Jump to content


Photo

Microevolution


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#1 pwnagepanda

pwnagepanda

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 16
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Agnostic
  • Piedmont, California

Posted 09 September 2007 - 03:33 PM

is there any logical problem with saying that samll changes (microevolution) can accumulate and cause large changes?( macroevolution)

#2 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 09 September 2007 - 05:03 PM

is there any logical problem with saying that samll changes (microevolution) can accumulate and cause large changes?( macroevolution)

View Post


Yes, Imagine you have to jump a 20 meters long Hole, Can you jump it using 20 one meter jumps ? Traits are polygenic, so you need many mutations occurring at same time in different places.

#3 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 09 September 2007 - 08:56 PM

Yes, Imagine you have to jump a 20 meters long Hole, Can you jump it using 20 one meter jumps ? Traits are polygenic, so you need many mutations occurring at same time in different places.

View Post



Could you teach me about your theory please? where is this limit of micro-evolution? I assume you accept that in a few hundred years it is possible to breed your basic dog into all the odd breeds we have today - great danes, bull dogs, dachsunds etc. Yes?

If we did have a few thousand years how far does the theory say micro-evolution can go? Where are the limits of a "kind".

What if we had a few million years? Could we breed dogs with webbing between their toes and big toes? Could we make a seal like creature if we bred dogs for a few million years or is that too far?

I know you don't believe the earth is that old, I just want to know how far your theory allows breeding to go.


Can we go from squirrels to flying (i.e., gliding) squirrels? If yes, how much further? Can we breed them to flap or is that too far?
Fish to flying fish?

Thanks for your help.

#4 pwnagepanda

pwnagepanda

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 16
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Agnostic
  • Piedmont, California

Posted 09 September 2007 - 10:14 PM

it isnt so much a 20 meter gap, but a 20 meter river with stones placed throughout, so that over a very long time, you can make lots of little jumps

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 09 September 2007 - 10:36 PM

is there any logical problem with saying that samll changes (microevolution) can accumulate and cause large changes?( macroevolution)

View Post


The problem with small changes working together to create on big change. Are the odds. It would be like playing the lotto 10,000 times, and winning each time using the same numbers. The reason I say using the same numbers is because each change has one goal. And that is the final out come. So each change has to be exact, like playing the lotto using the same number each time. And the goal is the big change, and the lotto goal is the big money.

Example: I once saw a film that said that it was estimated that it took between 20,000 - 30,000 small mutation to form the eye. Seems feasible when you only tell that part of it. But let's break it down to where the odds can be seen.

Since the eye is believed to have been formed from a freckle on the skin. We will just say that it took some 50 mutations of the skin being exposed to sunlight to make the freckle. Now from this point forward you have:

1) A starting point.
2) An ending point. Which is the goal of the final product which is the eye.

But the 1,000's of mutations inbetween all have to be in like a chain of events that all go towards the making of the eye. Kinda like a fire and water bucket. Each person has to pass the bucket full of water in order to help put the fire out. If someone dumps the water out along the way, the goal of putting the fire out cannot be met. Just like one mutation off, and the eye will not be the final product. Or it will not even work. And there are many things that can affect mutations during the time that it took to mutate the final product.

Let's say it took 10,000 years to mutate an eye anywhere near what we have today. In that 10,000 years, there could not be one thing that could affect the out come. Not one. So what would this require? Controlled surroundings. But where do we get controlled surroundings in primitive times?

So what can affect the mutation of the eye while it developes?
1) Chemicals.
2) Injury.
3) Birth defects.
4) Mutations gone in the wrong direction.
etc...

#6 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 10 September 2007 - 02:11 AM

Could you teach me about your theory please? where is this limit of micro-evolution?  I assume you accept that in a few hundred years it is possible to breed your basic dog into all the odd breeds we have today - great danes, bull dogs, dachsunds etc.  Yes?

If we did have a few thousand years how far does the theory say micro-evolution can go? Where are the limits of a "kind".

What if we had a few million years? Could we breed dogs with webbing between their toes and big toes? Could we make a seal like creature if we bred dogs for a few million years or is that too far?

