has not yet been given."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution, the Modern Synthesis, pp. 183 and 205.

OVERVIEW OF THE SITUATION—Mutations generally produce one of three types of changes within genes or chromosomes: (1) an alteration of DNA letter sequence in the genes, (2) gross changes in chromosomes (inversion, translocation), or (3) a change in the number of chromosomes (polyploidy, haploidy). But whatever the cause, the result is a change in genetic information.

Here are some basic hurdles that scientists must overcome in order to make mutations a success story for evolution: (1) Mutations must occur quite frequently. (2) Mutations must be beneficial—at least sometimes. (3) They must effect a dramatic enough change (involving, actually, millions of specific, purposive changes) so that one species will be transformed into another. Small changes will only damage or destroy the organism.

NEO-DARWINISM—(*#1/25 What the Public is not Told*) When *Charles Darwin wrote Origin of the Species, he based evolutionary transitions on natural selection. In his book, he gave many examples of this, but all his examples were merely changes within the species.

Since then, scientists have diligently searched for examples—past or present—of natural selection changes beyond that of basic plant and animal types, but without success. For example, they cite several different horses—from miniatures to large workhorses to zebras,—but all are still horses.

Finding that so-called "natural selection" accomplished no evolutionary changes, modern evolutionists moved away from Darwinism into neo-Darwinism. This is the revised teaching that it is mutations plus natural selection (not natural selection alone) which have produced all life-forms on Planet Earth.

"Evolution is, to put it simply, the result of natural selection working on random mutations."—*M. Ruse, Philosophy of Biology (1973), p. 96.

Neo-Darwinists speculate that mutations accomplished all cross-species changes, and then natural selection afterward refined them.[/B] This, of course, assumes that mutations and natural selection are positive and purposive.

1 - FOUR SPECIAL PROBLEMS

In reality, mutations have four special qualities that are ruinous to the hopes of evolutionists:

(1) RARE EFFECTS—Mutations are very rare. This point is not a guess but an scientific fact, observed by experts in the field. Their very rarity dooms the possibility of mutational evolution to oblivion.

"It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation."—*F.J. Ayala, "Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology," in Philosophy of Science, March 1970, p. 3.

Mutations are simply too rare to have produced all the necessary traits of even one life-form, much less all the creatures that swarm on the earth.

Evolution requires millions upon millions of direct, solid changes, yet mutations occur only with great rarity.

"Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event."—*F.J. Ayala, "Mechanism of Evolution," Scientific American, September 1978, p. 63.

(2) RANDOM EFFECTS—Mutations are always random, and never purposive or directed. This has repeatedly been observed in actual experimentation with mutations.

"It remains true to say that we know of no way other than random mutation by which new hereditary variation comes into being, nor any process other than natural selection by which the hereditary constitution of a population changes from one generation to the next."—*C.H. Waddington, The Nature of Life (1962), p. 98.

*Eden declares that the factor of randomness in mutations ruins their usefulness as a means of evolution.

"It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws."—*Murray Eden, "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as Scientific Theory," in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution (1967), p. 109.

Mutations are random, wild events that are totally uncontrollable. When a mutation occurs, it is a chance occurrence: totally unexpected and haphazard. The only thing we can predict is that it will not go outside the species and produce a new type of organism. This we can know as a result of lengthy experiments that have involved literally hundreds of thousands of mutations on fruit flies and other small creatures.

Evolution requires purposive changes. Mutations are only chance occurrences and cannot accomplish what is needed for organic evolution.

(3) NOT HELPFUL—Evolution requires improvement. Mutations do not help or improve; they only weaken and injure.

"But mutations are found to be of a random nature, so far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences."—*H.J. Muller, "Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material," in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 35.

I want you to notice that it says a HUGE 99% of the MUTATION ARE HARMFUL.

(4) HARMFUL EFFECTS—(*#2/21 Mutations are Always Harmful*) Nearly all mutations are harmful. In most instances, mutations weaken or damage the organism in some way so that it (or its offspring if it is able to have any) will not long survive.

