|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection | |||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3350 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
If that is really the case then all that's left IS to show that mutations don't occur (although I still think that even if mutations do occur at anything like the rate expected by evolutionists, the processes that reduce will even cut them down in the end). But mutations do occur both somatically and gametically. As long as mutations occur and are passed down through the gametes than evolution occurs. Even if mutations occur once every hundred years in generations (which it occurs much, much more frequently), evolution would occur, albeit very slow, but it would occur. You cannot deny it. Studies show that the estimated average germline mutation rate (from generation to generation in humans is 401 for males and 31 in females per generation (generation=30 years).
Biological basis of germline mutation: comparisons of spontaneous germline mutation rates among drosophila, mouse, and human. It is also interesting to note that the mutation rate for mtDNA (mitochondrial) is 50 times that of nucleic DNA (mainly because mtDNA are simpler and easier to change). And yes there are mitochondria in gametes.
Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans Faith writes: So somebody has to do some research to determine if any of the assumed mutations ever produce a viable allele. What constitutes a viable allele? Viable in what way? As long as the organism lives until it can reproduce and pass its genetics to preceding generations, evolutionary speaking, that allele is viable. Genetic viability has nothing to do whether that organism is strong, weak, etc. Though a stronger, more intelligent and socially adept (in some circumstances) organism is usually more likely to be able to propogate than a weak, less intelligent one (though not in all cases). (Warning: Stupid Analogy Alert In other words, evolution continues whether the organism is superman or a supernerd. If the supernerd gets the girl and has offspring with her and superman doesn't, than in the end the supernerd is the evolutionary hero not superman. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3350 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Percy writes: DA writes: As long as the organism lives until it can reproduce and pass its genetics to preceding generations... That would be a neat trick LOL, sorry, sometimes my brain and my typing hands don't communicate so well, of course I meant "proceeding" not "preceding". Also, just a caveat and some clarification. As most of you know, and hopefully Faith as well. Most mutations are neutral in their affect on the human population due to the massive amount of redundancy and 'junk' DNA in the genome built up over hundreds of millions of years of genetic evolution. However, it only takes one or a sequence of mutations (frameshift, point, etc) in an allele(s) to possibly make phenotypic changes. A build up of these mutations will result in evolution of the genome over time. 'Beneficial' and 'harmful' mutations are really a misnomer and are subjective depending on what you are referencing to. As long as the mutation occurs in the gamete cells and that organism reproduces it will result in genomic evolution in a population of organism. I know this has probably already been said over and over but it seems this is something Faith still blatantly ignores. Just my thoughts on this subject. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3350 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Faith writes: The few examples of supposedly beneficial mutations don't answer to the thousands of disease-producing mutations, AND the fact that you assume that they make normal alleles although you cannot demonstrate them, talking about a mere hypothesis as a fact, as if you had proved it, has done it for me. What is a normal allelle?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3350 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
One that produces a normal trait, not a disease What is a 'normal' trait? You are using subjective anthropomorphic terms i.e. "normal" to describe biological functions. What standard are using this "normal"/"abnormal" from? In other words, "normal" based on what? As far as disease. Most organisms have some type of reoccurring diseases (disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors). They just differ in severity. So in other words, you would have to say the vast majority of organisms (except maybe those kept in very sterile conditions with very little disease agents or mutational factors) are abnormal because they are diseased.
and not a dead gene. A dead gene is just an inactive or non-functioning gene. It may or may not be harmful to the organism. In many cases they are neutral and have no affect on the organism as is the case with most mutations in the genome. Dead gene does not equal dead organism. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3350 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Faith writes: Normal based on what we actually see in nature that is the product of genetic variation that couldn't possibly be the result of the kinds of mutations that are observed and described. What evidence do you have that genetic variation is not a result of accumulated mutations in the genome? Can you back up this assertion? Furthermore, if you have germ line mutations in the genome you ARE definately going to have variation, irregardless if its beneficial or harmful. You are correct to say that if 100% of mutations are harmful (aka kills off the organism before it can reproduce) than that genetic population line will go extinct. Do you honestly believe that there are zero beneficial mutations in all organisms past or present thus making natural selection null and void?
The mutations are all destructive, all mistakes, all abnormal with respect to what has to be the normal function of the genetic system if living things could ever existed at all. And you know this because?
And it's only because you don't have any other source of alleles to keep evolution running that you try to make so much out of these deformed genetic events. Mutations! Mutations keep evolution running irregardless of whether they are beneficial, neutral or harmful. Natural selection weeds out the weak populations and those with harmful mutations thus allowing the stronger populations with the more beneficial mutations to survive. Genetic drift and other evolutionary mechanisms also come into play here. It really is this simple. Please back up your assertions with facts instead of your baseless opinions.