I know you don't believe the earth is that old, I just want to know how far your theory allows breeding to go.
Can we go from squirrels to flying (i.e., gliding) squirrels? If yes, how much further? Can we breed them to flap or is that too far?
  Fish to flying fish?

Thanks for your help.

View Post


The problem is that you are limited to the gene pool of the dog. So, you will never have dogs with wings because there are not genes of wings in the Dog´s gene pool. It´s a limited to all kind.

#7 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 10 September 2007 - 02:18 AM

it isnt so much a 20 meter gap, but a 20 meter river with stones placed throughout, so that over a very long time, you can make lots of little jumps

View Post


The problem is that there is no stone placed throughout.Almost traits are polygenic, so you cannot achieve it without a big jump, or you have all the genes in the right place at the same time or it has no function.It´s like any machine.You cannot make a engine to work until you put all its parts together.It´s an integrated system.

Evolutionists must understand that the only way mutations could be a chance of causing macro-evolution would be if traits are not polygenic, in other words, one gene = one trait.So, a mutation in a gene would have a reasonable probability to create a new trait.But as they are polygenic, an integrated system, then the probability is almost zero that mutations cause one macro-evolution and it´s surely zero to have caused all the macro-evolutions needed for all life on the earth.

#8 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 10 September 2007 - 08:38 AM

It fascinates me that Genes and their limitations always come into question by evo's as if this is some "creationist" idea. The limitations found in genes is well documented by years of scientific research. No scientist has ever been able to produce and/or discover anything that has gone beyond those limitations. Fruit flies are still fruit flies after over 30 years of bombarding them with xrays and chemicals. No new features have ever been produced by these experiments.

This is not "creationist" propaganda it is the truth that these limitations exist. Until a discovery or experiment can show otherwise evo's have nothing else but their imaginations and fantasies about how such limitations may not exist.

We learned about heredity and breeding when we were in junior high and beyond. About recessive genes. About the fact that traits are passed on from generation to generation within a species. We've yet to hear about a human born with purple eyes. Probably because it's not in the human gene pool. Evo's want to believe though, for example, that it is possible. How? What mechanism makes the creation of DNA to code for purple eyes? Science doesn't know. They don't have a clue. Yet evo's consistently insist that such a mechanism exists via micro events. But Micro "removes" and/or "takes away" "existing" genes not add anything. That's what breeders do. You imagine all the varieties of breeds within a species is the best argument for a macro event but it's actually an argument in favor of the limitations found in microevolution.

Microevolution allows for quite a variety to exist within the species gene pool and that seems to confuse a lot of evo's into imagining how it couldn't go beyond those varieties to create an actual "new" species. However there is absolutely no scientific evidence to show that such an event can and has occurred except in the imaginations of evo's.

What I'm about to say is going to confuse evo's and I don't know why it does. For a macro event to occur you need to "add" genes. Sounds preposterous but not really when you compare genes in a bacteria vs genes in a dog. Wouldn't you need to have genes "added" to the genes found in a bacteria to code for the creation of a dog??? Why does this escape most evo minds??? The genes that code for hair, tail, teeth, eyes, wet nose etc. do not exist in any bacteria. So macro requires that the code for those features be added to said bacteria to make a dog and not just another bacteria. No such mechanism has been discovered. The opposite instead has been discovered and that is, the DNA for dogs is limited to producing nothing more than dogs no matter the variety. Micro takes away, Macro must add. Simple concept that escapes most evo minds. If macro doesn't have to add then a bacteria can never evolve into a dog eventually. Those genes must be there, if they are not then you don't get a dog. I know it's ruff to hear :o

#9 lordfaunswater

lordfaunswater

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Liverpool

Posted 11 September 2007 - 08:41 AM

The problem is that there is no stone placed throughout.Almost traits are polygenic, so you cannot achieve it without a big jump, or you have all the genes in the right place at the same time or it has no function.It´s like any machine.You cannot make a engine to work until you put all its parts together.It´s an integrated system.

