Jump to content


Mutation And Natural Selection


  • Please log in to reply
116 replies to this topic

Poll: Given the assumptions in this thread, would evolution be possible? (21 member(s) have cast votes)

Given the assumptions in this thread, would evolution be possible?

  1. Yes and I believe evolution is possible (10 votes [47.62%])

    Percentage of vote: 47.62%

  2. No and I believe evolution is possible (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. Yes and I believe evolution is impossible (3 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

  4. No and I believe evolution is impossible (8 votes [38.10%])

    Percentage of vote: 38.10%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 19 May 2009 - 08:18 AM

This approach is useful, but not the full issue. In this thread, I would like to have a civil debate on what happens if Mutations and Natural Selection each do what the ToE claims they do.

1. Mutations: Assume these cause the number of varieties within a group to increase each generation, with the varieties on average being worse adapted than the original group, but some being better. This includes creating varieties with simple features that a previous generation didn't possess, or more complex versions of simple features they did.

2. Natural selection: Assume this causes the number of varieties within a group to decrease each generation, increasing the average and minimum fitness values of the group.

Given these assumptions, would you say that evolution was possible or impossible?

View Post


First and foremost, you need to correct your poll to separate micro and macro evolution. Micro-evolution isn’t a problem because it’s simply adaptation within a species. Macro-evolution is a myth and fairytale. When you make this distinction, I can vote! Otherwise, you have done nothing more than stack the argument in your favor, with no chance of an honest and civil debate.

Having said that; mutations have never changed one thing into another, therefore mutations are nothing more than positive or negative adaption (most likely negative).

Therefore, no… Macro-evolution is imposable.

#22 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 19 May 2009 - 02:51 PM

First and foremost, you need to correct your poll to separate micro and macro evolution. Micro-evolution isn’t a problem because it’s simply adaptation within a species. Macro-evolution is a myth and fairytale. When you make this distinction, I can vote! Otherwise, you have done nothing more than stack the argument in your favor, with no chance of an honest and civil debate.

Having said that; mutations have never changed one thing into another, therefore mutations are nothing more than positive or negative adaption (most likely negative).

Therefore, no… Macro-evolution is imposable.

View Post

In the context of this forum, one is supposed to be able to take the term 'evolution' to mean evolution. There is even a rule.

In any honest context, where evolution & creation are debated, 'evolution' must mean evolution. That which is not disputed cannot honestly be substituted for that which is.

#23 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 20 May 2009 - 03:22 PM

Show me a bacteria developing into a multi-cellular, multi-organ, multi-function invertebrate and you may cause me to pause, and don't give me flagellate shedding, lumping and colonizing E-coli bateria as proof for this, it's underwhelming.

View Post


That will probably never be possible. We have to come to an understanding of our origins without it. Likewise it will always be impossible to prove that a given species or individual animal was created by God.

Bear in mind that scientists are not interested in absolute proof - it can never be obtained. They are looking for powerful theories supported by evidence, and then take these as a working explanation, subject to change / rejection based on future discoveries.

I've read some evolution papers, and I've found a surprising number that challenge current assumptions and understanding. These challenges are generally more powerful than ones raised by creationists themselves.

The strength of the evidence for large scale evolution is that there are so many strands to it. To be honest, in spite of this evidence, I still sometimes find the conclusion incredible.

Major sources of evidence are

- biogeography
- fossils and dating
- genetics
- embryology.

I believe the evidence from genetics is very strong and getting stronger. It allows us to bypass all the questions around morphology and go straight to the 'raw data'. In the last 30 years or so the number of confirmations of evolution from genetics have grown enormously.

The fact that genetic trees built using different gene groups, or using different mechanisms (functional genes / endogenous retroviruses / interpolated sequences) give similar trees is very powerful confirmation of common descent,. This is a very specific prediction of evolution.

#24 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 20 May 2009 - 04:04 PM

I believe genetic mutation has been falsified by gentics itself.

