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

#41 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 24 May 2009 - 11:11 AM

Atheist will always consider anything they don't understand... JUNK. They do not understand what the DNA is used for, therefore they consider it junk. Sad, but funny.

#42 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2009 - 02:01 PM

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.

One other important point about inheritance is that our mitochondria are inherited from our mothers. The mother's egg also contains her enzymes and these probably have some effect on the first few cell divisions, until the contents of the cells become dominated by enzymes generated by the zygote DNA.
Differences between monozygotic and dizygotic twins may be due entirely to the difference between one-egg and two-egg situation.

Gene regulation mutations are not limited to on/off switches. They can be only partially turned on, and the timing can be changed. Such changes do have a substantial effect on morphology.
There are two separate effects which you need to think about. If the development of a zygote is too sensitive, so that even small changes to the DNA causes death or major defects, then natural selection will favor mutations which improve survival rates.
The related one is that mutation is needed if a species is to adapt to changing circumstance. The species around us have learned (genetically) how to adapt.

#43 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2009 - 02:09 PM

Atheist will always consider anything they don't understand... JUNK.  They do not understand what the DNA is used for, therefore they consider it junk.  Sad, but funny.

Atheists base their conclusions on evidence.
One avenue which is being actively pursued is that there are some DNA sequences which are very similar, despite coming from very different organisms.
If these sequences had no function, then random mutations would have caused divergence. Therefore, there is strong suspicion that many of these sequences do have unknown functions.

#44 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2009 - 02:25 PM

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

What evidence do you have that DNA is ever 'modified by design' rather than by mutation?
What is this 'ultra-broad evodefinition of mutation'?
How about a link?

As to differences of objectives between parents, think of a traditional family where the mother does most of the child-rearing as well as undergoing the risk of childbirth. Don't you think there is not occasional disagreements as to whether to have additional children?
Similarly, genetically fathers benefit if fetus grows rapidly, but the mother benefits from slower growth and easier childbirth.

#45 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2009 - 02:39 PM

Thats not what the research suggested.
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".


Current count of human genes is around 25,000, ((I did not look for best value).
Part of the discrepancy is that many genes are made up of different sections (exons) and these parts can be spliced together in different combinations to produce a wider range of proteins.
How does natural selection preserve functions which it doesn't use? This could be a Nobel Prize worthy discovery.
What stops mutations from accumulating in any DNA region which is not in regular use?

#46 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 24 May 2009 - 03:02 PM

What evidence do you have that DNA is ever 'modified by design' rather than by mutation?
What is this 'ultra-broad evodefinition of mutation'?
How about a link?

Recombination and "epigenetics" are all about pre-programmed modifications, exclusively. Equating them with mistakes is a mistake.

As to differences of objectives between parents, think of a traditional family where the mother does most of the child-rearing as well as undergoing the risk of childbirth. Don't you think there is not occasional disagreements as to whether to have additional children?
Similarly, genetically fathers benefit if fetus grows rapidly, but the mother benefits from slower growth and easier childbirth.

View Post

There is no inherent conflict-of-interest between male and female, when it comes to children. People argue because they're people. If they're is an insight to put an end to it, it won't come from claiming men & women are natural enemies. That makes a pretty cheap excuse for hostility, if one ponders it.

Neither father nor mother "benefits" from unhealthy situations. What "benefit" do you imagine the widower has raising the offspring alone? What "benefit" is there in premature birth? You'll argue all day long for silver linings, I'm sure, but this is just silly.

You won't show a link between what parents want and what they get either, I'll venture to say. A man can't alter his own body by desire, much less alter his children prior to birth.

#47 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2009 - 06:49 PM

Recombination and "epigenetics" are all about pre-programmed modifications, exclusively. Equating them with mistakes is a mistake.

There is no inherent conflict-of-interest between male and female, when it comes to children. People argue because they're people. If they're is an insight to put an end to it, it won't come from claiming men & women are natural enemies. That makes a pretty cheap excuse for hostility, if one ponders it.

Neither father nor mother "benefits" from unhealthy situations. What "benefit" do you imagine the widower has raising the offspring alone? What "benefit" is there in premature birth? You'll argue all day long for silver linings, I'm sure, but this is just silly.

I suggest you learn a little about genomic imprinting and different objectives.
http://en.wikipedia....omic_imprinting

Recognizing different priorities is not the same as being natural enemies.
Perhaps you will be able to think more clearly about parent-child conflict. The baby, infant, or child does all it can to get the greatest possible effort, food, clothes, toys and attention from his or her parents. Parents need to keep a balance of several other concerns.
I am not claiming that this S@xual and generational conflict should result in all-out war. We have brains, and should use them to understand our natures and to find satisfactory compromises.

