Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 03:23 am
Several "experts" posted comments the other day (on the 'genetic death' thread) indicating that they lack a basic comprehension of what the theory of evolution is. Several also claimed that mutations were not involved in evolutionary theory and that only substitution of existing alleles were.

I mean, you can't really have much of a discussion on something when the adherents of a theory don't even understand it properly.

It is sufficiently obvious that you cannot get new kinds of animals by substituting existing alleles. If nothing else, human breeding of dogs and other animals demonstrates that. Human dog breeding involves selection beyond anything which would ever occur in nature and all it ever produces is dogs...

Walter Remine preceeds his discussion of the time scales involved in evolutionary development with the following discussion of the standard modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the generally agreed upon notion of what the theory of evolution involves:

Quote:

These substituted traits are simple changes having arisen by mutation, these can be of many types. The new trait might be a DNA inversion, gene duplication, or deletion, for example. Also, organisms are not merely the possession of the right genes. The position and sequence of genes on a chromosome are important to their action, expression, and propagation. So, a substituted trait can be something as simple as a new location of a gene on a chromosome. The substituted traits can be many different things. Yet, every time you wish to move a gene to a new position, or delete a gene, or duplicate a gene, or substitute any trait,4 no matter how trivial, then there is a cost to be paid.

According to the neo-Darwinian synthesis, these substituted traits are typically a new version of a gene - an allele. The new substituted gene typically differs from the old gene by one newly mutated nucleotide. So, the substituted trait is nominally a nucleotide.


That's the basic idea of the theory of evolution. Note that replacing genes with new versions of the same genes is not the same as substituting existing alleles around.

The basic idea according to all realistic accounts is that "beneficial mutations" pile up until you have macroevolution and new kinds of animals.

Again, the vast bulk of all mutations are harmful or fatal, or at best neutral with no possibility of leading to the development of new kinds of animals, so that it is not possible to picture new kinds of animals forming up by the simultaneous spread and fixation of beneficial mutations; the harmful mutations would swamp the process and it would die out before it evolved into anything new and better.

What happens (according to the theory) is that one beneficial mutation becomes fixed in the population, and then another and another and another.

The theory also requires that the old stock die out as each new beneficial mutation becomes fixed, due to selective pressure. That is the "genetic death meatgrinder" I mentioned.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 4 • Views: 9,018 • Replies: 69
No top replies

 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 05:40 am
Natural selection doesnt say that at all .
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 06:12 am
farmerman wrote:
Natural selection doesnt say that at all .


Is that supposed to be an English sentence or something like that?

I mean, all I'm doing is describing your own stupid theory (evolutionism) and how it supposedly works, and I AM describing it accurately. If you're gonna argue for something, at least take the trouble to understand it.

In real life of course, as opposed to the fevered imaginations of evolutionites, natural selection is an agency of stasis and not change, and it is a destructive process and not a constructive one. It weeds out anything an iota to the left or right of dead center for the norm of a particular species. You could no more create a new species with natural selection than you could build a skyscraper with a wrecking ball.

But in the theory of evolution, natural selection causes the fixation of new genetic traits as I described.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 06:50 am
gunga who, believes in the Lucy maxim, thus "If you cant be right, be wrong at the top of your lungs" said
Quote:
But in the theory of evolution, natural selection causes the fixation of new genetic traits as I described.
. Wrong again. Boy there is a deep well of misinformation that you continuously plumb.
0 Replies
 
Heliotrope
 
  2  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 02:25 pm
gungasnake wrote:
farmerman wrote:
Natural selection doesnt say that at all .


Is that supposed to be an English sentence or something like that?

I mean, all I'm doing is describing your own stupid theory (evolutionism) and how it supposedly works, and I AM describing it accurately. If you're gonna argue for something, at least take the trouble to understand it.

In real life of course, as opposed to the fevered imaginations of evolutionites, natural selection is an agency of stasis and not change, and it is a destructive process and not a constructive one. It weeds out anything an iota to the left or right of dead center for the norm of a particular species. You could no more create a new species with natural selection than you could build a skyscraper with a wrecking ball.

But in the theory of evolution, natural selection causes the fixation of new genetic traits as I described.

Sit down and be quiet you silly fool.
This peddling of such irrational rubbish has long since bored those with brains larger than a grape into insensibility.
Post it all someplace where people can reinforce your delusions and thus ensure that you feel you are not alone.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 07:51 am
gungasnake wrote:
I mean, all I'm doing is describing your own stupid theory (evolutionism) and how it supposedly works, and I AM describing it accurately.


Your to ignorant about evolution to describe it accurately.

If, in your mind, evolution is false than would you mind telling us what you have in mind to replace it and give us some evidence? Got any science to back up your alternative ideas?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 05:20 pm
WAiting for an astute gungacious answer
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 08:02 pm
Re: Evolution 101
gungasnake wrote:
Several "experts" posted comments the other day (on the 'genetic death' thread) indicating that they lack a basic comprehension of what the theory of evolution is. Several also claimed that mutations were not involved in evolutionary theory and that only substitution of existing alleles were.


I'm sure you misunderstood them. What they probably said was "you're a nutcase", and you just misread it.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 08:47 pm
xingu wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
I mean, all I'm doing is describing your own stupid theory (evolutionism) and how it supposedly works, and I AM describing it accurately.


Your to ignorant about evolution to describe it accurately.


