| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"IknowHimDoYou" |
| Date: |
19 Dec 2003 04:41:18 PM |
| Object: |
Mutations in Evolution Religion |
Mutations in Evolution Religion
Evolutionists say, "Mutations and other biological mechanisms have been
observed to produce new features in organisms."
When evolutionists begin to talk about mutations, they tacitly aknowledge
that natural selection, by itself, cannot explain the rise of new genetic
information. Somehow they have to explain the introduction of completely
new genetic instructions for feathers and other wonders that never existed
in "simpler" life forms. So they place their faith in mutations.
In the process of defending mutations as a mechanism for creating(pun
intended) new genetic code, they attack a strawman version of the
creationist model, and thy have no answer for the creationists' real
scientific objections that mutations are a loss of genetic information.
Fact:
Mutations are essential to evolution religion, but mutations can only
eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features. Therefore mutations
are the death sentence for evolution.
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
.
|
|
| User: "Og" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
20 Dec 2003 02:42:13 PM |
|
|
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-1912031441180001@pm1-01.kalama.com...
Mutations in Evolution Religion
Evolutionists say, "Mutations and other biological mechanisms have been
observed to produce new features in organisms."
When evolutionists begin to talk about mutations, they tacitly aknowledge
that natural selection, by itself, cannot explain the rise of new genetic
information. Somehow they have to explain the introduction of completely
new genetic instructions for feathers and other wonders that never existed
in "simpler" life forms. So they place their faith in mutations.
In the process of defending mutations as a mechanism for creating(pun
intended) new genetic code, they attack a strawman version of the
creationist model, and thy have no answer for the creationists' real
scientific objections that mutations are a loss of genetic information.
Fact:
Mutations are essential to evolution religion, but mutations can only
eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features. Therefore mutations
are the death sentence for evolution.
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
A good post.
I checked into this myself a while back. It
seems that there has been no new genetic
information since the original creation. The variation
in species is the result of lost genetic information
amoung various groups. What we see today is
consistent with this view. If new genetic information
were constantly created by mutation wouldn't we see
occasional examples of a new trait popping up.
But we don't.
Og
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
20 Dec 2003 03:02:05 PM |
|
|
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "Og"
<Og@bashan.org>:
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-1912031441180001@pm1-01.kalama.com...
Mutations in Evolution Religion
Evolutionists say, "Mutations and other biological mechanisms have been
observed to produce new features in organisms."
When evolutionists begin to talk about mutations, they tacitly aknowledge
that natural selection, by itself, cannot explain the rise of new genetic
information. Somehow they have to explain the introduction of completely
new genetic instructions for feathers and other wonders that never existed
in "simpler" life forms. So they place their faith in mutations.
In the process of defending mutations as a mechanism for creating(pun
intended) new genetic code, they attack a strawman version of the
creationist model, and thy have no answer for the creationists' real
scientific objections that mutations are a loss of genetic information.
Fact:
Mutations are essential to evolution religion, but mutations can only
eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features. Therefore mutations
are the death sentence for evolution.
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
A good post.
I checked into this myself a while back.
Where did you check? Can you let us know what sources you used?
In particular, where any of them biology books?
It
seems that there has been no new genetic
information since the original creation.
Do you have an appropriate definition of information? How is a
gene duplication, for example, not an new genetic information?
How is a mutation of any sort not new genetic information for
that matter?
The variation
in species is the result of lost genetic information
amoung various groups.
How is a mutation leading to a new trait a loss of information?
What we see today is
consistent with this view. If new genetic information
were constantly created by mutation wouldn't we see
occasional examples of a new trait popping up.
But we don't.
We sure do. Are you trolling or being sarcastic or something? How
do you think that bacteria develop antibacterial resistance? Or
the ability to eat nylon?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Og" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
21 Dec 2003 02:04:57 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message
news:f1e9uvcqgbilgnb1gacdl0a97saaa8q22q@4ax.com...
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "Og"
<Og@bashan.org>:
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-1912031441180001@pm1-01.kalama.com...
Mutations in Evolution Religion
Evolutionists say, "Mutations and other biological mechanisms have been
observed to produce new features in organisms."
When evolutionists begin to talk about mutations, they tacitly
aknowledge
that natural selection, by itself, cannot explain the rise of new
genetic
information. Somehow they have to explain the introduction of
completely
new genetic instructions for feathers and other wonders that never
existed
in "simpler" life forms. So they place their faith in mutations.
In the process of defending mutations as a mechanism for creating(pun
intended) new genetic code, they attack a strawman version of the
creationist model, and thy have no answer for the creationists' real
scientific objections that mutations are a loss of genetic information.
Fact:
Mutations are essential to evolution religion, but mutations can only
eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features. Therefore
mutations
are the death sentence for evolution.
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
A good post.
I checked into this myself a while back.
Where did you check? Can you let us know what sources you used?
In particular, where any of them biology books?
None were written by evolutionists. I wanted an unbiased
opinion. Wouldn't it be pointless to as saddam if there had
been any foul play in iran? Would the answers be trustworthy?
It
seems that there has been no new genetic
information since the original creation.
How is a gene duplication, for example, not an new genetic information?
It's a copy of something that already existed, nothing new about it.
How is a mutation of any sort not new genetic information for
that matter?
That's just it, there has never been any mutation of any sort.
The variation
in species is the result of lost genetic information
amoung various groups.
How is a mutation leading to a new trait a loss of information?
There has never been a mutation leading to a new trait.
What we see today is
consistent with this view. If new genetic information
were constantly created by mutation wouldn't we see
occasional examples of a new trait popping up.
But we don't.
How do you think that bacteria develop antibacterial resistance?
This is a waste of time but I am not busy right now so
I will type it anyway.
What does antibacterial resistance have to do with new
genetic information? Precisely nothing. What has happened
is that some bacteria already had the genes for resistance.
When antibiotics are applied to a population of bacteria,
those lacking resistance are killed. Any genetic information
they carry is lost. The survivors carry less information but
are all resistant. There is no mutation involved, no new
genetic information.
Og
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
21 Dec 2003 03:25:26 PM |
|
|
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in message
news:vuburrlfakk566@corp.supernews.com...
"Matt Silberstein" <matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message
news:f1e9uvcqgbilgnb1gacdl0a97saaa8q22q@4ax.com...
