Skip to comments.Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life (Darwin's epic failure re: comprehensive ToE)
Posted on 11/12/2009 8:53:24 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
While Charles Darwins On the Origin of Species has been described as a grand narrativea story of origins that would change the world,1 ironically his book very pointedly avoided the question of the origin of life itself.
This ought not be surprising. Darwins theory of the origin of species by means of natural selection2 presupposes self-reproduction, so cant explain the origin of self-reproduction.
Unfortunately, many proponents of evolution seem unaware of that. They dont acknowledge that natural selection requires pre-existing life. As leading 20th century evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky lamented: ...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Because liberals project alot!
Your problem is the evidence.
Evidence like show us a high profile liberal that supports creationism.
“Question my scientific credentials again.
Question my math skills again.
Next step is to call me a liberal.”
This is exactly what liberals do!
And then you get sore because you’re called a liberal?
And there’s the projections again.
Because liberals project-alot.
Well, I definitely know of many liberals (actually, this is a cornerstone of the liberal mindset) who reject evolution, its principles and implications. Just ask James Watson (the ‘double helix’ guy, who got busted for suggesting that different groups of people may have evolved separately, to a different outcome with respect to IQ; his liberal opponents, on the other hand, seem to believe that humans were created ‘according to their kind’, in a biblical manner).
A recent article had much to say regarding mutations:
Although I may have been wrong about my earlier stmt ‘approx 1 in a million mutations being beneficial’, evolution rarely discusses [smallest guess maybe 1 in 500] while the above article quotes approx 1 in 2500 [.00041].
The article and other related research reveals very little good, positive or beneficial information for mutations though:
“The underlying genetic mechanism of evolution is random mutation, and specifically mutation that is beneficial to life. Biology textbooks in theory present positive and negative mutations to students as though these were commonplace and roughly equal in number. However, these books fail to inform students that unequivocally positive mutations are unknown to genetics, since they have never been observed (or are so rare as to be irrelevant).
The biology textbooks in other chapters teach that most mutations are pathologic, or disease-causing, but they don’t apply that information to evolution. The worst diseases doctors treat today are caused by genetic mutations. Nearly 4,000 diseases are caused by mutations in DNA.4 “The human genome contains a complete set of instructions for the production of a human being . Genome research has already exposed errors |mutations| in these instructions that lead to heart disease, cancer, and neurological degeneration.”5 These diseases are crippling, often fatal, and many of the affected pre-born infants are aborted spontaneously, i.e., they are so badly damaged they can’t even survive gestation. However, the biology textbooks, when discussing mutation in evolution, only discuss the very rare “positive” mutation, like sickle cell anemia. The fact of some 4,000 devastating genetic diseases is suppressed from publication.
Mutations: the Human Toll
Polycystic kidney disease is a common mutation in humans. It is inherited in autosomal dominant fashion,6 meaning that one copy of the relevant gene received from the parents was mutant and the other copy was normal. The sufferers who inherit the mutated gene may die of kidney failure by late middle age if they don’t receive dialysis or a kidney transplant. As the disease progresses, the kidneys are gradually replaced by functionless cysts, which can cause continuous pain and enlarge the kidneys to the point where they bleed, get infections, and may even interfere with breathing.
Another instance of genetic mutation is cystic fibrosis, which is inherited in autosomal recessive fashion, meaning that both of the relevant inherited genes are mutant. Patients with this condition are burdened with mucous-plugging defects in their lungs and pancreas. Beginning in childhood they remain susceptible to frequent, sometimes very dangerous, pneumonias. Insufficient amounts of pancreatic enzymes are available to properly digest food, requiring pancreatic enzyme replacements. Sufferers of cystic fibrosis are usually sterile, and may die in young adulthood even with expert medical care.
