Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?

Moving on again, away from abiogenesis, let's take a look at Genetics.

THE NATURE OF GENE MUTATIONS - What evolutionists have stated.

Modern evolutionists have been unable to discern any biological mechanism for producing real evolutionary changes except that of gene mutations. The problem is that all mutations so far observed either in nature or the laboratory have been either neutral or harmful. The necessary “beneficial” mutations are evidently only wishful thinking. This, of course, is only to be expected in light of the universal law of entropy. Mutations are essentially random changes in highly ordered systems and the probability of a chance increase in order is vanishingly small.

QUOTATION#8

Francisco J. Ayala, “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.

p. 58
“A mutation can be considered an error in the replication of DNA prior to its translation into protein.”

p. 59
“The forces that give rise to gene mutations operate at random in the sense that genetic mutations occur without reference to their future adaptiveness in the environment.”

p. 63
“It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin’s conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation.”

0 Replies

I don't get it. None of this last batch of posts has been about evolution or anything related to it, or even anything I remember learning in a biology class (though I don't remember most things I allegedly learned in a biology class, so that really doesn't say much). What's you're point about evolution?

0 Replies

THE NATURE OF GENE MUTATIONS - What evolutionists have stated.

QUOTE#9

George G. Simpson, “Uniformitarianism: An Inquiry into Principle, Theory and Method in Geohistory and Biohistory,” in Essays in Evolution and Genetics (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970, 594 pp.), ed. Max K. Hecht and William C. Steere, pp. 43-96.

p. 80
“The somatic effects of mutations vary from great to barely perceptible or, quite likely, to imperceptible by usual methods of observation. The probabilities that a mutation will survive or eventually spread in the course of evolution tend to vary inversely with the extent of its somatic effects. Most mutations with large effects are lethal at an early stage for the individual in which they occur and hence have zero probability of spreading.
Mutations with small effects do have some probability of spreading and as a rule the chances are better the smaller the effect. Moreover, despite the fact that a mutation is a discrete, discontinuous effect at the cellular, chromosome or gene level, its effects are modified by interactions in the whole genetic system of an individual (oddly enough, there is no generally accepted term for that important concept).”

0 Replies

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

QUOTATION#8

Francisco J. Ayala, "The Mechanisms of Evolution," Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.

p. 58
"A mutation can be considered an error in the replication of DNA prior to its translation into protein."

p. 59
"The forces that give rise to gene mutations operate at random in the sense that genetic mutations occur without reference to their future adaptiveness in the environment."

p. 63
"It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin's conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation."

This poses no problem, harmfull mutations never become common in the general population unless there is massive inbreeding.

0 Replies

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

THE NATURE OF GENE MUTATIONS - What evolutionists have stated.

Modern evolutionists have been unable to discern any biological mechanism for producing real evolutionary changes except that of gene mutations. The problem is that all mutations so far observed either in nature or the laboratory have been either neutral or harmful. The necessary "beneficial" mutations are evidently only wishful thinking. This, of course, is only to be expected in light of the universal law of entropy. Mutations are essentially random changes in highly ordered systems and the probability of a chance increase in order is vanishingly small.

Untrue, bacteria have gained resistance to drugs by mutations.

0 Replies

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

THE NATURE OF GENE MUTATIONS - What evolutionists have stated.

QUOTE#9

George G. Simpson, "Uniformitarianism: An Inquiry into Principle, Theory and Method in Geohistory and Biohistory," in Essays in Evolution and Genetics (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970, 594 pp.), ed. Max K. Hecht and William C. Steere, pp. 43-96.

p. 80
"The somatic effects of mutations vary from great to barely perceptible or, quite likely, to imperceptible by usual methods of observation. The probabilities that a mutation will survive or eventually spread in the course of evolution tend to vary inversely with the extent of its somatic effects. Most mutations with large effects are lethal at an early stage for the individual in which they occur and hence have zero probability of spreading.
Mutations with small effects do have some probability of spreading and as a rule the chances are better the smaller the effect. Moreover, despite the fact that a mutation is a discrete, discontinuous effect at the cellular, chromosome or gene level, its effects are modified by interactions in the whole genetic system of an individual (oddly enough, there is no generally accepted term for that important concept)."

Does this quote come with a point?

0 Replies

yawn...

0 Replies

Does this thread come with a point?

Biblio, What is your point?

0 Replies

Wonder'n about that meself, ebrown. Is there a point?

0 Replies

I think he is trying to say that scientists are idiots.

I am guessing that he is posting these little snippets of books that scientists wrote that he thinks show some uncertainty.

But what does he mean by it?

Does he know that you can advance science with new conjectures based on a proven theory without invalidating the theory?

I don't know what to make of it, Biblio's posts just don't seem to make any sens.

0 Replies

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

Ros: LOL - there must be a touch of Irish humour in ya :wink:

I do think there's a little bit of Irish in my blood. And a bit of Scottish and a bit of English as well.

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

You missed PART1? That was when you decided that abiogenesis was "irrelevant." You'll not get away with that...there'll be a price to pay! :wink: (Remember Noah's Ark?)

Unnnhhhh... (Groan...) Wink

0 Replies

The most fun I'm having on this thread is shooting the fly to win an iMac G5 on the ad. I love shooting that fly Smile

0 Replies

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

Modern evolutionists have been unable to discern any biological mechanism for producing real evolutionary changes except that of gene mutations. The problem is that all mutations so far observed either in nature or the laboratory have been either neutral or harmful. The necessary "beneficial" mutations are evidently only wishful thinking. This, of course, is only to be expected in light of the universal law of entropy. Mutations are essentially random changes in highly ordered systems and the probability of a chance increase in order is vanishingly small.