As mentioned earlier, scientists turned to neo-Darwinism in the hope that it could do that which Darwinism could not do. The man more responsible than any other for getting scientists on the neo-Darwinian bandwagon was *Julian Huxley. But in his writings, even he knew he was on thin ice:

"A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism from living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out of gear."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 41.

Elsewhere in the same book, he admitted this:

"One would expect that any interference with such a complicated piece of chemical machinery as the genetic constitution would result in damage. And, intact, this is so: the great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism."—*Julian Huxley, op. cit., p. 137.

So there you have it: four special facts about mutations that demolish any possibility that they could mutate even one species into another, much less produce all the species in the world.

Mutations are rare, random, almost never an improvement, always weakening or harmful, and often fatal to the organism or its offspring.

 

[Lemming3k]

We are into the debate of Mutation. You will soon see that Mutation is not beneficial. You want to talk facts with me. We are about to get into some serious facts that the media doesn't tell you.

Media? I deal with scientific facts, never the media, i hope your not trying to suggest otherwise.

Evolutionist shouldn't push on the part about facts, because they know that facts are against them.

Rubbish, if your going to start going on about missing links being facts against evolution then thats already been covered.

So stick around for the Mutation part of the debate. Forget what I have said earlier. Because the thing is you believed that the video is a propaganda, and I believe most articles are propaganda. So basically you considered that I didn't prove shit and I beleived you didn't prove shit, so the result is obviously going to be shit.

The thing is the video makes claims other than that against evolution, that makes it propaganda, also i watched it before deciding it was propaganda, you dont seem interested in evidence contrary to you belief, you also provided little other evidence, i purely discussed evolution with you.

I am going over part by part. I have already explained Natural Selection, you can read the posts if you wish.

I've read every post, and i know how natural selection works.

Now we will talk about Mutation, and how beneficial Mutation really is.

It can be good and bad, some can be both, someone explained sickle cell earlier in the thread which is a good example.

Just stick around for the Mutation part. Because that is a crucial part for Evolution.

Perhaps, Natural selection makes future generations smarter, faster, stronger etc, mutations create a completely new trait, like a disease, or a thicker stomach lining, or even an extra leg, new creatures are formed when evolution(consisting of natural selection and mutation) reaches such a stage over millions of years that the latest version is significantly different from the original, this is why both mutation and natural selection are discussed closely, and why we are so similar to apes despite having evolved significantly more, this should also explain to you clearly the evolutionist position.

 

[Raithere]

786, I'm disappointed with the plagiarism, so much for spending hours studying about mutation.

Quote your sources when use someone else's work.
http://evolution-facts.org/c10a.htm


While you consider writing something yourself here's something to chew on:

"Find the kid a sports agent. Researchers studying an unusually muscular tot have found that he has gene mutations similar to ones that produce abnormally brawny cattle and mice. Less-severe variations in the same gene may underlie the success of some athletes, the scientists speculate.

The boy's mutations disrupt both copies of the gene encoding a muscle protein called myostatin. Previous studies of the gene in animals had suggested that myostatin restrains muscle growth during development and adult life. But scientists didn't know whether the protein serves the same function in people.

The boy's powerhouse physique "says pretty definitively that myostatin plays the same role in humans that it does in mice and cattle," concludes Se-Jin Lee of Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions in Baltimore. If so, he adds, then drugs to block myostatin might have some benefits in people with muscle-wasting diseases.

Lee is a member of the international group of investigators who have studied the boy since 1999 and now report their results in the June 24 New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)."

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040626/fob5.asp

~Raithere

 

[786]

786, I'm disappointed with the plagiarism, so much for spending hours studying about mutation.

Quote your sources when use someone else's work.
http://evolution-facts.org/c10a.htm


While you consider writing something yourself here's something to chew on:

"Find the kid a sports agent. Researchers studying an unusually muscular tot have found that he has gene mutations similar to ones that produce abnormally brawny cattle and mice. Less-severe variations in the same gene may underlie the success of some athletes, the scientists speculate.