The recent decoding of the human genome has allowed scientists to determine that cystic fibrosis is caused by a random change of three nucleotides in a gene that codes for a 1480-amino acid-long ion transport protein.7 The human genome has three billion nucleotides, or base pairs, in the DNA.8 Since a random change of three nucleotides in a three-billion-part genome is fatal (0.0000001%), how is it remotely possibly that a chimp could be the evolutionary cousin of a human? The lowest estimate of the genetic differences between our DNA and that of chimps is at least 50 million nucleotides (some estimates of the disparity are much higher). Quantitative information in genetics today is proving evolutionary theory as simply a man-made and irrational philosophical belief.
One top geneticist recently conducted a computer analysis to quantitate the ratio of “beneficial mutations” to harmful mutations.9 Only 186 entries for beneficial mutations were discovered (and even they have a downside), versus 453,732 entries for harmful mutations. The ratio of “beneficial mutations” to harmful mutations is 0.00041! Thus, even if a very rare mutation is “beneficial,” the next 10,000 mutations in any evolutionary sequence would each be fatal or crippling, and each of the next 10,000 imaginary mutations would bring the evolution process to a halt.”
Here’s some more mutation research from Dr. Walt Brown Ph.D.:
Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution.a Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal.b No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors.c
Ultimately, all variation is, of course, due to mutation. Ernst Mayr, Evolutionary Challenges to the Mathematical Interpretation of Evolution, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, proceedings of a symposium held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, 2526 April, 1966 (Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute Press, 1967), p. 50.
Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, ... Ayala, p. 63.
The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution. ... the mutants which arise are, with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally encounters. Theodosius Dobzhansky, On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology, American Scientist, December 1957, p. 385.
In molecular biology, various kinds of mutations introduce the equivalent of noise pollution of the original instructive message. Communication theory goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent noise pollution of signals of all kinds. Given this longstanding struggle against noise contamination of meaningful algorithmic messages, it seems curious that the central paradigm of biology today attributes genomic messages themselves solely to noise. David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information, Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, p. 10. (Also available at www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29.)
Accordingly, mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely. C. P. Martin, A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution, American Scientist, January 1953, p. 102.
Mutation does produce hereditary changes, but the mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect. Ibid., p. 103.
[Although mutations have produced some desirable breeds of animals and plants,] all mutations seem to be in the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organisms. I doubt if among the many thousands of known mutant types one can be found which is superior to the wild type in its normal environment, only very few can be named which are superior to the wild type in a strange environment. Ibid., p. 100.
If we say that it is only by chance that they [mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, or lethal. W. R. Thompson, Introduction to The Origin of Species, Everyman Library No. 811 (New York: E. P. Dutton & Sons, 1956; reprint, Sussex, England: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1967), p. 10.
Visible mutations are easily detectable genetic changes such as albinism, dwarfism, and hemophilia. Winchester quantifies the relative frequency of several types of mutations.
Lethal mutations outnumber visibles by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have small harmful effects, the detrimental mutations, are even more frequent than the lethal ones. Winchester, p. 356.
John W. Klotz, Genes, Genesis, and Evolution, 2nd edition, revised (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972), pp. 262265.
... I took a little trouble to find whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesnt affect seriously the function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an instance. George Wald, as quoted by Murray Eden, Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, pp. 1819.
However, evolutionists have taught for years that hemoglobin alpha changed through mutations into hemoglobin beta. This would require, at a minimum, 120 point mutations. In other words, the improbability Wald refers to above must be raised to the 120th power to produce just this one protein!
Even if we didnt have a great deal of data on this point, we could still be quite sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair itjust as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture. James F. Crow (Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin), Genetic Effects of Radiation, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14, January 1958, pp. 1920.
The one systematic effect of mutation seems to be a tendency towards degeneration ... [emphasis in original] Sewall Wright, The Statistical Consequences of Mendelian Heredity in Relation to Speciation, The New Systematics, editor Julian Huxley (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), p. 174.
Wright then concludes that other factors must also have been involved, because he believes evolution happened.
In discussing the many mutations needed to produce a new organ, Koestler says:
Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation. Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1968), p. 129.