#48 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 24 May 2009 - 10:08 PM

I suggest you learn a little about genomic imprinting and different objectives.
http://en.wikipedia....omic_imprinting

I suggest you learn the difference between observing fact and attributing motive.

I notice that your source says (with my bold)
"Imprinting is a dynamic process. It must be possible to erase and re-establish the imprint through each generation. The nature of the imprint must therefore be epigenetic (modifications to the structure of the DNA rather than the sequence). In germline cells the imprint is erased, and then re-established according to the s@x of the individual; i.e. in the developing sperm, a paternal imprint is established, whereas in developing oocytes, a maternal imprint is established. This process of erasure and reprogramming is necessary such that the current imprinting status is relevant to the s@x of the individual. In both plants and mammals there are two major mechanisms that are involved in establishing the imprint; these are DNA methylation and histone modifications."

As an "epigenetic" process, it's a subset of what I already mentioned. And if you thing this "erasure and reprogramming" means "erasure and filling in with random gobble-de-gook", I think the evidence will clearly indicate you're mistaken. Controlled processes like this are not properly labeled 'mutations'.

I was curious why you didn't directly link me to the "Parental Conflict Hypothesis" But then I followed wiki's link & read the abstract.

I googled up some other sources, but they were too boring. As a matter of public service I feel obliged to withhold them. Lots of speculation, and lots of research; not many answers or even leads.

Recognizing different priorities is not the same as being natural enemies.
Perhaps you will be able to think more clearly about parent-child conflict.  The baby, infant, or child does all it can to get the greatest possible effort, food, clothes, toys and attention from his or her parents.  Parents need to keep a balance of several other concerns.
I am not claiming that this S@xual and generational conflict should result in all-out war.  We have brains, and should use them to understand our natures and to find satisfactory compromises.

View Post

We do have brains, and maybe we can use them to distinguish between a conflict of wills and a conflict of interests. The "interests" projected upon all that are masculine (or feminine) by pushers of evodoctrines would need a good deal more justification, and a reasonable means of implementation. This perpetual war-of-the-sexes paradigm is reserved for folks with selective vision and limited desire to ask questions. Conflict is imagined where it does not exist.

#49 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 May 2009 - 08:11 AM

I suggest you learn the difference between observing fact and attributing motive.
...................................
As an "epigenetic" process, it's a subset of what I already mentioned. And if you thing this "erasure and reprogramming" means "erasure and filling in with random gobble-de-gook", I think the evidence will clearly indicate you're mistaken. Controlled processes like this are not properly labeled 'mutations'.

I was curious why you didn't directly link me to the "Parental Conflict Hypothesis" But then I followed wiki's link & read the abstract.
.........................
I googled up some other sources, but they were too boring. As a matter of public service I feel obliged to withhold them. Lots of speculation, and lots of research; not many answers or even leads.

I have never said that imprinting and other epigenetic effects were random. You must be misreading.
Better to think of these effects as something like the ability to tan in the sun - something developed by mutation and selection and inherited in our DNA, but only producing an observable effect in certain circumstances.
The ability to imprint must be coded for in our DNA.

I did not send you to the 'parental conflict site because I had not been there myself, plus I do not think you would learn much there. I presume those links you found 'boring' presented facts which conflict with your own 'theory'.

If you want to read further, I suggest:-
http://www.nytimes.c...nary-theory.htm
This is an older report and you can probably find later references which will show you how this particular issue has played out.
I think the data plainly confirm the presence of imprinting.
When both male and females are monogamous, then the imprinting patterns in both partners will over time evolve away from either extreme toward some happy medium.
When both parties have been polygamous for many generations the conflict tends to escalate. There is no genetic advantage to being nice.

#50 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 25 May 2009 - 10:51 AM

I have never said that imprinting and other epigenetic effects were random.  You must be misreading.

I'm pointing out that a proper definition of 'mutation' does not include that which is pre-programmed to occur. Calling such things 'mutation' is an attempt to steal credit.

Better to think of these effects as something like the ability to tan in the sun - something developed by mutation and selection and inherited in our DNA, but only producing an observable effect in certain circumstances.
The ability to imprint must be coded for in our DNA.

Better to not try and sneak in assumptions under the radar. I do not assume everything that exists is a result of evolution, or "mutation and selection" or any godless nonsense.

I did not send you to the 'parental conflict site because I had not been there myself, plus I do not think you would learn much there.  I presume those links you found 'boring' presented facts which conflict with your own 'theory'.

You may presume my report to be inaccurate all day and all night. That won't make it so. It is boring watching adults try to project immoral motives onto wildlife and calling it some sort of "natural order" or law. It's not very subtle - just Social Darwinism for animals. Dull as ditchwater.

If you want to read further, I suggest:-
http://www.nytimes.c...nary-theory.htm
This is an older report and you can probably find later references which will show you how this particular issue has played out.
I think the data plainly confirm the presence of imprinting.