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "Og"
<Og@bashan.org>:
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-1912031441180001@pm1-01.kalama.com...
Mutations in Evolution Religion
Evolutionists say, "Mutations and other biological mechanisms have
been
observed to produce new features in organisms."
When evolutionists begin to talk about mutations, they tacitly
aknowledge
that natural selection, by itself, cannot explain the rise of new
genetic
information. Somehow they have to explain the introduction of
completely
new genetic instructions for feathers and other wonders that never
existed
in "simpler" life forms. So they place their faith in mutations.
In the process of defending mutations as a mechanism for creating(pun
intended) new genetic code, they attack a strawman version of the
creationist model, and thy have no answer for the creationists' real
scientific objections that mutations are a loss of genetic
information.
Fact:
Mutations are essential to evolution religion, but mutations can only
eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features. Therefore
mutations
are the death sentence for evolution.
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
A good post.
I checked into this myself a while back.
Where did you check? Can you let us know what sources you used?
In particular, where any of them biology books?
None were written by evolutionists. I wanted an unbiased
opinion. Wouldn't it be pointless to as saddam if there had
been any foul play in iran? Would the answers be trustworthy?
It
seems that there has been no new genetic
information since the original creation.
How is a gene duplication, for example, not an new genetic information?
It's a copy of something that already existed, nothing new about it.
How is a mutation of any sort not new genetic information for
that matter?
That's just it, there has never been any mutation of any sort.
The variation
in species is the result of lost genetic information
amoung various groups.
How is a mutation leading to a new trait a loss of information?
There has never been a mutation leading to a new trait.
What we see today is
consistent with this view. If new genetic information
were constantly created by mutation wouldn't we see
occasional examples of a new trait popping up.
But we don't.
When you say "trait" here, you apparently mean a gross morphological change,
e.g. legs from fins. This is an incorrect interpretation of evolution. New
traits are modifications of old traits changing gradually over time. We can
only recognize large morphological changes when looking over a geological
span of time.
How do you think that bacteria develop antibacterial resistance?
This is a waste of time but I am not busy right now so
I will type it anyway.
What does antibacterial resistance have to do with new
genetic information? Precisely nothing. What has happened
is that some bacteria already had the genes for resistance.
When antibiotics are applied to a population of bacteria,
those lacking resistance are killed. Any genetic information
they carry is lost. The survivors carry less information but
are all resistant. There is no mutation involved, no new
genetic information.
This is incorrect. The result can be demonstrated with clonal bacteria, that
is, bacteria that have identical DNA to start.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
21 Dec 2003 08:40:33 PM |
|
|
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in news:vuburrlfakk566@corp.supernews.com:
"Matt Silberstein" <matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message
news:f1e9uvcqgbilgnb1gacdl0a97saaa8q22q@4ax.com...
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "Og"
<Og@bashan.org>:
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-1912031441180001@pm1-01.kalama.com...
Mutations in Evolution Religion
Evolutionists say, "Mutations and other biological mechanisms have
been observed to produce new features in organisms."
When evolutionists begin to talk about mutations, they tacitly
aknowledge
that natural selection, by itself, cannot explain the rise of new
genetic
information. Somehow they have to explain the introduction of
completely
new genetic instructions for feathers and other wonders that never
existed
in "simpler" life forms. So they place their faith in mutations.
In the process of defending mutations as a mechanism for
creating(pun intended) new genetic code, they attack a strawman
version of the creationist model, and thy have no answer for the
creationists' real scientific objections that mutations are a loss
of genetic information.
Fact:
Mutations are essential to evolution religion, but mutations can
only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
Therefore
mutations
are the death sentence for evolution.
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
A good post.
I checked into this myself a while back.
Where did you check? Can you let us know what sources you used?
In particular, where any of them biology books?
None were written by evolutionists. I wanted an unbiased
opinion. Wouldn't it be pointless to as saddam if there had
been any foul play in iran? Would the answers be trustworthy?
In other words it is your claim that scientists generally except for
creation science peddlers are liars? Can you PROVE this contention or
are you just trying to get into hell by sinning a lot?
It
seems that there has been no new genetic
information since the original creation.
How is a gene duplication, for example, not an new genetic
information?
It's a copy of something that already existed, nothing new about it.
It's two copies of the same information where only one copy existed
before. Subsequent mutations to one copy are far less likely to be
detrimental and can therefore often be exapted for other purposes, just
as Doolittle showed has happened with the clotting factor in lobsters,
which is produced by a mutated copy of the gene for egg yolk.
How is a mutation of any sort not new genetic information for
that matter?
That's just it, there has never been any mutation of any sort.
Now you ARE lying...every researcher that has ever measured the genetics
of offspring has found that there is a steady mutation rate. Enhancing
this rate has been useful to the Rice Institute in keeping Asia fed.
The variation
in species is the result of lost genetic information
amoung various groups.
How is a mutation leading to a new trait a loss of information?
There has never been a mutation leading to a new trait.
More lies. The literature is full of them. Usually just an enzyme here
or there, though. New variation in existing traits is more common (such
as more--or less--hair, larger or smaller overall size, etc.). Whole new
structures are rare even on an evolutionary time scale. Humans have
pretty much the same equipment as lobefin fish, except we have ears.
Those came along around 300 million years ago. Oh there are a lot of
differences in degree, but not really in kind.
What we see today is
consistent with this view. If new genetic information
were constantly created by mutation wouldn't we see
occasional examples of a new trait popping up.
But we don't.
How do you think that bacteria develop antibacterial resistance?
This is a waste of time but I am not busy right now so
I will type it anyway.
What does antibacterial resistance have to do with new
genetic information? Precisely nothing. What has happened
Actually it does. You start with a monoclonal bacteria culture that has
no resistance whatever. You let it grow and develop mutations for a
while and then give it a mild dose, preserving the variants that resist
and keep doing this. At the end of the exercise you will have a NEW
strain that has quite different genetics in certain loci from the
monoclonal ancestor.
is that some bacteria already had the genes for resistance.
When antibiotics are applied to a population of bacteria,
those lacking resistance are killed. Any genetic information
they carry is lost. The survivors carry less information but
are all resistant. There is no mutation involved, no new
genetic information.
