|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Teaching the Truth in Schools | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spofforth Inactive Member |
Although rarely fatal by themselves, Most of these mutations reduce the probability of surviving or producing offspring, Eyre-Walker says. http://abcnews.go.com/...ience/DailyNews/mutation990127.html Many copy errors are still not going to lead to new amino acids, let alone new proteins. The vast majority of organisms that do survive the embryo development with a mutation are weakened in the grand picture. They are producing something that is unnecessary or unuseable, at which point they are using valuable resources and weakening their position within the species. They are weeded out. Even if they do develop a component that we would see as useful, the odds of it developing with proper timing or function are negligible. I still do not find mutation effective in terms of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
The mutation example is a relevant part of the discussion but should not become the main issue.
--------------------EvC Forum Administrator |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
So, it seems that you now admit that mutations occur very frequently and that the critters with the mutations survive. As for the quoted passage, this is an atypical opinion. Most people tend to agree that most mutations are pretty neutral, a few are harmful and even fewer are actually beneficial. You might note that few people dispute the idea that few mutations are helpful. It is part and parcel of the ToE, and is exactly what one would expect in the absense of some guiding force.
quote: Who said anything about a new amino acid or protein? A slight modification of existing structures is perfectly adequate for producing significant change in the organism. This has been shown repeatedly.
quote: hmmm.... sounds like natural selection.
quote: How did you calculate these odds? Did you consider that there are hundreds of billions of organisms which have been reproducing for several billion years-- and for most of that time reproducing several times a day, being bacteria-- and introducing copy errors at every turn? In short, it happens. In humans: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html In bacteria: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html A component would not be useful except in the context of environment. Consider the nylon eating bacteria ( No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm ). The bacteria's ancestors eat carbohydrates. The nylon bug metabolizes nylon waste, albiet poorly. But consider, nothing competes with the bacteria for nylon waste while there is stiff competition for other foods. Thus, even though the nylon metabolism is only 2% as efficient as carbohydrate metabolism, it is still advantageous. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spofforth Inactive Member |
How did you calculate these odds? Did you consider that there are hundreds of billions of organisms which have been reproducing for several billion years-- and for most of that time reproducing several times a day, being bacteria-- and introducing copy errors at every turn? In short, it happens. In what population of organisms, except bacteria which I am guessing that you are not making the assumption that they can evolve immediate multicellular and complex capabilities, are there hundreds of billions of organisms? If evolution can only happen at the population level, there still is not the grand scale number of organisms necessary fro mutation to be the driving factor. Since this is what is being taught in the science classroom today this is the contradiction. Maybe the whole topic should not be taught in a science classroom at all, but in a philosophy of science class? Only the students that have demonstrated an understanding of biological systems and the scientific method should be allowed to investigate further. Those would be the students that would understand the issues and put in the time in any event. Who said anything about a new amino acid or protein? A slight modification of existing structures is perfectly adequate for producing significant change in the organism. This has been shown repeatedly. What do you think a modification in the genetic code is doing? It is coding for a new amino acid which is coding in turn for a new protein. If the protein happens to fit with the other proteins that are present in the organism that organism might survive the mutation. Although the mutation is present it may not even get the chance to thrive in an environment and the organism may never pass it on to the next generation. If we do not know the origination of the original genetic code we cannot teach that all organisms originated from the same lineage despite the fact that some evidence might point in that direction. If you want to be truly neutral in the science classroom no theories can be taught, just the scientific fundamentals that would allow the student to investigate further on his/her own.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
My reply is in a new thread, in a more appropriate Forum.
EvC Forum: mutation and evolution ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bardus lux Inactive Member |
Brilliant example and lets not forget those pesky roaches who's progeny develop immunity to pesticide.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Atapuercan Zusayan  Inactive Member |
"No, no, you misunderstand gene. Evolution is a conspiracy which has deliberately and with malice aforethought produced tens of thousands of scientific papers by thousands of scientists from around the world over the last couple hundred years and published in dozens of obscure journals like "Science" and "Nature" all for the express purpose of corrupting one high school student in the US and convincing them that there is no God.
See, it all makes sense in context, doesn't it? " Yes. But do you know why, or even what it is called?That is, its source? I have read some absolute rubbish from the Darwinists in this thread.Evolution contributes nothing useful to biology. And drug resistance contribues nothing to evolution. ------------------Oinkus Erectus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I strongly suspect you are a common troll and not interested in actually engaging in debate on any subject. However, I'll respond just now despite my reservations. What, precisely, do you consider the "rubbish" spoken in this thread? Please cut and paste your examples, and explain exactly why you think the statements are rubbish. Can you please explain your understanding of exactly what the Theory of Evolution states? Additionally, can you please explain how the Theory of Evolution is, according to you, somehow not useful to Biology, and also please explain how drug resistance in bacteria does not support evolutionary theory. Eagerly awaiting your substantive, evidence-laden response. ------------------"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Martin J. Koszegi Inactive Member |
Yes: theory, fact; yes: but not true. And its being taught as the truth without necessarily using the term (truth).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I would say that the fact of evolution is true.
It is not, however, ultimate "Truth" in the philosophical sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Martin J. Koszegi Inactive Member |
If by "the fact of evolution is true" you mean that sociologiical (and other like) forces have established the belief in peoples' minds to the point that such affected people actually accept evolution as the accurate assessment of WHAT IS, then I would agree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4580 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
Are you claiming that mutations do not occur, or are not fixed in populations by natural selection? Claiming that new species have not been formed by the dozens in your lifetime alone?
I'm somewhat confused, since you just said evolution was theory and fact and now seem to say it only exists in people's minds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1423 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Martin,
We have all been brainwashed to accept that whatever is scientifically effective is what should be taught as science. Sorry, your dogma doesn't produce the results ours does. ------------------The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed. Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Martin J. Koszegi Inactive Member |
As for something being categorized as theory and fact and existing only in peoples' minds, I'm sure you can think of examples of this from your own knowledge of history, right(?): erroneous ideas that became established beliefs (theory/fact), but that were later found to be erroneous (existing only in peoples' minds from the earlier time). That was all I meant.
I don't think that mutations are very good vehicles to look to in order to explain the development of life. Is the net result of mutations, improvement and expansion of genetic possibilities?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Martin J. Koszegi Inactive Member |
MrHambre,
Is it scientific to leave the conceivability open that nature itself could yield evidence that could suggest a supernatural origin (complexity, order, etc., seemingly beyond statistical explanation for the time alotted), or more scientific to, at the onset, predetermine that the vehicle we must use to establish our ideas, i.e., nature, is all there is? If you contend that the latter is more rational, or scientific, as I suppose you do, then I further suppose that we just disagree about how to conduct investigations. Do you see, to ANY degree, any rational flaw to the ruling out of such conceivabilities at the onset as I've indicated, or are you simply that convinced to the point that you're so sure of the non-existence of the supernatural, that you don't think there's any harm to automatically deleting it from the equation before you start your assessment of the evidence? And, as Phillip Johnson asked (in Darwin on Trial), "Does non-science necessarily mean nonsense?"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024