And your point is? These are disease processes, and mutations produce thousands of diseases, yet it is claimed / assumed that somehow evolution chugs along on stuff that maims and sickens. Yes, it is called natural selection i.e. survival of the fittest. Which applies to populations of organisms, individual organisms and individual genes in those organisms. As long as you have some beneficial mutations natural selection will keep those genome mutations in the gene pool longer than the harmful ones.
Disease is an interference with normal. There's plenty of both in reality, but to any sane mind there is no problem telling the difference. But evolutionists try to blur the two and claim that a process -- mutations -- that is ONLY actually KNOWN to produce genetic deformities -- could actually produce normal healthy life. Are you saying you do not think there are any mutations that could potentially benefit that organism? None? If so where is your evidence?
The evidence is against such a claim in the thousands upon thousands. None of this 'evidence' has passed the peer review test. 99.9% of all life science professionals worldwide accept evolution as true.
A dead gene is evidence of a disease process in the organism. Disease just means that some outside influence i.e. virus, prions, etc are causing changes aka mutations to the genome. In other words 'disease' can cause mutations. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3350 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
100% agree.
I am only using the term 'beneficial' in reference to mutations to refer to the ability of an organism to live long enough to pass its genetic code to the next generation (either asexually or sexually). This is the main factor that affects whether accumulated mutations result in biological evolution and thus in this context are 'beneficial' to that population. Whether that population later go's extinct because of these accumulated mutations is a different but related matter. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3350 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
They're a mistake in the DNA duplicating process. A mistake implies a deviation (usually unintentional) from its originally designed process. The problem is that no one can definately say what this 'originally designed process' is supposed to be even if you do believe in a Creator God. Can you read the mind of God? How do you know what this 'originally designed process/gentic code' is supposed to look like? One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3350 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Faith writes: What is actually SEEN is better explained on the basis of pre-existing alleles. What pre-existing alleles? What are you talking about? What reference are you using to determine if an allele, a trait, or whatever other genetic terminology is normal or not. The term 'normal' can be used in many context. Mutational changes at the DNA is not one of them since mutations have been occuring throughout the life tree for millions of years. There is no way to judge what is 'normal' and what is not 'normal' at this level. All we can do is use preceding genomes to determine what changes have been made.
You have NO evidence that a normal allele was ever created by mutation. That is because no one is claming that a 'normal' allele is created by mutation and no geneticist uses your convaluted and contrived terminology. One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3350 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Faith writes: Me writes: How do you know what this 'originally designed process/gentic code' is supposed to look like Perfect DNA replication, obviously. You don't follow arguments very well do you? I am asking how do you know what to judge a 'normal' allele much less genome from. I am not talking about the process (DNA replication). I am talking about the source. If you don't know what the source DNA is supposed to look like, how do you know if preceding genetic changes (mutations) in the genome are 'normal' or 'abnormal'?
Even evolutionists call mutations "mistakes" in this process Yes when referring to the process of replicating DNA code from generation to generation. Not when referring to the code itself.
But despite evidence galore that these mistakes have produced thousands of genetic diseases in human beings as well as apparently only incoherent effects otherwise --that only destroy a previously functioning allele Which no one is denying. What you are leaving out is the evolutionary process of natural selection which weeds out these deficiencies and weakness and strengthens the population that are more fit and able to survive.
-- you all PRONOUNCE them the means of making functioning alleles (functioning meaning producing something coherent that isn't harmful) and then you call it FACT and talk as if every variation is the result of mutations -- you actually DESCRIBE variations as mutations -- and again, this is DECEIT. Get off your hobby horse and calm down. If you can't talk intelligently without calling people liars than you need to find another venue to vent. It is a fact that mutations occur is it not? Is it also a fact that these mutations cause variation whether they are harmful or beneficial to the organism and population involved is it not?If not please explain why. One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3350 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Faith writes: Me writes: Faith writes: What is actually SEEN is better explained on the basis of pre-existing alleles. What pre-existing alleles? What are you talking about? All those you see when you sequence DNA. LOTS of them. Are you saying that there is no mutational changes at all in the genome from generation to generation? Does the sequenced genome not differ from the original source genome? Also there are differences with genomes of individual humans. Are you saying that all our genomes are 100% identical? If so how does DNA fingerprinting work? In other words, what are you using to determine the baseline source for 'normal' alleles/genomes for humans or any other organism?
If it produces a normal trait. You know, something like green eyes or calico fur. You are obtuse. What is a 'normal' trait? You are arguing in circles. Is mongoloid eyes normal? Kinky hair? Red hair? Dark skin? Light skin? Short? Tall? Fat? Skinny? etc, etc, ad infinitim.
Do tell, and you can be sure that evolutionists will use it to describe abnormal events like mistakes in DNA duplication among others. You are misconstruing the term here. A process such as DNA replication is expected not to function perfectly 100% of the time. In other words that is the norm not the other way around.
And you have no idea that this is merely an assumption and not a fact, do you? That is a whole other ball of wax that I don't think we are prepared to tackle here. If it makes you feel better, counsel strike my last statement. I won't comment on the rest since it is basless ranting and raving. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024