Evolutionists must understand that the only way mutations could be a chance of causing macro-evolution would be if traits are not polygenic, in other words, one gene = one trait.So, a mutation in a gene would have a reasonable probability to create a new trait.But as they are polygenic, an integrated system, then the probability is almost zero that mutations cause one macro-evolution and it´s surely zero to have caused all the macro-evolutions needed for all life on the earth.


That simplifies genetics and evolution greatly, and its not the case that one gene codes for one trait. Traits are coded by many many genes, and one slight change on a gene can have a change on the trait.



It fascinates me that Genes and their limitations always come into question by evo's as if this is some "creationist" idea. The limitations found in genes is well documented by years of scientific research. No scientist has ever been able to produce and/or discover anything that has gone beyond those limitations. Fruit flies are still fruit flies after over 30 years of bombarding them with xrays and chemicals. No new features have ever been produced by these experiments.


Posted Image

What new features would we expect from a limited and controlled population in an artificial environment?




This is not "creationist" propaganda it is the truth that these limitations exist. Until a discovery or experiment can show otherwise evo's have nothing else but their imaginations and fantasies about how such limitations may not exist.

We learned about heredity and breeding when we were in junior high and beyond. About recessive genes. About the fact that traits are passed on from generation to generation within a species. We've yet to hear about a human born with purple eyes. Probably because it's not in the human gene pool. Evo's want to believe though, for example, that it is possible. How? What mechanism makes the creation of DNA to code for purple eyes? Science doesn't know. They don't have a clue. Yet evo's consistently insist that such a mechanism exists via micro events. But Micro "removes" and/or "takes away" "existing" genes not add anything. That's what breeders do. You imagine all the varieties of breeds within a species is the best argument for a macro event but it's actually an argument in favor of the limitations found in microevolution.


It's not because its "not in the gene pool", nor because it can't be "coded", but because it CAN'T physically be expressed in a phenotype. Eye colour (and any other colouring) is determined by the abundence and type of pigments (not just genetically), and the combination and interaction of these pigments together and with environmental factors (e.g.sunlight). Even our eye sight is based upon the breaking down of pigments. It is a discrete character - there is no sliding scale of eye colour because we only have certain pigments which have certain numbers of possible interactations. An albino is lacking one or more pigment, so they will have more dramatic eyes - pink eyes usually. Their skin will also lack colour for the same reasons. Some people have been known to have violet eyes also because of some pigmentation problem.
Some organisms have completely different families of pigment (and perhaps more types) that may have evolved independantly, so they can have more exotic colours.

Posted Image

Humans dont have the same pigments as other organisms, so it's unlikely we can have loads of dramatic eye colours. That doesnt mean there isnt selectable variation on (and in) our eyes that can influence further evolution.



Microevolution allows for quite a variety to exist within the species gene pool and that seems to confuse a lot of evo's into imagining how it couldn't go beyond those varieties to create an actual "new" species. However there is absolutely no scientific evidence to show that such an event can and has occurred except in the imaginations of evo's.


But "the evolution of novel traits" isnt the observed basis behind speciation. Speciation is the inabilty of two (or more) organisms that were once closely related to breed and rear fertile offspring - an observation that has been seen time after time after time. Novel traits have the same origin that makes you an individual from a sibling. Both of you have similarity - but both of you have differences that may be selected for. Nobody has implied that "suddenly a mutant fish baby was born with legs", because such changes require hundreds of millions of years of cumulative change - not mutation from one generation, without legs, to the next generation, with legs.




What I'm about to say is going to confuse evo's and I don't know why it does. For a macro event to occur you need to "add" genes. Sounds preposterous but not really when you compare genes in a bacteria vs genes in a dog. Wouldn't you need to have genes "added" to the genes found in a bacteria to code for the creation of a dog??? Why does this escape most evo minds??? The genes that code for hair, tail, teeth, eyes, wet nose etc. do not exist in any bacteria. So macro requires that the code for those features be added to said bacteria to make a dog and not just another bacteria. No such mechanism has been discovered. The opposite instead has been discovered and that is, the DNA for dogs is limited to producing nothing more than dogs no matter the variety. Micro takes away, Macro must add. Simple concept that escapes most evo minds. If macro doesn't have to add then a bacteria can never evolve into a dog eventually. Those genes must be there, if they are not then you don't get a dog. I know it's ruff to hear smile.gif



Because its complete and utter nonsense.