I don't recall disputing imprinting.

When both male and females are monogamous, then the imprinting patterns in both partners will over time evolve away from either extreme toward some happy medium.
When both parties have been polygamous for many generations the conflict tends to escalate.  There is no genetic advantage to being nice.

View Post

That's the kind of speculation I dispute. It starts with an immoral conclusion and seeks a way to justify it. It is not built up and derived from evidence and sound reasoning. There is no inherent, universal conflict between male and female. It's just a backdoor attempt to promote bad behaviour and strife, in the end.

#51 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 30 May 2009 - 10:39 PM

I'm pointing out that a proper definition of 'mutation' does not include that which is pre-programmed to occur. Calling such things 'mutation' is an attempt to steal credit.


You gotta love the circular reasoning of evolution.A gene that codes for eyes is'nt a pre-programmed design because they believe the gene is just a mutation of a different gene. :o

#52 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 May 2009 - 06:50 PM

I'm pointing out that a proper definition of 'mutation' does not include that which is pre-programmed to occur. Calling such things 'mutation' is an attempt to steal credit.

Better to not try and sneak in assumptions under the radar. I do not assume everything that exists is a result of evolution, or "mutation and selection" or any godless nonsense.

Are you trying to argue that because our DNA mutates, then that mutation tendency has been designed into our genomes, and therefore anything resulting from mutation is really 'designed'?
If so, are you claiming that mutations do not occur randomly, but in some divinely determined order?

I certainly do not try to assume that everything is the result of evolution. The universe, the elements, the solar system, physical and chemical laws, abiogenesis ( however it occurred) are not results of biological evolution.

#53 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 31 May 2009 - 07:58 PM

If so, are you claiming that mutations do not occur randomly, but in some divinely determined order?

View Post

When something 'occurs randomly' by our definition, are the processes a result of things following and obeying detectable order or is it pure chaos?

When you have that answer, you'll also have the answer to your question.

#54 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 01 June 2009 - 01:06 AM

Are you trying to argue that because our DNA mutates, then that mutation tendency has been designed into our genomes, and therefore anything resulting from mutation is really 'designed'?

No. In spite of the slo-mo nature of your equivocation, here, I don't think it's going to fool anyone. Pre-programmed epigenetic alterations are not mutations. Normal, everyday recombination events are not mutations. Mutations are copying errors. If there is no error, there is no mutation.

If so, are you claiming that mutations do not occur randomly, but in some divinely determined order?


I certainly do not try to assume that everything is the result of evolution.  The universe, the elements, the solar system, physical and chemical laws, abiogenesis ( however it occurred) are not results of biological evolution.

View Post

Then neither shall I assume things are the result of evolution. Until your claim has some substance, I will consider it bogus. After all, you can't expect me to make an assumption you yourself have chosen to deny.

#55 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 June 2009 - 06:45 AM

No. In spite of the slo-mo nature of your equivocation, here, I don't think it's going to fool anyone. Pre-programmed epigenetic alterations are not mutations. Normal, everyday recombination events are not mutations. Mutations are copying errors. If there is no error, there is no mutation.

Somehow you seem to have changed sides.
That is an excellent statement of my position.
Further, the ability to attach epigenetic labels and to recombine chromosomes is coded for by DNA.

#56 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 02 June 2009 - 03:45 PM

Somehow you seem to have changed sides.
That is an excellent statement of my position.
Further, the ability to attach epigenetic labels and to recombine chromosomes is coded for by DNA.

View Post



Hi Kieth,



I found these articles about epigentetics very interesting. Egigenetics is very different than NDET. That life is even more complicated than we first thought and that there are other factors other than DNA at work in passing on genetic information.

epigenetics

Monozygous twins share a common genotype. However, most monozygotic twin pairs are not identical; several types of phenotypic discordance may be observed, such as differences in susceptibilities to disease and a wide range of anthropomorphic features. There are several possible explanations for these observations, but one is the existence of epigenetic differences. To address this issue, we examined the global and locus-specific differences in DNA methylation and histone acetylation of a large cohort of monozygotic twins. We found that, although twins are epigenetically indistinguishable during the early years of life, older monozygous twins exhibited remarkable differences in their overall content and genomic distribution of 5-methylcytosine DNA and histone acetylation, affecting their gene-expression portrait. These findings indicate how an appreciation of epigenetics is missing from our understanding of how different phenotypes can be originated from the same genotype.


How did these twins become different from each other: environment, chance, lifestyle choices or a combination of forces. It appears there are both internal and external forces at work.

Genes are not the only things in control; a host of epigenetic factors contributes to the way a plant, animal, or human looks and acts.