By the way, since you are blathering about "genetic information" you
should be able to define the term. Which has more genetic information, a
human or an amoeba. This IS a trick question.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
21 Dec 2003 03:38:04 PM |
|
|
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "Og"
<Og@bashan.org>:
"Matt Silberstein" <matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message
news:f1e9uvcqgbilgnb1gacdl0a97saaa8q22q@4ax.com...
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "Og"
<Og@bashan.org>:
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-1912031441180001@pm1-01.kalama.com...
Mutations in Evolution Religion
Evolutionists say, "Mutations and other biological mechanisms have been
observed to produce new features in organisms."
When evolutionists begin to talk about mutations, they tacitly
aknowledge
that natural selection, by itself, cannot explain the rise of new
genetic
information. Somehow they have to explain the introduction of
completely
new genetic instructions for feathers and other wonders that never
existed
in "simpler" life forms. So they place their faith in mutations.
In the process of defending mutations as a mechanism for creating(pun
intended) new genetic code, they attack a strawman version of the
creationist model, and thy have no answer for the creationists' real
scientific objections that mutations are a loss of genetic information.
Fact:
Mutations are essential to evolution religion, but mutations can only
eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features. Therefore
mutations
are the death sentence for evolution.
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
A good post.
I checked into this myself a while back.
Where did you check? Can you let us know what sources you used?
In particular, where any of them biology books?
None were written by evolutionists. I wanted an unbiased
opinion. Wouldn't it be pointless to as saddam if there had
been any foul play in iran? Would the answers be trustworthy?
I am going to invoke Goodwin's Law here. There are other people
worth talking to.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IknowHimDoYou" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
21 Dec 2003 02:14:39 PM |
|
|
In article <vuburrlfakk566@corp.supernews.com>, "Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message
news:f1e9uvcqgbilgnb1gacdl0a97saaa8q22q@4ax.com...
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "Og"
<Og@bashan.org>:
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-1912031441180001@pm1-01.kalama.com...
Mutations in Evolution Religion
Evolutionists say, "Mutations and other biological mechanisms have been
observed to produce new features in organisms."
When evolutionists begin to talk about mutations, they tacitly
aknowledge
that natural selection, by itself, cannot explain the rise of new
genetic
information. Somehow they have to explain the introduction of
completely
new genetic instructions for feathers and other wonders that never
existed
in "simpler" life forms. So they place their faith in mutations.
In the process of defending mutations as a mechanism for creating(pun
intended) new genetic code, they attack a strawman version of the
creationist model, and thy have no answer for the creationists' real
scientific objections that mutations are a loss of genetic information.
Fact:
Mutations are essential to evolution religion, but mutations can only
eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features. Therefore
mutations
are the death sentence for evolution.
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
A good post.
I checked into this myself a while back.
Where did you check? Can you let us know what sources you used?
In particular, where any of them biology books?
None were written by evolutionists. I wanted an unbiased
opinion. Wouldn't it be pointless to as saddam if there had
been any foul play in iran? Would the answers be trustworthy?
It
seems that there has been no new genetic
information since the original creation.
How is a gene duplication, for example, not an new genetic information?
It's a copy of something that already existed, nothing new about it.
How is a mutation of any sort not new genetic information for
that matter?
That's just it, there has never been any mutation of any sort.
The variation
in species is the result of lost genetic information
amoung various groups.
How is a mutation leading to a new trait a loss of information?
There has never been a mutation leading to a new trait.
What we see today is
consistent with this view. If new genetic information
were constantly created by mutation wouldn't we see
occasional examples of a new trait popping up.
But we don't.
How do you think that bacteria develop antibacterial resistance?
This is a waste of time but I am not busy right now so
I will type it anyway.
What does antibacterial resistance have to do with new
genetic information? Precisely nothing. What has happened
is that some bacteria already had the genes for resistance.
When antibiotics are applied to a population of bacteria,
those lacking resistance are killed. Any genetic information
they carry is lost. The survivors carry less information but
are all resistant. There is no mutation involved, no new
genetic information.
Og
_____________________________________________________
Yeh, its like trying to describe the color blue to a blind man with these
blokes...They never can understand because they are so incredibly
indoctrinated into the evolutionary religion...
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
21 Dec 2003 08:41:50 PM |
|
|
(IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-2112031214390001@pm1-41.kalama.com:
Yeh, its like trying to describe the color blue to a blind man with
these blokes...They never can understand because they are so
incredibly indoctrinated into the evolutionary religion...
Tell ya what. Are you willing to stake your immortal soul on these lies?
Want me to try to make a covenant for you?
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "IknowHimDoYou" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
21 Dec 2003 11:43:35 AM |
|
|
In article <vu9clko0kq5t70@corp.supernews.com>, "Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote:
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-1912031441180001@pm1-01.kalama.com...
Mutations in Evolution Religion
Evolutionists say, "Mutations and other biological mechanisms have been
observed to produce new features in organisms."
When evolutionists begin to talk about mutations, they tacitly aknowledge
that natural selection, by itself, cannot explain the rise of new genetic
information. Somehow they have to explain the introduction of completely
new genetic instructions for feathers and other wonders that never existed
in "simpler" life forms. So they place their faith in mutations.
In the process of defending mutations as a mechanism for creating(pun
intended) new genetic code, they attack a strawman version of the
creationist model, and thy have no answer for the creationists' real
scientific objections that mutations are a loss of genetic information.
Fact:
Mutations are essential to evolution religion, but mutations can only
eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features. Therefore mutations
are the death sentence for evolution.
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
A good post.
I checked into this myself a while back. It
seems that there has been no new genetic
information since the original creation. The variation
in species is the result of lost genetic information
amoung various groups. What we see today is
consistent with this view. If new genetic information
were constantly created by mutation wouldn't we see
occasional examples of a new trait popping up.
But we don't.
Og
__________________________________________________________________
You are correct in your findings. There is, and cannot be, ANY increase
in information in a decaying system(2nd Law of Thermodynamics). This is a
solid fact. Yet the evolutionary religionists would postulate opposingly
trying to turn this law around and claim that information is increased
leading to the next set in their evolution.
The genetic code is a marvelous creation by an all knowing Creator and
just because pipsqueeks deny it doesn't make it less...
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer Bataitis" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
21 Dec 2003 10:19:12 PM |
|
|
IknowNothingDoYou wrote:
You are correct in your findings. There is, and cannot be, ANY increase
in information in a decaying system (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). This is a
solid fact.