A bacteria is a single celled prokaryotic organism. That means it has a completely different cell struture, genetic makeup, morphology and a lifestyle from a dog - which is a multicellular eukaryote. Just one of the huge fundamental differences is the simple observation that prokaryotes don't have mitochondria.

If you think inserting a dog's DNA into a bacteria is what MACRO EVOLUTION is best defined as, or indeed evidenced as, then you really are fundamentally wrong about huge chunks of biology. I geniunely dont have the time to explain why this is wrong for thousands of reasons, so read these instead:

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Prokaryote
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Eukaryotes
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Mitochondria
Please read these because they are really excellent articles.



Oh and watch that too , because it's well funny.

#10 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 11 September 2007 - 10:20 AM

What new features would we expect from a limited and controlled population in an artificial environment?


What kind of question is that? Then why are we spending millions of dollars on experiments like this if scientist shouldn't "expect" something from such experiments? What do you think they're doing this for? Fun?

"Further, scientists have used fruit flies for genetic model systems in the laboratory for years. Because fruit flies have diversified into thousands of species, reproduce quickly and create many generations in a short time, scientists use them to study evolution, population genetics and diversification. However, laboratory work does have limitations, Etges said." http://www.scienceda...70622191708.htm

It may be that there may be "limitations" but the purpose for such experiments is quite clear. That was their original intention to "...study evolution, population genetics and diversification.."

It's not because its "not in the gene pool", nor because it can't be "coded", but because it CAN'T physically be expressed in a phenotype. Eye colour (and any other colouring) is determined by the abundence and type of pigments (not just genetically), and the combination and interaction of these pigments together and with environmental factors (e.g.sunlight). Even our eye sight is based upon the breaking down of pigments. It is a discrete character - there is no sliding scale of eye colour because we only have certain pigments which have certain numbers of possible interactations. An albino is lacking one or more pigment, so they will have more dramatic eyes - pink eyes usually. Their skin will also lack colour for the same reasons. Some people have been known to have violet eyes also because of some pigmentation problem.
Some organisms have completely different families of pigment (and perhaps more types) that may have evolved independantly, so they can have more exotic colours.


By saying "it CAN"T" are you admiting that it can "NEVER" via evolution? Because as you say, "..we only have certain pigments which have certain numbers of possible interactions."?

But "the evolution of novel traits" isnt the observed basis behind speciation. Speciation is the inabilty of two (or more) organisms that were once closely related to breed and rear fertile offspring - an observation that has been seen time after time after time. Novel traits have the same origin that makes you an individual from a sibling. Both of you have similarity - but both of you have differences that may be selected for. Nobody has implied that "suddenly a mutant fish baby was born with legs", because such changes require hundreds of millions of years of cumulative change - not mutation from one generation, without legs, to the next generation, with legs.


That's what most scientist's would consider a "Micro" event. I never implied that a fish baby would be born with legs. I implied that there is no known Macro mechanism as yet discovered. Have any macro evidence you care to share?

Because its complete and utter nonsense.

A bacteria is a single celled prokaryotic organism. That means it has a completely different cell struture, genetic makeup, morphology and a lifestyle from a dog - which is a multicellular eukaryote. Just one of the huge fundamental differences is the simple observation that prokaryotes don't have mitochondria.

If you think inserting a dog's DNA into a bacteria is what MACRO EVOLUTION is best defined as, or indeed evidenced as, then you really are fundamentally wrong about huge chunks of biology. I geniunely dont have the time to explain why this is wrong for thousands of reasons, so read these instead:


Yeah, I understand you'd like to think it utter nonsense but until the limited mechanism of micro can be shown to go beyond such limitations to create a macro event then it is utter nonsense to accept Macroevolution as a reality. For now it's a fantasy.