Opossum Genome Shows 'Junk' DNA Source Of Genetic Innovation

ScienceDaily (May 10, 2007) — A tiny opossum's genome has shed light on how evolution creates new creatures from old, showing that change primarily comes by finding new ways of turning existing genes on and off.


The research, by an international consortium led by the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, revises our understanding of genetic evolution. Scientists previously thought that evolution slowly changed the genes that create specific proteins. As the proteins changed, so did the creatures that owned them.

The current research shows that opossum and human protein-coding genes have changed little since their ancestors parted ways, 180 million years ago. It has been the regulation of their genes - when they turn on and off - that has changed dramatically.

"Evolution is tinkering much more with the controls than it is with the genes themselves," said Broad Institute director Eric Lander. "Almost all of the new innovation ... is in the regulatory controls. In fact, marsupial mammals and placental mammals have largely the same set of protein-coding genes. But by contrast, 20 percent of the regulatory instructions in the human genome were invented after we parted ways with the marsupial."


And i don't think that was a prediction made by evolution.The old theory was proven wrong,so they made up a new theory.

Genetic mutation has been criticized by many honest evolutionists long before this evidence.

Theodosius Dobzhansky, "....one can say that mutations are owing to incorrect copying, to occasional mistakes in the generally so remarkably accurate process of replication... You may, if you wish, compare mutations to accidental misspellings or misprints which even the most experienced copyist makes.... ...harmfulness of most mutants is just what could be reasonably expected. ....an accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one's watch or into one's radio set can hardly be expected to make it work better." Heredity And The Nature Of Man, p.126



Thanks.

#25 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 21 May 2009 - 05:33 AM

I believe genetic mutation has been falsified by gentics itself.
And i don't think that was a prediction made by evolution.The old theory was proven wrong,so they made up a new theory.

Genetic mutation has been criticized by many honest evolutionists long before this evidence.
Thanks.

View Post


The changes in gene regulation are also due to mutation.

#26 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 21 May 2009 - 05:35 AM

The changes in gene regulation are also due to mutation.

The fact that scientific theories change as facts are discovered is the strength of science.

View Post



#27 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 21 May 2009 - 06:07 AM

The changes in gene regulation are also due to mutation.

View Post

Is there some way you know this?

Or has everything that exists been defined to be the result of mutation?

#28 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 21 May 2009 - 06:27 AM

Is there some way you know this?

Or has everything that exists been defined to be the result of mutation?

View Post

This is a good question. Evolutionists like to muddy the waters by calling all variations, mutations. I'm suspicious, what's their evidence? Is it purely definitional? Any variation equals mutations or is there some genetic evidence?

I'm feeling suspicious that it's the same as the evolution definition shell game. "Of Course evolution is proven... we all see change over time." :mellow:

#29 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 21 May 2009 - 06:49 AM

That will probably never be possible. We have to come to an understanding of our origins without it. Likewise it will always be impossible to prove that a given species or individual animal was created by God.

Bear in mind that scientists are not interested in absolute proof - it can never be obtained. They are looking for powerful theories supported by evidence, and then take these as a working explanation, subject to change / rejection based on future discoveries.

I've read some evolution papers, and I've found a surprising number that challenge current assumptions and understanding. These challenges are generally more powerful than ones raised by creationists themselves.

The strength of the evidence for large scale evolution is that there are so many strands to it. To be honest, in spite of this evidence, I still sometimes find the conclusion incredible.

Major sources of evidence are

- biogeography
- fossils and dating
- genetics
- embryology.

I believe the evidence from genetics is very strong and getting stronger. It allows us to bypass all the questions around morphology and go straight to the 'raw data'. In the last 30 years or so the number of confirmations of evolution from genetics have grown enormously.

The fact that genetic trees built using different gene groups, or using different mechanisms (functional genes / endogenous retroviruses / interpolated sequences) give similar trees is very powerful confirmation of common descent,. This is a very specific prediction of evolution.