<irony>
Yup, they tried to build a library in our town and they found it was
impossible. The 2nd law prevents any new libraries from being built.
</irony>
Sheeeessst!
***************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"...proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor, the
straight jacket of conventional thought."
***************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
21 Dec 2003 11:51:43 AM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, (IknowHimDoYou) wrote
in <IknowHim-2112030943350001@pm1-41.kalama.com>:
....
You are correct in your findings. There is, and cannot be, ANY increase
in information in a decaying system(2nd Law of Thermodynamics).
Thermo says nothing about information.
This is a solid fact.
No, it's a silly, pointless claim that shows a total lack of
understanding of thermo.
Yet the evolutionary religionists would postulate opposingly
trying to turn this law around and claim that information is increased
leading to the next set in their evolution.
You don't understand information theory, either. That helps me
understand some of the reasons for your nonsense.
The genetic code is a marvelous creation by an all knowing Creator and
just because pipsqueeks deny it doesn't make it less...
You are making things up.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
21 Dec 2003 12:57:12 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:43:35 -0800,
(IknowHimDoYou) wrote:
You are correct in your findings. There is, and cannot be, ANY increase
in information in a decaying system(2nd Law of Thermodynamics). This is a
solid fact. Yet the evolutionary religionists would postulate opposingly
trying to turn this law around and claim that information is increased
leading to the next set in their evolution.
The genetic code is a marvelous creation by an all knowing Creator and
just because pipsqueeks deny it doesn't make it less...
He's correct, you know. Thermo says that within any system, entropy
always remains the same or increases. Which sort of contradicts the
reading found at Gen 2:7.
Alberich
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
19 Dec 2003 07:06:16 PM |
|
|
(IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-1912031441180001@pm1-01.kalama.com:
Mutations in Evolution Religion
Evolutionists say, "Mutations and other biological mechanisms have
been observed to produce new features in organisms."
When evolutionists begin to talk about mutations, they tacitly
aknowledge that natural selection, by itself, cannot explain the rise
of new genetic information. Somehow they have to explain the
introduction of completely new genetic instructions for feathers and
other wonders that never existed in "simpler" life forms. So they
place their faith in mutations.
In the process of defending mutations as a mechanism for creating(pun
intended) new genetic code, they attack a strawman version of the
creationist model, and thy have no answer for the creationists' real
scientific objections that mutations are a loss of genetic
information.
Fact:
Mutations are essential to evolution religion, but mutations can only
eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features. Therefore
mutations are the death sentence for evolution.
Fact, mutations ARE a significant part of evolution theory. They are
also observed in nature. They have been observed to produce new features
and the simple fact is that any mutation not already in the genome is new
information for natural selection. Mr. Know-nothing has simply proved by
posting this that he either doesn't know the facts or doesn't mind lying
about them, repeating the lies his mentors have given him for
"ammunition."
This "witness" is an abomination in the sight of Almighty God and it will
not be permitted to last. It cannot even BEGIN to stand in his presence.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Wostenberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
20 Dec 2003 08:24:56 AM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-1912031441180001@pm1-01.kalama.com:
Mutations in Evolution Religion
Evolutionists say, "Mutations and other biological mechanisms have
been observed to produce new features in organisms."
Mutations are essential to evolution religion, but mutations can only
eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features. Therefore
mutations are the death sentence for evolution.
Fact, mutations ARE a significant part of evolution theory. They are
also observed in nature. They have been observed to produce new features
and the simple fact is that any mutation not already in the genome is new
information for natural selection.
How do you know these are random mutations, rather than a preprogrammed
response to environmental changes?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
20 Dec 2003 09:13:53 AM |
|
|
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:3FE45BB8.9040307@psalmweaver.com...
Dave Oldridge wrote:
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-1912031441180001@pm1-01.kalama.com:
Mutations in Evolution Religion
Evolutionists say, "Mutations and other biological mechanisms have
been observed to produce new features in organisms."
Mutations are essential to evolution religion, but mutations can only
eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features. Therefore
mutations are the death sentence for evolution.
Fact, mutations ARE a significant part of evolution theory. They are
also observed in nature. They have been observed to produce new
features
and the simple fact is that any mutation not already in the genome is
new
information for natural selection.
How do you know these are random mutations, rather than a preprogrammed
response to environmental changes?
We can *directly observe* mutations as random changes to the genome. We can
also *directly observe* the change in allele frequencies in populations over
time. However, we know of several instances where mutations are not exactly
random. For instance, complex organisms have gene repair mechanisms, so that
many random mutations are repaired, leaving other not-so random mutations.
The "directed mutation hypothesis" is constantly being subjected to the
experimental method, and may have some significance in the study of cancer.
Mathematical Issues Arising From the Directed Mutation Controversy , "from a
mathematical point of view, this article suggests that some of the evidence
accumulated to date to support the directed mutation hypothesis is weaker
than was originally thought and may be invalid."
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/164/1/373
Mutation and Cancer: The Antecedents to Our Studies of Adaptive Mutation,
"LITTLE excuse is needed for still being interested in mutation."
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/148/4/1433
Mechanisms of Directed Mutation, "Spontaneous mutants arise among
nondividing populations of Escherichia coli in apparent response to
selective conditions. In this report we investigate several hypotheses to
account for the role of selection in the production of these ``directed'' or
'adaptive' mutations."
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/131/4/783
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
20 Dec 2003 09:17:29 AM |
|
|
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:bHZEb.4954$pb5.969479283@twister1.starband.net...
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:3FE45BB8.9040307@psalmweaver.com...
Dave Oldridge wrote:
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-1912031441180001@pm1-01.kalama.com:
Mutations in Evolution Religion
Evolutionists say, "Mutations and other biological mechanisms have
been observed to produce new features in organisms."
Mutations are essential to evolution religion, but mutations can only
eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features. Therefore
mutations are the death sentence for evolution.
Fact, mutations ARE a significant part of evolution theory. They are
also observed in nature. They have been observed to produce new
features
and the simple fact is that any mutation not already in the genome is
new
information for natural selection.
How do you know these are random mutations, rather than a preprogrammed
response to environmental changes?