I know you'd like to think that that is what I think MACRO EVOLUTION is but I can't help sense that you know better. Or perhaps you really don't. Perhaps it really has escaped your mind of my meaning. Or perhaps we're actually on the same page and you don't even realize it. In either case you've done nothing but help support my point here since it appears that you are admitting that evolution is not capable of evolving prokaryotic organisms into multicellular eukaryotes. That's exactly what I'm saying. It's impossible. There is no mechanism known or discovered to make that happen. The differences between the two organisms is vast and numerous especially on the DNA level. That's exactly what I was saying. So how different is this example to the example I gave about bacteria evolving into a dog (eventually, evolutionarily :) )??? What must occur for a multicellular eukaryote to evolve from a prokaryotic organism??? Hmmm? What has to occur for a single cell bacteria to eventually evolve into a dog??? What eventually has to happen to cause this bacteria to slowly but surely over billions of years evolve into a dog? It has to eventually evolve the code for dog parts that do not currently exist in the code for bacteria parts. You know, simple to more complex?

It's amazing how this escapes evo minds. On one hand they're telling us that we evolved from what? "Simple" cell creatures to more what? "Complex" creatures. Then act confused when you explain that complex creatures that have complex features coded for by it's DNA needs to be added "over time" to it's simple cell ancestor. Otherwise there is NO evolution!

#11 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 11 September 2007 - 04:02 PM

That simplifies genetics and evolution greatly, and its not the case that one gene codes for one trait. Traits are coded by many many genes, and one slight change on a gene can have a change on the trait.


You are only confirming what I said, Traits are polygenic. The result of any change on a gene is limited to the function of that gene. The change can stop the gene to code the right protein then the change may be harmful if the protein is essencial for the trait but it will never change the kind of the trait.To change the kind of the trait you need to mutate all the genes involved in the codification of that trait.

#12 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 September 2007 - 04:29 PM

is there any logical problem with saying that samll changes (microevolution) can accumulate and cause large changes?( macroevolution)

View Post


As a statement of faith, no.... As a statement of scientific fact, yes....

Terry

#13 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 September 2007 - 04:42 PM

Nobody has implied that "suddenly a mutant fish baby was born with legs", because such changes require hundreds of millions of years of cumulative change - not mutation from one generation, without legs, to the next generation, with legs. 



Generally speking, no one expects these sudden changes that you are critizing to take place.

Why should we accept what is not observable in real time? Not even the intermediates are observable in real time, and they scare, if at existant at all, in fossil form.

Terry

#14 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 14 September 2007 - 01:08 PM

is there any logical problem with saying that samll changes (microevolution) can accumulate and cause large changes?( macroevolution)

View Post


As you can see from the debate that insued. Yes there are problems with stating that micro can lead to macro.

In general Creationist do not believe micro will ever lead to macro. So you can not say that it does without being refuted.

#15 lordfaunswater

lordfaunswater

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Liverpool

Posted 14 September 2007 - 02:49 PM

By saying "it CAN"T" are you admiting that it can "NEVER" via evolution? Because as you say, "..we only have certain pigments which have certain numbers of possible interactions."?


No, but such a change would require the evolution of (a) new family(s) of pigments, which would take a long time and strange environmental conditions to say the least.



That's what most scientist's would consider a "Micro" event. I never implied that a fish baby would be born with legs. I implied that there is no known Macro mechanism as yet discovered. Have any macro evidence you care to share?


Some might consider the fact that whales have vestigal bones for a hind limb to be just one of the many evidences.




Yeah, I understand you'd like to think it utter nonsense but until the limited mechanism of micro can be shown to go beyond such limitations to create a macro event then it is utter nonsense to accept Macroevolution as a reality. For now it's a fantasy.

I know you'd like to think that that is what I think MACRO EVOLUTION is but I can't help sense that you know better. Or perhaps you really don't. Perhaps it really has escaped your mind of my meaning. Or perhaps we're actually on the same page and you don't even realize it. In either case you've done nothing but help support my point here since it appears that you are admitting that evolution is not capable of evolving prokaryotic organisms into multicellular eukaryotes. That's exactly what I'm saying. It's impossible. There is no mechanism known or discovered to make that happen. The differences between the two organisms is vast and numerous especially on the DNA level. That's exactly what I was saying. So how different is this example to the example I gave about bacteria evolving into a dog (eventually, evolutionarily smile.gif )??? What must occur for a multicellular eukaryote to evolve from a prokaryotic organism??? Hmmm? What has to occur for a single cell bacteria to eventually evolve into a dog??? What eventually has to happen to cause this bacteria to slowly but surely over billions of years evolve into a dog? It has to eventually evolve the code for dog parts that do not currently exist in the code for bacteria parts. You know, simple to more complex?