Here is another article: link

The histone tails on the nucleosome surface are subject to enzyme-catalyzed modifications that may, singly or in combination, form a code specifying patterns of gene expression. Recent papers provide insights into how a combinatorial code might be set and read. They show how modification of one residue can influence that of another, even when they are located on different histones, and how modifications at specific genomic locations might be perpetuated on newly assembled chromatin.


  In recent years it has become clear that the nucleosome has an additional role, perhaps equally important and conserved, namely regulation of gene expression.  Particularly exciting is the growing probability that the nucleosome can transmit epigenetic information from one cell generation to the next and has the potential to act, in effect, as the cell’s memory bank.


The code is set by histone modifying enzymes of defined specificity and read by nonhistone proteins that bind in a modification-sensitive manner.  In order to realize its full information carrying potential, the code must use combinations of modifications.  This requires not only proteins that can read such combined modifications, but mechanisms by which they can be put in place and maintained.  Recent papers have provided new insights into how specific combinations of tail modification might be generated and revealed mechanisms by which the modification of one residue can determine that of another.


The author notes that people get more complex with age.

Creation Safari makes this point about this article: link Do a CTL -F (find) and type in epigenetic and it come to the article referenced.


The “Central Dogma” of genetics has been that DNA is the master control of the cell and the basis of heredity.  Now, it is becoming increasingly apparent that DNA is more a passive library, and that other master controls (epigenetic factors) that can be inherited independently of DNA are using the code as part of a more complex system, made up of proteins, enzymes, RNA, and DNA, that are all interdependent.  Turner makes only one single-word, vague, indirect reference to evolution in his entire paper, but it’s no comfort to a Darwinist: he says these DNA packaging systems and controls are all conserved, i.e., unevolved from the most primitive bacteria.  This means that not only the DNA, but the histones, the histone code, and the enzymes that read and translate them, had to all be present and working from the very beginning. Life did not start simple; it started complex!
Ponder his statement that these processes “border on the miraculous.”  Turner does not mean, of course, that they are miraculous, nor do we.  It just means that they comprise such a wonderful and amazing system, it is like watching a world-class circus act or magic show or performance that leaves you gasping and clapping and standing up to cheer.  It is like incredibly rich and robust software controlling a coordinated series of automated events that is breathtaking in its complexity and function. Remember that Darwin and his evangelists knew nothing about this.  If biochemistry had preceded phylogeny, one wonders how history might have taken a radically different turn around 1859.


So how is the code maintained and translated if not by DNA?

#57 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 June 2009 - 09:43 AM

How did these twins become different from each other:  environment, chance, lifestyle choices or a combination of forces.  It appears there are both internal and external forces at work.

One other factor is different somatic mutations in each twin as they grow. Then there are things like infections which one catches and the other does not.
Related factor is that some twins might prefer to emphasize differences rather than emphasizing similarities.

...............................

The author notes that people get more complex with age.

I am not sure that this proves anything other that multicellular development is a long process.

So how is the code maintained and translated if not by DNA?

That is the correct point.
Another is that hiatones wrap around the chromosomes and keep parts wrapped up, while other sections are loose and actively transcribed.
This is part of the way in which multicellular eukaryotic organisms are able to have different organs, carrying out different chemistry etc, but with all cells having the same DNA.
Multi-cellular life was a long time evolving and this does not prove that initial life was more complex.

#58 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 03 June 2009 - 09:50 AM

Multi-cellular life was a long time evolving and this does not prove that initial life was more complex.

View Post

It takes such a long time for multi-cellular life to evolve that it doesn't happen at all. :P

#59 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 03 June 2009 - 11:58 AM

Another is that hiatones wrap around the chromosomes and keep parts wrapped up, while other sections are loose and actively transcribed.

This is part of the way in which multicellular eukaryotic organisms are able to have different organs, carrying out different chemistry etc, but with all cells having the same DNA.

Multi-cellular life was a long time evolving and this does not prove that initial life was more complex.

View Post


Different organs? really. That is carrying out this theory a little to far IMO. Do you have some link that shows or proves the epigenetics can create an organ or something that is like macro evolution.

Further, the ability to attach epigenetic labels and to recombine chromosomes is coded for by DNA.


Multi-cellular life was a long time evolving and this does not prove that initial life was more complex.



Over and above DNA/RNA/ribosones creating something we have histones, the histone code, and the enzymes that read and translate them. This is creating a brand new system without discarding any old systems. Moreover, if you say epigenetics plays a huge role in macro evolution than life is much more complex than we thought.

IMO if epigenetics only applies to latter day life then it would not have much of a role in macro evolution.

#60 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 03 June 2009 - 12:05 PM

Multi-cellular life was a long time evolving and this does not prove that initial life was more complex.

View Post

Here's how I pictured the process from single celled to multi-celled organisms working:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=22138

:P




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users