The boy's mutations disrupt both copies of the gene encoding a muscle protein called myostatin. Previous studies of the gene in animals had suggested that myostatin restrains muscle growth during development and adult life. But scientists didn't know whether the protein serves the same function in people.

The boy's powerhouse physique "says pretty definitively that myostatin plays the same role in humans that it does in mice and cattle," concludes Se-Jin Lee of Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions in Baltimore. If so, he adds, then drugs to block myostatin might have some benefits in people with muscle-wasting diseases.

Lee is a member of the international group of investigators who have studied the boy since 1999 and now report their results in the June 24 New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)."

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040626/fob5.asp

~Raithere

I said I gathered enough information. Did I say that I wrote it? It is very obvious that many people would know about this site. I'm not stupid enough to call this my own work, when clearly it isn't. I forgot to put quotes around it. My mistake.

 

[786]

By the way I really did study Mutation.

Ok lets discuss Mutation.

Mutation refers to random changes in an organism's DNA, the molecule in which its genetic information is stored. Scientists compare DNA to a data bank or large library. Just as the random and unconscious addition of letters to any of the books in a library-or indeed any change in the order of the letters of such a book-will ruin the sense of the relevant words and sentences, so too does genetic mutation in organisms have an information-destroying effect. Mutation, which acts on the complex information in the DNA in a random and unconscious manner, harms the DNA, and therefore harms the organism bearing the DNA. At best, it may have no effect at all. However, mutations can never add any new information to DNA, and do not make any kind of improvement in the organism. Not a single instance of this has ever been observed.

The latest example of this is the negative effects of mutations on human beings. In recent years, thousands of diseases have been found to be caused by genetic mutations. Genetics textbooks list some 4,500 different genetic diseases. Such diseases caused by genetic mutations include Down's syndrome, sickle-cell anemia, dwarfism, mental impairment, cystic fibrosis, and certain forms of cancer. The reason why generations of people were born deformed or sick because of radiation at Hiroshima, and more recently Chernobyl, is again mutations.

 

[786]

The well-known mathematician Dr. Warren Weaver

"Moreover, the mutant genes, in the vast majority of cases, and in all the species so far studied, lead to some kind of harmful effect. In extreme cases the harmful effect is death itself, or loss of the ability to produce offspring, or some other serious abnormality."
Warren Weaver, "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation," Science, vol. 123, June 29, 1956, p. 1158

"Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of life-result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?"
Warren Weaver, "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation," Science, vol. 123, June 29, 1956, p. 1159

Weaver's question is a very important one, and demands an answer from evolutionists: How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of life-result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?

 

[BobG]

Haven't we been through this already

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.

 

[786]

Hey Raithre, I added the quotes, which I forgot.

 

[Lemming3k]

Mutation refers to random changes in an organism's DNA

Agreed though the changes require certain conditions.

Mutation, which acts on the complex information in the DNA in a random and unconscious manner, harms the DNA, and therefore harms the organism bearing the DNA. At best, it may have no effect at all.

Incorrect, it doesnt harm the DNA it changes it(mutates it), as has been demonstrated this can be harmful but can also be good.

However, mutations can never add any new information to DNA

If it doesnt need to add anything to do harm then it also doesnt need to add anything to do good.

 

[786]

Agreed though the changes require certain conditions.

I agree it requires conditions.

Incorrect, it doesnt harm the DNA it changes it(mutates it), as has been demonstrated this can be harmful but can also be good.

Yes it changes the DNA, but most of the time that change results in a damage to the DNA. And could you please provide me with a Mutation which resulted in good.

If it doesnt need to add anything to do harm then it also doesnt need to add anything to do good.

Deletion of DNA mostly harms the animal. Damage to the DNA also harms the animal. So you are right that it doesn't have to ADD anything to cause harm. It merely has to change the DNA to cause harm.