We can *directly observe* mutations as random changes to the genome. We
can
also *directly observe* the change in allele frequencies in populations
over
time. However, we know of several instances where mutations are not
exactly
random. For instance, complex organisms have gene repair mechanisms, so
that
many random mutations are repaired, leaving other not-so random mutations.
The "directed mutation hypothesis" is constantly being subjected to the
experimental method, and may have some significance in the study of
cancer.
Mathematical Issues Arising From the Directed Mutation Controversy , "from
a
mathematical point of view, this article suggests that some of the
evidence
accumulated to date to support the directed mutation hypothesis is weaker
than was originally thought and may be invalid."
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/164/1/373
Mutation and Cancer: The Antecedents to Our Studies of Adaptive Mutation,
"LITTLE excuse is needed for still being interested in mutation."
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/148/4/1433
Mechanisms of Directed Mutation, "Spontaneous mutants arise among
nondividing populations of Escherichia coli in apparent response to
selective conditions. In this report we investigate several hypotheses to
account for the role of selection in the production of these ``directed''
or
'adaptive' mutations."
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/131/4/783
I would just like to point out that this in no way supports the idea of
"Intelligent Design". All this information is consistent with current
understanding of the Theory of Evolution, but merely explores some of its
edges.
It would be very unwise to base your religion on some temporal hypothesis of
biology.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Wostenberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
22 Dec 2003 01:00:03 PM |
|
|
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message news:<zKZEb.4955$Sb5.969508889@twister1.starband.net>...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:bHZEb.4954$pb5.969479283@twister1.starband.net...
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:3FE45BB8.9040307@psalmweaver.com...
How do you know these are random mutations, rather than a preprogrammed
response to environmental changes?
We can *directly observe* mutations as random changes to the genome. We
can
also *directly observe* the change in allele frequencies in populations
over
time. However, we know of several instances where mutations are not
exactly
random. For instance, complex organisms have gene repair mechanisms, so
that
many random mutations are repaired, leaving other not-so random mutations.
You say we know of "several instances where mutations are not exactly
random" but that this "in no way supports the idea of intelligent
design". Dave and Matt seem to differ on that point -- they seem to
think that such directed mutations *would* be evidence of ID, which is
why they say there is no evidence any mutations are directed.
Suppose scientists discovered that all mutations were adaptive, and
none were random. Would that be evolution?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
22 Dec 2003 02:00:35 PM |
|
|
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenberg@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:af2cab3d.0312221100.e8c9074@posting.google.com...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:<zKZEb.4955$Sb5.969508889@twister1.starband.net>...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:bHZEb.4954$pb5.969479283@twister1.starband.net...
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:3FE45BB8.9040307@psalmweaver.com...
How do you know these are random mutations, rather than a
preprogrammed
response to environmental changes?
We can *directly observe* mutations as random changes to the genome.
We
can
also *directly observe* the change in allele frequencies in
populations
over
time. However, we know of several instances where mutations are not
exactly
random. For instance, complex organisms have gene repair mechanisms,
so
that
many random mutations are repaired, leaving other not-so random
mutations.
You say we know of "several instances where mutations are not exactly
random" but that this "in no way supports the idea of intelligent
design". Dave and Matt seem to differ on that point -- they seem to
think that such directed mutations *would* be evidence of ID, which is
why they say there is no evidence any mutations are directed.
Suppose scientists discovered that all mutations were adaptive, and
none were random. Would that be evolution?
If pigs had wings. . . .
Are you indicating that there is evidence that all mutations are adaptive?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Wostenberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
22 Dec 2003 06:08:40 PM |
|
|
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message news:<Z3IFb.3073$8M7.213740635@twister2.starband.net>...
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenberg@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:af2cab3d.0312221100.e8c9074@posting.google.com...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:<zKZEb.4955$Sb5.969508889@twister1.starband.net>...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:bHZEb.4954$pb5.969479283@twister1.starband.net...
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:3FE45BB8.9040307@psalmweaver.com...
How do you know these are random mutations, rather than a
preprogrammed
response to environmental changes?
We can *directly observe* mutations as random changes to the genome.
We
can
also *directly observe* the change in allele frequencies in
populations
over
time. However, we know of several instances where mutations are not
exactly
random. For instance, complex organisms have gene repair mechanisms,
so
that
many random mutations are repaired, leaving other not-so random
mutations.
You say we know of "several instances where mutations are not exactly
random" but that this "in no way supports the idea of intelligent
design". Dave and Matt seem to differ on that point -- they seem to
think that such directed mutations *would* be evidence of ID, which is
why they say there is no evidence any mutations are directed.
Suppose scientists discovered that all mutations were adaptive, and
none were random. Would that be evolution?
If pigs had wings. . . .
Are you indicating that there is evidence that all mutations are adaptive?
Nope. Yet you said several adaptive mutations were insufficient to
warrent an inference to design. Why not? How many would it take?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
22 Dec 2003 08:01:32 PM |
|
|
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenberg@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:af2cab3d.0312221608.1d0afa19@posting.google.com...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:<Z3IFb.3073$8M7.213740635@twister2.starband.net>...
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenberg@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:af2cab3d.0312221100.e8c9074@posting.google.com...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:<zKZEb.4955$Sb5.969508889@twister1.starband.net>...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:bHZEb.4954$pb5.969479283@twister1.starband.net...
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in
message
news:3FE45BB8.9040307@psalmweaver.com...
How do you know these are random mutations, rather than a
preprogrammed
response to environmental changes?
We can *directly observe* mutations as random changes to the
genome.
We
can
also *directly observe* the change in allele frequencies in
populations
over
time. However, we know of several instances where mutations are
not
exactly
random. For instance, complex organisms have gene repair
mechanisms,
so
that
many random mutations are repaired, leaving other not-so random
mutations.
You say we know of "several instances where mutations are not exactly
random" but that this "in no way supports the idea of intelligent
design". Dave and Matt seem to differ on that point -- they seem to
think that such directed mutations *would* be evidence of ID, which is
why they say there is no evidence any mutations are directed.
Suppose scientists discovered that all mutations were adaptive, and
none were random. Would that be evolution?
If pigs had wings. . . .
Are you indicating that there is evidence that all mutations are
adaptive?
Nope. Yet you said several adaptive mutations were insufficient to
warrent an inference to design. Why not? How many would it take?