View Post


If scientist aren't out to find truth/absolute proofs, then they need to quit all together. Absolute proofs do exist and you cannot argue this. Therefore, all studies not seeking to find truth need to be destroyed, and thrown in the trash. There is no need to promote a false idea, or lie.

Therefore, evolution, which has never been tested, needs to be thrown out as well, simply because it does not exist, not even as a theory.

#30 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 21 May 2009 - 08:08 AM

If scientist aren't out to find truth/absolute proofs, then they need to quit all together.  Absolute proofs do exist and you cannot argue this.  Therefore, all studies not seeking to find truth need to be destroyed, and thrown in the trash.  There is no need to promote a false idea, or lie.

Therefore, evolution, which has never been tested, needs to be thrown out as well, simply because it does not exist, not even as a theory.

View Post


Scott, this is simply untrue. All of it.

#31 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 21 May 2009 - 08:13 AM

Scott, this is simply untrue. All of it.

View Post



How is all of his statement untrue? Just because you say it is?

Could you please elaborate...

#32 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 21 May 2009 - 08:19 AM

Bear in mind that scientists are not interested in absolute proof - it can never be obtained.

View Post


Is that absolutely true?

Because if it is, we have to throw out most of the absolute empirical scientific proof we have gathered since the dawn of creation!

If it isn’t, you need to throw out that incorrect notion!

#33 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 22 May 2009 - 04:52 AM

Fair enough but this thread is meaningless because we can close our eyes and imagine the possibility of any science fiction we want. What is your desired end result? Tell us the purpose of this thread and where you think it should lead and why.

You said this to falcone about your goals:
It doesn't really make sense if you ask me. The position of trying to consider what is 'possible' seems like a really indirect way of achieving your goal. Why don't you tell us what you believe and why you believe it and then we can argue specifics.

View Post


Hi Adam,

You are correct in assuming Falcone's approach is indirect. I can however understand why he's attempting it. Watching these forums for the past couple of weeks I've seen quite a few arguments get lost in details and Falcone is trying to eradicate those extra details to try and figure out what problem EXACTLY creationists have with evolution.

Once he understand what issues creationists have he will be able to address other questions more directly.

By answering his question you will give him a better understanding of where you stand on the issue, which will hopefully allow you both to to progress forward with other debates.

I hope this helps to clear up any confusion.

Regards,

Arch.

#34 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 May 2009 - 06:36 AM

Once he understand what issues creationists have he will be able to address other questions more directly.

View Post

If he doesn't understand what issues creationists have with evolution yet, he hasn't been reading very closely. Though, falcone has proven to be fairly astute and willing to duscuss things. So this isn't his problem.

Kingreaper is the one who set up an ambiguous wild goose chase. For that reason alone, it is good to have this thread for review, because a couple of good baseless threads make great examples. :)

By answering his question you will give him a better understanding of where you stand on the issue, which will hopefully allow you both to to progress forward with other debates.

View Post

I don't mind answering question but they must be both coherent and to the point. Shifty questions are just a recipe for disaster. Arch, do you see a specific question that I'm avoiding in this thread? Even with certain ambiguous questions, I seek clarity before disregarding it totally.

Welcome to the boards.

#35 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 May 2009 - 06:39 AM

...Falcone is trying to eradicate those extra details to try and figure out what problem EXACTLY creationists have with evolution.

View Post

I don't know for sure that this is falcone's position. However, assuming it is yours, I would ask the following question in return;

What obligation does a Christian have disproving a hypothesis that has never been demonstrated to be correct?

#36 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 May 2009 - 08:56 PM

I believe genetic mutation has been falsified by gentics itself.
And i don't think that was a prediction made by evolution.The old theory was proven wrong,so they made up a new theory.

Scientists know a great deal about how genes are regulated or turned on and off. This is done via promoters or inhibitors binding to DNA, and by various effects involving short pieces of RNA which can bind to the RNA transcribed from DNA.
Changes in gene regulation are caused by DNA changes ie mutations.