But you're wrong that it doesn't have to add anything to make it good. When you are going from "simple to complex" you need a set of DNA that has the information for the processes to take place. If you don't know, I'll tell you that DNA is the blueprint of the animal. In order for an animal to evolve into something "complex" then you need the "information" to make it happen. And that information is stored in DNA. Thus meaning you need to add to DNA in order for the process of "evolution" to take place.

 

[Raithere]

However, mutations can never add any new information to DNA

Simply incorrect. The mechanisms are well known, here's an explanation from "How Stuff Works".

http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution8.htm

and do not make any kind of improvement in the organism. Not a single instance of this has ever been observed.

Not quite. There are many observed instances of beneficial mutation:

"One example of a beneficial mutation comes from the mosquito Culex pipiens. In this organism, a gene that was involved with breaking down organophosphates - common insecticide ingredients -became duplicated. Progeny of the organism with this mutation quickly swept across the worldwide mosquito population. There are numerous examples of insects developing resistance to chemicals, especially DDT which was once heavily used in this country. And, most importantly, even though "good" mutations happen much less frequently than "bad" ones, organisms with "good" mutations thrive while organisms with "bad" ones die out."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

We also have a growing awareness in the popular media about the increasing number of antibacterial resistant strains of bacteria.

http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/BC/Bacterial_Mutations.html

Interestingly, what has been found is that mutation rates increase in bacteria exposed to antibiotics. That there is actually a genetic mechanism that increases the rate of mutation under certain environmental presssures.

Here's another:

HIV Resistance:

"The CCR5-32 deletion obliterates the CCR5 chemokine and the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)1 coreceptor on lymphoid cells, leading to strong resistance against HIV-1 infection and AIDS. A genotype survey of 4,166 individuals revealed a cline of CCR5-32 allele frequencies of 0%14% across Eurasia, whereas the variant is absent among native African, American Indian, and East Asian ethnic groups. Haplotype analysis of 192 Caucasian chromosomes revealed strong linkage disequilibrium between CCR5 and two microsatellite loci. By use of coalescence theory to interpret modern haplotype genealogy, we estimate the origin of the CCR5-32containing ancestral haplotype to be 700 years ago, with an estimated range of 2751,875 years. The geographic cline of CCR5-32 frequencies and its recent emergence are consistent with a historic strong selective event (e.g., an epidemic of a pathogen that, like HIV-1, utilizes CCR5), driving its frequency upward in ancestral Caucasian populations."

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v62n6/970785/970785.html

There are numerous such examples.

~Raithere

 

[786]

Simply incorrect. The mechanisms are well known, here's an explanation from "How Stuff Works".

http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution8.htm

Not quite. There are many observed instances of beneficial mutation:

"One example of a beneficial mutation comes from the mosquito Culex pipiens. In this organism, a gene that was involved with breaking down organophosphates - common insecticide ingredients -became duplicated. Progeny of the organism with this mutation quickly swept across the worldwide mosquito population. There are numerous examples of insects developing resistance to chemicals, especially DDT which was once heavily used in this country. And, most importantly, even though "good" mutations happen much less frequently than "bad" ones, organisms with "good" mutations thrive while organisms with "bad" ones die out."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

We also have a growing awareness in the popular media about the increasing number of antibacterial resistant strains of bacteria.

http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/BC/Bacterial_Mutations.html

Interestingly, what has been found is that mutation rates increase in bacteria exposed to antibiotics. That there is actually a genetic mechanism that increases the rate of mutation under certain environmental presssures.

Here's another:

HIV Resistance:

"The CCR5-32 deletion obliterates the CCR5 chemokine and the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)1 coreceptor on lymphoid cells, leading to strong resistance against HIV-1 infection and AIDS. A genotype survey of 4,166 individuals revealed a cline of CCR5-32 allele frequencies of 0%14% across Eurasia, whereas the variant is absent among native African, American Indian, and East Asian ethnic groups. Haplotype analysis of 192 Caucasian chromosomes revealed strong linkage disequilibrium between CCR5 and two microsatellite loci. By use of coalescence theory to interpret modern haplotype genealogy, we estimate the origin of the CCR5-32containing ancestral haplotype to be 700 years ago, with an estimated range of 2751,875 years. The geographic cline of CCR5-32 frequencies and its recent emergence are consistent with a historic strong selective event (e.g., an epidemic of a pathogen that, like HIV-1, utilizes CCR5), driving its frequency upward in ancestral Caucasian populations."