Please be specific. What evidence are you referring to? Do you actually want
me to count non-existent evidence!?
Knowledge of modern genetics is not required in order to make a valid
scientific assertion of evolution. Darwin did not understand genetics;
nevertheless, he provided convincing evidence for evolution by common
descent. Modern genetics merely confirms and extends the theory.
Any hypothetical "adaptive mutations" are those made in response to the
environment--not under the direction of a designer. So it doesn't matter how
many examples there are. They could ALL be adaptive mutations.
Hypothetical sources of non-randomness have nothing to do with design.
Mutations are essentially random.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
22 Dec 2003 07:15:35 PM |
|
|
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
awostenberg@psalmweaver.com (Alan Wostenberg):
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message news:<Z3IFb.3073$8M7.213740635@twister2.starband.net>...
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenberg@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:af2cab3d.0312221100.e8c9074@posting.google.com...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:<zKZEb.4955$Sb5.969508889@twister1.starband.net>...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:bHZEb.4954$pb5.969479283@twister1.starband.net...
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:3FE45BB8.9040307@psalmweaver.com...
How do you know these are random mutations, rather than a
preprogrammed
response to environmental changes?
We can *directly observe* mutations as random changes to the genome.
We
can
also *directly observe* the change in allele frequencies in
populations
over
time. However, we know of several instances where mutations are not
exactly
random. For instance, complex organisms have gene repair mechanisms,
so
that
many random mutations are repaired, leaving other not-so random
mutations.
You say we know of "several instances where mutations are not exactly
random" but that this "in no way supports the idea of intelligent
design". Dave and Matt seem to differ on that point -- they seem to
think that such directed mutations *would* be evidence of ID, which is
why they say there is no evidence any mutations are directed.
Suppose scientists discovered that all mutations were adaptive, and
none were random. Would that be evolution?
If pigs had wings. . . .
Are you indicating that there is evidence that all mutations are adaptive?
Nope. Yet you said several adaptive mutations were insufficient to
warrent an inference to design. Why not? How many would it take?
What connects the number of adaptive mutations to design? I don't
have a clue how that would work. The % of adaptive (I assume you
mean selective, high fitness, but don't want to use that term.)
mutations depends on the shape of the adaptive landscape and
where the organism is on that landscape. If every direction is
up, all mutations will have positive fitness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Wostenberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
24 Dec 2003 06:06:08 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message news:<cb5fuvgamsc4utjddi6rrgmecgn981q54m@4ax.com>...
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
awostenberg@psalmweaver.com (Alan Wostenberg):
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message news:<Z3IFb.3073$8M7.213740635@twister2.starband.net>...
Z:Are you indicating that there is evidence that all mutations are adaptive?
A: Nope. Yet you said several adaptive mutations were insufficient to
warrent an inference to design. Why not? How many would it take?
M: What connects the number of adaptive mutations to design? I don't
have a clue how that would work. The % of adaptive (I assume you
mean selective, high fitness, but don't want to use that term.)
mutations depends on the shape of the adaptive landscape and
where the organism is on that landscape. If every direction is
up, all mutations will have positive fitness.
Something that switches on a cryptic gene and confers a benefit to the
organism
would be an example of an adaptive mutation. The capabilty was already
there,
dormant, waiting for the right environmental cue to switch it on.
If such a thing were observed I think a design inference would be a
better explanation than neo-Darwinism, which postulates mutations be
random copy-errors and *not* in response to environment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
25 Dec 2003 07:12:09 AM |
|
|
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenberg@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:af2cab3d.0312241606.548e8352@posting.google.com...
Matt Silberstein <matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message
news:<cb5fuvgamsc4utjddi6rrgmecgn981q54m@4ax.com>...
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
awostenberg@psalmweaver.com (Alan Wostenberg):
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:<Z3IFb.3073$8M7.213740635@twister2.starband.net>...
Z:Are you indicating that there is evidence that all mutations are
adaptive?
A: Nope. Yet you said several adaptive mutations were insufficient to
warrent an inference to design. Why not? How many would it take?
M: What connects the number of adaptive mutations to design? I don't
have a clue how that would work. The % of adaptive (I assume you
mean selective, high fitness, but don't want to use that term.)
mutations depends on the shape of the adaptive landscape and
where the organism is on that landscape. If every direction is
up, all mutations will have positive fitness.
Something that switches on a cryptic gene and confers a benefit to the
organism
would be an example of an adaptive mutation. The capabilty was already
there,
dormant, waiting for the right environmental cue to switch it on.
That wouldn't falsify Darwin's Theory. With the poor knowledge of heredity
during his time, it would have been considered a plausible explanation of
heredity. However, it doesn't match the known facts from modern genetics.
If such a thing were observed I think a design inference would be a
better explanation than neo-Darwinism, which postulates mutations be
random copy-errors and *not* in response to environment.
"If such a thing were observed . . ."
"If pigs had wings . . . "
Mutations are observed to be essentially random. What does that imply? Do
facts matter?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
25 Dec 2003 07:05:46 AM |
|
|
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
awostenberg@psalmweaver.com (Alan Wostenberg):
Matt Silberstein <matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message news:<cb5fuvgamsc4utjddi6rrgmecgn981q54m@4ax.com>...
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
awostenberg@psalmweaver.com (Alan Wostenberg):
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message news:<Z3IFb.3073$8M7.213740635@twister2.starband.net>...
Z:Are you indicating that there is evidence that all mutations are adaptive?
A: Nope. Yet you said several adaptive mutations were insufficient to
warrent an inference to design. Why not? How many would it take?
M: What connects the number of adaptive mutations to design? I don't
have a clue how that would work. The % of adaptive (I assume you
mean selective, high fitness, but don't want to use that term.)
mutations depends on the shape of the adaptive landscape and
where the organism is on that landscape. If every direction is
up, all mutations will have positive fitness.
Something that switches on a cryptic gene and confers a benefit to the
organism
would be an example of an adaptive mutation. The capabilty was already
there,
dormant, waiting for the right environmental cue to switch it on.
Now you have really confused me. Are you re-defining the term
"adaptive gene" to this "cryptic" "switched on" gene? Or are you
moving the goalpost from "all" adaptive to "switched on" shows
design? Anyway, what is a "cryptic" gene and what does it mean
for it to be "switched on"? Finally. do you know enough about
genetics and such so that we can talk about how the genes
actually work?