I'm not sure if Bib the BibGu is quoting from someone or is making his own statement here, but I take issue with the notion that the law of entropy has any significant part to play in evolution.*

Simply stated, the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLT) holds that, in a closed system, the overall tendency is for energy to dissipate from hot things to cold things. The amount of this decrease is referred to as "entropy." Thus if I throw a hot rock into a bucket of cold water, the available heat energy of the rock will dissipate into the surrounding water, until both the rock and the water achieve the same temperature.

A surprising number of creationists have grabbed onto the SLT as a means of "refuting" evolution. They reason that, if the "arrow of time" is essentially entropic (i.e. everything becomes more disordered over time), then the claim that life "evolves" (i.e. becomes more "ordered") defies the SLT. For an example of this kind of argument, check here.

There are two problems with this argument. The first, which I consider to be a minor problem, is the fact that the world is not a closed system. Unlike the example of the hot rock and the bucket of cold water, the earth is constantly getting energy from outside the system, principally in the form of sunlight.

A more important problem, and one that I have rarely found in this debate (although this site lays out the argument quite cogently) is that the SLT doesn't deal with "order" and "disorder" at all. Strictly speaking, it only deals with heat/energy transfers. The notion that "entropy = disorder," then, is based more on a metaphor than on science. So there is nothing in the SLT that states that things become more disordered over time.

Now, in fact, something like entropy is at work in evolution, but it is the well-known statistical principle of "regression to the mean." This is the principle that leads to the well-known "bell curve" distribution. In the context of evolution, it's the way in which species develop into relatively homogeneous populations. Although that looks something like the "spreading" of energy in the course of heat dissipation, it's not the same thing as entropy.

*I realize that this post may be viewed as a thread-jack, but since there really isn't much of anything going on in this thread, I feel reasonably comfortable in submitting it.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

The most fun I'm having on this thread is shooting the fly to win an iMac G5 on the ad. I love shooting that fly

How many iMacs have you won?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
The most fun I'm having on this thread is shooting the fly to win an iMac G5 on the ad. I love shooting that fly

How many iMacs have you won?

About as many as you can buy with a thousand dead flies. Wink

0 Replies

Joe: You postscripted your last post with "*I realize that this post may be viewed as a thread-jack, but since there really isn't much of anything going on in this thread, I feel reasonably comfortable in submitting it."

Just for you (aaah - feel the empathy) I will post some quotes regarding The Second Law of Thermodynamics, as it is used by certain Evolutionists as a discussion topic.

Coming right up, Joe (aaah - can you feel the love!) :wink:

0 Replies

joe from chi

Quote:

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:
Modern evolutionists have been unable to discern any biological mechanism for producing real evolutionary changes except that of gene mutations. The problem is that all mutations so far observed either in nature or the laboratory have been either neutral or harmful. The necessary "beneficial" mutations are evidently only wishful thinking. This, of course, is only to be expected in light of the universal law of entropy. Mutations are essentially random changes in highly ordered systems and the probability of a chance increase in order is vanishingly small.

I'm not sure if Bib the BibGu is quoting from someone or is making his own statement here, but I take issue with the notion that the law of entropy has any significant part to play in evolution.*

First Bib, the major actor in evolutionary change is recombinatiion and good ole sex to stir the pot, mutations are, like genes, a mere way to eep score. The most reecent work on "controller" genes or those areas of the genome that used to be called JUN K, have accumulated lots of mutations that, when moved by recombination (folding of the DNA strand) next to a coding sequence, caN ESTAblish a new feature because they can control the "off" and "On" buttons of a gene . Gene complement, location, and activation are being seen aS the tripartite- CRITICAL action in the genome. But remember, mutations accumulate all over the genome, not only in the coding sequences. And these mutations can be brought to bear by translocation
joe, SLT , in a number of chemical and geo sciences talk of distributive changes of order where 'a cube" is high order and a "triclinic" goofy looking crystal is lower order because the lattices are based upon lower energy fields of structure. But you are right, the earth is not a closed system and I think Bib would know that. The SLT has been a "Creationist" favorite phrase based upon the few xlography and physics Creation sCientistts who mix and match terminology as if it has no bounds of application.

0 Replies

basically bib, wherever you got that point that Mutations Are...' its flat nott right and you shouldnt be posting what scientists believe when you know better, cmon. it makes you sound a bit like Rush Limbaugh who professes to know what Democrats beleive.
If you post sometthing from 'Answers in Genesis" Ill post something by Mayr, or Gould, MArgulis, levington,, Watson, and a hostt of otthers who say otherwise.

0 Replies

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Bib needs to read Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. He might learn some'n.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

If you post sometthing from 'Answers in Genesis" Ill post something by Mayr, or Gould, MArgulis, levington,, Watson, and a hostt of otthers who say otherwise.

The NINE quotations that I have thus far posted are ALL GENUINE, unaltered, publications authored by Evolutionists. Each quotation is presented as an actual CITATION in order to be accurate, and to allow A2K members to check out the citations for themselves, if they so desire.

These quotations are in response to PART2 of this thread, viz: "Who wants to know what the subject of Evolution really teaches?"

All of the authors that I have quoted are, or have been (some now deceased), respected Evolutionary Scientists, in their respective fields of expertise.

0 Replies

Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know