If you were going to be ignorant of something, evolution would be as good a choice as any. Funny thing is though, at least on this particular forum, I seem to be the only person who ISN't ignorant on the topic.

Quote:

If, in your mind, evolution is false than would you mind telling us what you have in mind to replace it and give us some evidence? Got any science to back up your alternative ideas?


What would I replace evolution with?? Why, just about anything, really. I mean, you couldn't do worse than a theory which requires an endless series of zero-probability events and probabilistic miracles and turns everything we know about modern mathematics and probability theory on its head.

Voodoo would be better; rastafari would be better; santeria would be better....

http://www.geocities.com/oldsayville/santeria_object.jpg


http://www.phinneysplace.com/RastaFish.gif
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 09:06 pm
Quote:
What would I replace evolution with?? Why, just about anything, really.


Well, I guess you can't get any dumber than that.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 08:49 am
xingu wrote:
Quote:
What would I replace evolution with?? Why, just about anything, really.


Well, I guess you can't get any dumber than that.


That's pretty much the way intelligent people are coming to view evolution and evolutionites...

http://www.insomnomaniac.com/images/MM_morons.jpg
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 08:53 am
Gungasnake, Intelligent people would never agree with you in a million years. You have failed to prove that the majority of intelligent people do not believe in Evolution.

You have failed to prove that Evolution is false.

You have failed to provide any decent scientific alternatives that do not invoke the name of God.

You have failed to provide any information that proves your point that hasn't been debunked already i.e. Haldane's Dilemma (remember that one? The one that was false because it made the invalid assumption that only one gene can be fixed at a time and that no other changes can accumulate until the ongoing one is fixed?)

And furthermore, you have failed to prove that the people behind Michael Moore are dumb.
0 Replies
 
Heliotrope
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 03:20 pm
Gungasnake,

Get yourself a box of pencils and a stack of notepads.
Then go out into the world for 25 years and look at how life actually works.
Take copious notes of your observations and when you have lots and lots of information start putting it all together into a coherent picture of how life works and develops.
Then write up your findings and share them with the world.
Your paper will stand or fall based on how well it reflects the actuality of existence.

When you've done all that, get back to us.

I state for the record that I will personally pay for the pencils, notepads and their delivery to your home address.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 03:59 pm
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:



You have failed to provide any information that proves your point that hasn't been debunked already i.e. Haldane's Dilemma (remember that one? The one that was false because it made the invalid assumption that only one gene can be fixed at a time and that no other changes can accumulate until the ongoing one is fixed?)...


What I remember about that one is having pointed out to YOU that the vast and overwhelming bulk of all mutations are harmful and/or fatal, and that any creature trying to mutate its way to being another kind of creature in less than the quadrillions of years which the Haldane finding indicates, and trying to do it by undergoing multiple mutations at a time, would die out very quickly; that's because every time one of the creatures got one "beneficial mutation", he'd get a couple of thousand of the harmful and/or fatal ones to go along with it.

Now, since YOU're the only one still making these kinds of noises, I have to assume that there WERE people on whom the explanation was not wasted.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 05:54 pm
You only have to imagine an arm being about half way to a wing to realise that the girls in the pub would select you right out in one go.If you could go from an arm to a wing in a flash it might be different seeing as how expensive airlines are.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 05:56 pm
Gunga, the absurdities you've offered illustrate unambiguously that you, apparently in common with your sources, have no functioning, practcal knowledge of evolution, biology, or chemistry. Any attempt to bring you up to speed with the real world has about as much chance of success as explainining housepainting to a horsse ... perhaps less, since a well-placed nudge would cause the horse to get out of the way and graze somewhere else.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 06:02 pm
Heliotrope wrote:
Gungasnake,

Get yourself a box of pencils and a stack of notepads.
Then go out into the world for 25 years and look at how life actually works.
Take copious notes of your observations and when you have lots and lots of information start putting it all together into a coherent picture of how life works and develops.
Then write up your findings and share them with the world.
Your paper will stand or fall based on how well it reflects the actuality of existence.

When you've done all that, get back to us.

I state for the record that I will personally pay for the pencils, notepads and their delivery to your home address.
Hey, This is a cool post.

p.s. I'll supply the acid.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 08:48 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Gunga, the absurdities you've offered illustrate unambiguously that you, apparently in common with your sources, have no functioning, practcal knowledge of evolution, biology, or chemistry....


I assume if there were any sort of a logical case for you to try to make (as opposed to the stupid ad hominems), you'd try to make it.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 10:32 pm
gungasnake wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
Gunga, the absurdities you've offered illustrate unambiguously that you, apparently in common with your sources, have no functioning, practical knowledge of evolution, biology, or chemistry....


I assume if there were any sort of a logical case for you to try to make (as opposed to the stupid ad hominems), you'd try to make it.

Gunga, I submit that the overwhelming consensus of the academic, scientific, legal, and mainstream theologic communities is that the postulates you forward are demonstrated absurdities. I submit further that failure to realize, acknowledge, and accept that is itself a compounding absurdity. I submit yet further, in that demonstrated fact provides absolute defense, that while ad hominem has been employed in this discussion, you misattribute its source.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 04:44 am
Creationist claim;

Quote:
Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.

Response:
1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
· Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
· Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
· Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
· A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
· Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
· In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).

4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).

5. Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).

Links:
Williams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations and natural selection. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
Williams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations in humans. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html


SOURCE
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution 101
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/16/2019 at 06:05:16