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v62n6/970785/970785.html

There are numerous such examples.

~Raithere

In the article you presented. In the third paragraph it says.

"Evolution's mutation mechanism does not explain how growth of a genome is possible."

Just as I said, doesn't add anything.

Now about Bacteria.
Antibiotics are "killer molecules" that are produced by microorganisms to fight other microorganisms. The first antibiotic was penicillin, discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming realised that mould produced a molecule that killed the Staphylococcus bacterium, and this discovery marked a turning point in the world of medicine. Antibiotics derived from microorganisms were used against bacteria and the results were successful.

Soon, something new was discovered. Bacteria build immunity to antibiotics over time. The mechanism works like this: A large proportion of the bacteria that are subjected to antibiotics die, but some others, which are not affected by that antibiotic, replicate rapidly and soon make up the whole population. Thus, the entire population becomes immune to antibiotics.

Evolutionists try to present this as "the evolution of bacteria by adapting to conditions."

The truth, however, is very different from this superficial interpretation. One of the scientists who has done the most detailed research into this subject is the Israeli biophysicist Lee Spetner, who is also known for his book Not by Chance published in 1997. Spetner maintains that the immunity of bacteria comes about by two different mechanisms, but neither of them constitutes evidence for the theory of evolution. These two mechanisms are:

1) The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria.

2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of mutation.

 

[786]

Here I found quotes by him concerning bacteria.

Professor Spetner explains the first mechanism in an article published in 2001:

Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... [T]he organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.
Dr. Lee Spetner, "Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue: Continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max," 2001, http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp

Spetner then goes on to say that this is not "evidence for evolution":

The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution… The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species.
Dr. Lee Spetner, "Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue: Continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max," 2001, http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp

So, we cannot talk of any evolution here, because no new genetic information is produced: genetic information that already exists is simply transferred between bacteria.

 

[786]

Culex Pipiens Mosquito did not originate the insecticide digesting enzymes via mutation, they already had them. The key that enables them to survive this particular pesticide is the copies of the gene that codes for them. The more copies they have, the more enzymes they produce which takes care of the pesticide before it can cause lethal damage. The copies of the genes are not true mutations, they are copies of genes that were already within the genome. This is not a deletion, addition or substitution of nucleotides/amino acids during translation of DNA segments.

 

[786]

Here is quote which supports my point.

"A mosquito species called Culex pipiens can now survive massive
doses of organophosphate insecticides. The mosquitoes actually
digest the poison, using a suite of enzymes known as esterases.
The genes that make these esterases are known as alleles B1 and
B2. Many strains of Culex pipiens now carry as many as 250 copies
of the B1 allele and 60 copies of B2." -- quoted from The Beak
of the Finch p.254.

As we can see that this was already in the genome. So really Mutation DID NOT add any new information to the DNA. This is only gene duplication. which can be considered as Mutation, because the DNA was changed because of duplication of genes. But as you can see that the original gene was already present, thus we can conclude that NO NEW information was added to the DNA. It only DUPLICATED the original gene.

 

[James R]

786:

I have noticed that at least some of your posts are plagiarised from another site. This is against the forum rules. It also shows an inability to think independently. Have you no thoughts of your own? The fact that your are relying for your information primarily on a well-known Muslim propaganda site also tends to undermine your claim that standard biological information sources are propaganda. You need to read more widely and not believe everything the fundamentalists tell you.

For somebody who claims to want a good discussion, it seems to me that you're not fulfilling your end of the bargain. Start thinking your own thoughts, and then we can start talking meaningfully.