If such a thing were observed I think a design inference would be a
better explanation than neo-Darwinism, which postulates mutations be
random copy-errors and *not* in response to environment.
Why? Please explain your steps. I am particularly interested in
how you can identify design when you are in total ignorance about
who the designer/s is/are, what the designer(s) wants, what the
designer/s can do, when the designer/s acts/acted, and where the
designer/s did it. And then please tell us if you have any
evidence that this is how the world works.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
25 Dec 2003 09:45:19 AM |
|
|
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
awostenberg@psalmweaver.com (Alan Wostenberg):
Matt Silberstein <matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message news:<cb5fuvgamsc4utjddi6rrgmecgn981q54m@4ax.com>...
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
awostenberg@psalmweaver.com (Alan Wostenberg):
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message news:<Z3IFb.3073$8M7.213740635@twister2.starband.net>...
Z:Are you indicating that there is evidence that all mutations are adaptive?
A: Nope. Yet you said several adaptive mutations were insufficient to
warrent an inference to design. Why not? How many would it take?
M: What connects the number of adaptive mutations to design? I don't
have a clue how that would work. The % of adaptive (I assume you
mean selective, high fitness, but don't want to use that term.)
mutations depends on the shape of the adaptive landscape and
where the organism is on that landscape. If every direction is
up, all mutations will have positive fitness.
Something that switches on a cryptic gene and confers a benefit to the
organism
would be an example of an adaptive mutation. The capabilty was already
there,
dormant, waiting for the right environmental cue to switch it on.
Sorry for the double post, but just thought of some things. I
suspect that you are trying for the "it was all there from the
start" claim. If so that is pretty clearly not possible. There
are *variations* in populations, not simply things turned on and
off. It is not possible for some ur-Dog, for instance, to have
had all of the current allele variations found in dogs. And don't
try this "environmental cues" nonsense, we know from
*observation" that particular mutations are just as likely in all
environments.* Sorry, but you don't get to develop biology sui
generis, you really have to do the observations.
If such a thing were observed I think a design inference would be a
better explanation than neo-Darwinism, which postulates mutations be
random copy-errors and *not* in response to environment.
What if we found something entirely different? What if we did not
find this, would that argue against design?
*Take a single bacteria. Make lots of colonies. Submit some to
antibiotics. Look at the prevalence of mutations for
antibacterial resistance in the colonies you left alone and the
ones you "attacked". Once again observation trumps supposition.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Wostenberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
27 Dec 2003 11:59:41 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message news:<gduluv8d070vv3gj36ubj0rctitku6e8ju@4ax.com>...
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
awostenberg@psalmweaver.com (Alan Wostenberg):
Matt Silberstein <matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message news:<cb5fuvgamsc4utjddi6rrgmecgn981q54m@4ax.com>...
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
awostenberg@psalmweaver.com (Alan Wostenberg):
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message news:<Z3IFb.3073$8M7.213740635@twister2.starband.net>...
Z:Are you indicating that there is evidence that all mutations are adaptive?
A: Nope. Yet you said several adaptive mutations were insufficient to
warrent an inference to design. Why not? How many would it take?
M: What connects the number of adaptive mutations to design? I don't
have a clue how that would work. The % of adaptive (I assume you
mean selective, high fitness, but don't want to use that term.)
mutations depends on the shape of the adaptive landscape and
where the organism is on that landscape. If every direction is
up, all mutations will have positive fitness.
Something that switches on a cryptic gene and confers a benefit to the
organism
would be an example of an adaptive mutation. The capabilty was already
there,
dormant, waiting for the right environmental cue to switch it on.
Sorry for the double post, but just thought of some things. I
suspect that you are trying for the "it was all there from the
start" claim. If so that is pretty clearly not possible.
Yes, Matt, that impossible claim is what I'm examining. Not possible?
The molecular evidence is consistent with the postulate ur-Dog was
"already there", dormant, encoded in genetic text of the primordial
genome. And at the right time it was activated by an environmental
cue, like typing C:SETUP to activate dormant code on your PC.
If changes were preprogrammed and not random then why doesn't the same
environmental cue educe the same preprogrammed outcome 100% of the
time in bacterial experiments? There must be some variables in the
experiment we are not controlling, but through patient research, we
might find them.
The evidence is also consistent with the ex-nilo creation of each
species over eons in which the observed similarities among classes of
organisms are due not due to common ancestor, but an archetype in some
metaphysical space like the mind of God.
While I havn't decided which of those two design scenarios is a better
explanation of the facts, your criticism of the impossibility of
preprogrammed evolution persuades me ex-nihilo creation is the better
one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
29 Dec 2003 12:25:30 AM |
|
|
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
awostenberg@psalmweaver.com (Alan Wostenberg):
Matt Silberstein <matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message news:<gduluv8d070vv3gj36ubj0rctitku6e8ju@4ax.com>...
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
awostenberg@psalmweaver.com (Alan Wostenberg):
Matt Silberstein <matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message news:<cb5fuvgamsc4utjddi6rrgmecgn981q54m@4ax.com>...
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
awostenberg@psalmweaver.com (Alan Wostenberg):
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message news:<Z3IFb.3073$8M7.213740635@twister2.starband.net>...
Z:Are you indicating that there is evidence that all mutations are adaptive?
A: Nope. Yet you said several adaptive mutations were insufficient to
warrent an inference to design. Why not? How many would it take?
M: What connects the number of adaptive mutations to design? I don't
have a clue how that would work. The % of adaptive (I assume you
mean selective, high fitness, but don't want to use that term.)
mutations depends on the shape of the adaptive landscape and
where the organism is on that landscape. If every direction is
up, all mutations will have positive fitness.
Something that switches on a cryptic gene and confers a benefit to the
organism
would be an example of an adaptive mutation. The capabilty was already
there,
dormant, waiting for the right environmental cue to switch it on.
Sorry for the double post, but just thought of some things. I
suspect that you are trying for the "it was all there from the
start" claim. If so that is pretty clearly not possible.
Yes, Matt, that impossible claim is what I'm examining. Not possible?
The molecular evidence is consistent with the postulate ur-Dog was
"already there", dormant, encoded in genetic text of the primordial
genome. And at the right time it was activated by an environmental
cue, like typing C:SETUP to activate dormant code on your PC.