Some people are getting excited by epigenetics because they see it as non-Darwinian. It certainly is, because Darwin never imagined any process like this.
Simplest version is that DNA from one parent is modified by methylation, which alters expression of the affected gene. Paternal changes promote faster growth of fetus while mother's DNA is modified in the direction of slower growth and safer birth.
This results from different objectives for the two parents.

#37 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 22 May 2009 - 10:48 PM

Scientists know a great deal about how genes are regulated or turned on and off.  This is done via promoters or inhibitors binding to DNA, and by various effects involving short pieces of RNA which can bind to the RNA transcribed from DNA.
Changes in gene regulation are caused by DNA changes ie mutations.


Some people are getting excited by epigenetics because they see it as non-Darwinian.  It certainly is, because Darwin never imagined any process like this.
Simplest version is that DNA from one parent is modified by methylation, which alters expression of the affected gene.  Paternal changes promote faster growth of fetus while mother's DNA is modified in the direction of slower growth and safer birth.
This results from different objectives for the two parents.

View Post


Hi Keith,

This is an interesting article about epigenetics

Scientists at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) have detected evidence that DNA may not be the only carrier of heritable information; a secondary molecular mechanism called epigenetics may also account for some inherited traits and diseases. These findings challenge the fundamental principles of genetics and inheritance, and potentially provide a new insight into the primary causes of human diseases.

Your mother's eyes, your father's height, your predisposition to disease-- these are traits inherited from your parents. Traditionally, 'heritability' is estimated by comparing monozygotic (genetically identical) twins to dizygotic (genetically different) twins. A trait or disease is called heritable if monozygotic twins are more similar to each other than dizygotic twins. In molecular terms, heritability has traditionally been attributed to variations in the DNA sequence.

CAMH's Dr. Art Petronis, head of the Krembil Family Epigenetics Laboratory, and his team conducted a comprehensive epigenetic analysis of 100 sets of monozygotic and dizygotic twins in the first study of its kind. Said Dr. Petronis, "We investigated molecules that attach to DNA and regulate various gene activities. These DNA modifications are called epigenetic factors."

The CAMH study showed that epigenetic factors – acting independently from DNA – were more similar in monozygotic twins than dizygotic twins. This finding suggests that there is a secondary molecular mechanism of heredity. The epigenetic heritability may help explain currently unclear issues in human disease, such as the presence of a disease in only one monozygotic twin, the different susceptibility of males (e.g. to autism) and females (e.g. to lupus), significant fluctuations in the course of a disease (e.g. bipolar disorder, inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis), among numerous others.

"Traditionally, it has been assumed that only the DNA sequence can account for the capability of normal traits and diseases to be inherited," says Dr. Petronis. "Over the last several decades, there has been an enormous effort to identify specific DNA sequence changes predisposing people to psychiatric, neurodegenerative, malignant, metabolic, and autoimmune diseases, but with only moderate success. Our findings represent a new way to look for the molecular cause of disease, and eventually may lead to improved diagnostics and treatment."


You are right that epigenetics say nothing of substance about Darwinian evolution.

Mutations at the switch can ostensibly change how the genes they switch are regulated. Maybe that way evolution can explain how morphological changes occur. Evolution has to think bigger that one mutation at a time so looking at gene clusters that are controlled by a switch makes sense. However, if the switch simply turns genes on and off it is limited IMO on what it can explain.

#38 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 22 May 2009 - 11:20 PM

Scientists know a great deal about how genes are regulated or turned on and off.  This is done via promoters or inhibitors binding to DNA, and by various effects involving short pieces of RNA which can bind to the RNA transcribed from DNA.
Changes in gene regulation are caused by DNA changes ie mutations.

When DNA is modified by design, this is not 'mutation' by the honest definition. It is no mistake. It is no copying error. The new, ultra-broad evodefinition of 'mutation' is employed in order that credit for adaptation may be stolen from design features and attributed to randomness, and by those who don't know any better.