It's amazing how this escapes evo minds. On one hand they're telling us that we evolved from what? "Simple" cell creatures to more what? "Complex" creatures. Then act confused when you explain that complex creatures that have complex features coded for by it's DNA needs to be added "over time" to it's simple cell ancestor. Otherwise there is NO evolution!


You've not taken into account the observation that there was more than just "mutation after mutation after mutation" that evolved an ancient bacteria into eukaryotic cells.

I think when you said:

Wouldn't you need to have genes "added" to the genes found in a bacteria to code for the creation of a dog???

is a very misleading comment, because it doesn't take into account the huge differences in biology between the organisms, but also the very principles behind evolution.



You are only confirming what I said, Traits are polygenic. The result of any change on a gene is limited to the function of that gene. The change can stop the gene to code the right protein then the change may be harmful if the protein is essencial for the trait but it will never change the kind of the trait.To change the kind of the trait you need to mutate all the genes involved in the codification of that trait.


No you dont. A single change in an amino acid anywhere on any gene coding for a trait can potentially have profound effects on the eventual protein and where and how it used by a cell. An inescapable truth.



Why should we accept what is not observable in real time? Not even the intermediates are observable in real time, and they scare, if at existant at all, in fossil form.


We can't see them in real time because we can't predict long term evolutionary trends and we dont have millions of years. If, as you say, "they are existent at all", they are still there.

#16 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 14 September 2007 - 03:30 PM

lordfaunswater,
You just can't say stuff like..the whale use to have legs, so that supports macro-evolution...you need to show us how mutations can actually accumulate.

This you haven't done as of yet.

#17 pwnagepanda

pwnagepanda

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 16
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Agnostic
  • Piedmont, California

Posted 14 September 2007 - 03:34 PM

lordfaunswater,
You just can't say stuff like..the whale use to have legs, so that supports macro-evolution...you need to show us how mutations can actually accumulate.

This you haven't done as of yet.

View Post

I cant think of any logical reason that mutational accumulation is not possible.

#18 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 14 September 2007 - 03:38 PM

No you dont. A single change in an amino acid anywhere on any gene coding for a trait can potentially have profound effects on the eventual protein and where and how it used by a cell. An inescapable truth.


And so what ? What is important is the use of that protein. That´s the reason why almost all mutation is neutral or harmful.If the profound effects are harmful what´s your point ? Each cell is very specialized, an inescapable truth, So a protein used in the brain has no function in a muscle cell.Beyond that , we have the incredible amount of useless proteins and we have the fact that a trait is the result of the combination of many proteins in a specific way.The probability of overcoming all those obstacles with random mutation is zero.

#19 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 14 September 2007 - 03:58 PM

I cant think of any logical reason that mutational accumulation is not possible.

View Post



Tell me how they add up.

The evos claim they do...but never explain how.

Are you sure you want to debate this issue?

#20 pwnagepanda

pwnagepanda

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 16
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Agnostic
  • Piedmont, California

Posted 14 September 2007 - 04:37 PM

Tell me how they add up.

The evos claim they do...but never explain how.

Are you sure you want to debate this issue?

View Post

so say for the purpose of simplicity, that therer are 5 bad mutations, and 10 neutral mutations to every 1 beneficial mutations (im sure the actual numbers are very different, but lets just go with it). so mosst of the organisms with bad mutations are selected against by natural selection. The organisms with the neutral mutations are neutrally selected for. Of course the organisms with beneficial mutations are positively selected for, so the majority of those organisms survive. over succesive generations, the good genetic mutations will probably spread throughout a population, while bad mutations are weeded out. over time, more good mutations can occur, along with bad ones and neutral ones. eventually, the beneficial mutations can accumulate until significant change can occur.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users