The only way this could possibly work, and it still would not
work, is if you make the claim that we are in some special time
in history, the time when suddenly all of these hidden changes
have been exposed. Even so it does not work. A given set of
parents can only have 4 alleles, variations of a gene. (This is
the best case, for non-sexually reproducing organisms the maximum
is two alleles, for bacteria it is only one.) And for many genes
we have far more than 4 alleles. The ur-Dog could not have had
all of the variation waiting to happen. And that would not work
anyway because those alleles are expressed. You are proposing
that some part of the genome contains hidden instructions that
spring into action and put in changes when needed. Besides the
interesting problems of how these hidden aspects know what
changes are needed (this is quite a difficult problem) we have
not seen any evidence of these processes and we have looked where
they should be.
If changes were preprogrammed and not random then why doesn't the same
environmental cue educe the same preprogrammed outcome 100% of the
time in bacterial experiments? There must be some variables in the
experiment we are not controlling, but through patient research, we
might find them.
Alan, let me try to make the observed biology clear to you.
Scientists have actually experimented to find mutations rates.
They can look at the rates of mutations for various parts of the
genome. Environmental "cues" don't change the chance of a
particular mutation, they just change the mutations rate overall.
IOW people have investigated this possibility and it just ain't
so. You now have to start claiming that this hidden mechanism
deliberately hides itself when people are looking. And all we get
to see is the non-programmed changes, which themselves are
sufficent to explain the morphological changes we see. One more
time I recommend that you stop trying to build biological
sciences from philosophical and theological principles: it works
better when you base them on observations.
The evidence is also consistent with the ex-nilo creation of each
species over eons in which the observed similarities among classes of
organisms are due not due to common ancestor, but an archetype in some
metaphysical space like the mind of God.
Sure it is, any evidence we could see is consistent with some
form of ex-nilhio creation by some unknown entity or entities
with unlimited powers.
While I havn't decided which of those two design scenarios is a better
explanation of the facts, your criticism of the impossibility of
preprogrammed evolution persuades me ex-nihilo creation is the better
one.
Yeah, the entities keep destroying species and creating new ones.
And the new ones look like minor variations on the ones that were
destroyed. In fact, each generation is created ex-nilhio and a
new one put in place.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
22 Dec 2003 04:47:46 PM |
|
|
(Alan Wostenberg) wrote in
news:af2cab3d.0312221100.e8c9074@posting.google.com:
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:<zKZEb.4955$Sb5.969508889@twister1.starband.net>...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:bHZEb.4954$pb5.969479283@twister1.starband.net...
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in
message news:3FE45BB8.9040307@psalmweaver.com...
How do you know these are random mutations, rather than a
preprogrammed response to environmental changes?
We can *directly observe* mutations as random changes to the
genome. We
can
also *directly observe* the change in allele frequencies in
populations
over
time. However, we know of several instances where mutations are not
exactly
random. For instance, complex organisms have gene repair
mechanisms, so
that
many random mutations are repaired, leaving other not-so random
mutations.
You say we know of "several instances where mutations are not exactly
random" but that this "in no way supports the idea of intelligent
design". Dave and Matt seem to differ on that point -- they seem to
think that such directed mutations *would* be evidence of ID, which is
why they say there is no evidence any mutations are directed.
No, there are certain cases where genes seem to have a higher mutation
rate when the organism is under stress. This can hardly be termed
"directed" though, in the sense that some individual conscious being is
directing them. Of course REAL Christians do believe that God's
sovereignty is universal and thus that it extends even to mutations that,
to our human eyes, are random.
Suppose scientists discovered that all mutations were adaptive, and
none were random. Would that be evolution?
It would, but it would no longer be evolution by mutation and natural
selection, but by genetic engineering.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
22 Dec 2003 05:47:58 PM |
|
|
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca>:
awostenberg@psalmweaver.com (Alan Wostenberg) wrote in
news:af2cab3d.0312221100.e8c9074@posting.google.com:
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:<zKZEb.4955$Sb5.969508889@twister1.starband.net>...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:bHZEb.4954$pb5.969479283@twister1.starband.net...
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in
message news:3FE45BB8.9040307@psalmweaver.com...
How do you know these are random mutations, rather than a
preprogrammed response to environmental changes?
We can *directly observe* mutations as random changes to the
genome. We
can
also *directly observe* the change in allele frequencies in
populations
over
time. However, we know of several instances where mutations are not
exactly
random. For instance, complex organisms have gene repair
mechanisms, so
that
many random mutations are repaired, leaving other not-so random
mutations.
You say we know of "several instances where mutations are not exactly
random" but that this "in no way supports the idea of intelligent
design". Dave and Matt seem to differ on that point -- they seem to
think that such directed mutations *would* be evidence of ID, which is
why they say there is no evidence any mutations are directed.
No, there are certain cases where genes seem to have a higher mutation
rate when the organism is under stress.
Yes, the *rate* of mutation is not constant. And some areas of
the genome sometimes seem more prone to mutations than other
areas. Neither of those observations help the ID movement,
however. The mutations are still random with respect to the
particular situation. A given mutation that provides
antibacterial resistance in a bacteria is no more likely in the
presence of the antibiotic than not.
This can hardly be termed
"directed" though, in the sense that some individual conscious being is
directing them. Of course REAL Christians do believe that God's
sovereignty is universal and thus that it extends even to mutations that,
to our human eyes, are random.
Suppose scientists discovered that all mutations were adaptive, and
none were random. Would that be evolution?
It would, but it would no longer be evolution by mutation and natural
selection, but by genetic engineering.
How so? It would be quite odd and contradict our previous
observations, but I don't see the engineering. If all mutations
were adaptive it would be mutations, of course, and Natural
Selection to the extreme.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Mutations in Evolution Religion |
23 Dec 2003 01:00:17 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom> wrote in
news:hf0fuv45la3ah3qlsm9o9qj1fedcc2f8h3@4ax.com:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca>:
awostenberg@psalmweaver.com (Alan Wostenberg) wrote in
news:af2cab3d.0312221100.e8c9074@posting.google.com:
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:<zKZEb.4955$Sb5.969508889@twister1.starband.net>...
"Zachriel" | | | | | | | | |