Some people are getting excited by epigenetics because they see it as non-Darwinian.  It certainly is, because Darwin never imagined any process like this.
Simplest version is that DNA from one parent is modified by methylation, which alters expression of the affected gene.  Paternal changes promote faster growth of fetus while mother's DNA is modified in the direction of slower growth and safer birth.
This results from different objectives for the two parents.

View Post

Different objectives for the two parents? That's a gratuitously presumptuous interpretation. I smell agenda.

#39 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 24 May 2009 - 04:31 AM

If he doesn't understand what issues creationists have with evolution yet, he hasn't been reading very closely...
I don't mind answering question but they must be both coherent and to the point. Shifty questions are just a recipe for disaster.

View Post


Actually Adam I've been reading the boards for a little while now and I admit I'm not 100% sure which parts creationists have an issue with. Sadly it seems to get lost in debates. Which is why I think asking a straight forward question, with definitions supplied and only requiring a yes or no answer is a great way to clarify things.

For this same reason I don't see how Falcone's question can be shifty. He's outlined exactly what he wants and if he tries to deviate too far from that you have an excuse to pull him back.

"I don't know for sure that this is Falcone's position. However, assuming it is yours, I would ask the following question in return;

What obligation does a Christian have disproving a hypothesis that has never been demonstrated to be correct?"

You're right, I am making an assumption there. However it is certainly the position I would take. To answer your question I would say you don't have an obligation. But then...why are you here unless you want to debate it?

"Arch, do you see a specific question that I'm avoiding in this thread?"

Well so far I haven't seen a direct answer to Falcone's original question yet. Any chance you could provide a simply yes/no answer and we can work from there?

"Welcome to the boards."

Cheers mate :huh:

Regards,

Arch.

#40 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 24 May 2009 - 09:12 AM

Scientists know a great deal about how genes are regulated or turned on and off.  This is done via promoters or inhibitors binding to DNA, and by various effects involving short pieces of RNA which can bind to the RNA transcribed from DNA.
Changes in gene regulation are caused by DNA changes ie mutations.


Some people are getting excited by epigenetics because they see it as non-Darwinian.  It certainly is, because Darwin never imagined any process like this.
Simplest version is that DNA from one parent is modified by methylation, which alters expression of the affected gene.  Paternal changes promote faster growth of fetus while mother's DNA is modified in the direction of slower growth and safer birth.
This results from different objectives for the two parents.

View Post


Hi Keith,

Thats not what the research suggested.

The research, released Wednesday (May 9) also illustrated a mechanism for those regulatory changes. It showed that an important source of genetic innovation comes from bits of DNA, called transposons, that make up roughly half of our genome and that were previously thought to be genetic "junk."

The research shows that this so-called junk DNA is anything but, and that it instead can help drive evolution by moving between chromosomes, turning genes on and off in new ways.


It had been initially thought that most of a creature's DNA was made up of protein-coding genes and that a relatively small part of the DNA was made up of regulatory portions that tell the rest when to turn on and off.

As studies of mammalian genomes advanced, however, it became apparent that that view was incorrect. The regulatory part of the genome was two to three times larger than the portion that actually held the instructions for individual proteins.

"The official textbook picture of how genes work really didn't appear to be right," Lander said. "There was much more of the genome standing around shouting instructions than actually producing proteins."

That raised a question of how evolution actually works on the genome, Lander said. With so much of the genome devoted to regulation, it became apparent that evolution could work by simply changing the instructions rather than changing the protein-coding genes themselves.



Not only did they confirm the prediction made by Creationists,that junk DNA is anything but,they also found a mechanism for adaptation,which cannot account for the origin of geneic information.

It was first predicted that humans had 100,000 genes,but the human genome project proved we only have 30,000.That means every gene can produce more than one protein when conditions change.Why would natural selection preserve functions of genes that it does'nt use?It is best explained by Creation because natural selection does'nt look to the future and say "I better save the ability to produce various proteins per gene,just in case".

Thanks.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users