There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species. N. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. 1157.
It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations. [emphasis in original] Ibid., p. 1186.
No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 88.
I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these [evolutionary] changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations. Lynn Margulis, as quoted by Charles Mann, Lynn Margulis: Sciences Unruly Earth Mother, Science, Vol. 252, 19 April 1991, p. 379.
It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations. Richard B. Goldschmidt, Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist, American Scientist, Vol. 40, January 1952, p. 94.
If life really depends on each gene being as unique as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come into being by chance mutations. Frank B. Salisbury, Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene, Nature, Vol. 224, 25 October 1969, p. 342.
Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we dont see them: there is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ. Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (London: Rider & Co., 1984), pp. 6768.
It's only *positive* in very limited scenarios, like in the presence of malaria. Take away the malaria and tell us about how positive it is.
Some *positive* mutation, that sickle cell. Ask anyone who suffers from it.
Alrighty. How about a list of all the positive, beneficial mutations that have occurred in humankind in the last some thousand years.
How about a list of any positive, beneficial mutations that occur within the human population at all in the present.
No, it doesn’t.
I’m asking you as evos who are adherents to the ToE.
That doesn’t mean I subscribe to it. You’re the ones who do. So, according to your belief system which posits a beginning to all life in the form of a first cell, tell us where the first cell came from instead of dancing around the issue and trying every which way to avoid answering the question.
" Hey, you know if we get good enough with the ad-hominems, we might could get by with just trying to defend one indefensible brain-dead ideological doctrine instead of two of em!! "
I DO NOT KNOW the origin of life, so I am not going to present beliefs as facts. I only state that scenarios that you reject based on your beliefs (chance self-assembly) are in fact viable. But I also consider the alternative involving God viable.
ICR is not a credible source for matters of science.
Really?! Is that how you speak to all correspondents who disagree with you, or mention something inconvenient?
You like quotes? Well, here are quotes from Berkeley showing that their Evolution 101 website accords special treatment to the origin of life. From the website: However, within the field of evolutionary biology (emphasis mine), the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from. I dont see where any other subject is described within the field of evolutionary biology as is the origin of life.
Within that website, under the heading from soup to cells the origin of life, we see a whole array of topics for inspection: 1)When did life originate? 2) Where did life originate? 3) How did life originate? 4) Under Studying the origin of life (itself making reference to the tree of life), we have; Origins and DNA evidence, Origins and biochemical evidence, Origins and experimental evidence, then finally, 5) A knotty problem.
At this point from soup to cells the origin of life continues with the following, You've reached the end of this section, but if you'd like to continue reading about the relevance of evolution (emphasis mine), try these: (and the site follows up by giving some links)
Whatever Darwin thought in the last half of the Nineteenth Century, some 150 years later Berkeley clearly believes that theories of the origin of life are fueled and directed by Darwins ToE in its various configurations.
Berkeley is not alone. A number of university websites and science association websites carry Evolution 101 as a link on their own sites (why a majority of those links havent been disappeared before now is beyond me theyre embarrassing for anyone who argues no one in the Science Community is making a connection between Evolution and the Origin of Life). Moreover, the problem is not limited to institutions. There are any number of eminent scientists who see a connection between Evolution and the Origin of Life and, worse, use science generally and the ToE specifically as a basis to conclude, as William Provine argues: 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent (those being, among others, Dawkins, Hawking, Weinberg, Dennett, Pinker, Gould, Sanger, Tooley, Lewontin, Hauser, Stenger Provine, Rachels, et al).
Small wonder that you find it so exasperatingly difficult to convince any Christian on this forum that the ToE has no significance beyond its scientific implications when it is obvious that scientists like Dawkins now believe (see The God Delusion) and, in his day Marx then believed, that a naturalistic explanation for life to be sufficiently assured that they now feel, as Marx then felt, secure in declaring that there is no God. If Darwinians werent trying so hard to improperly preempt Christian philosophy with conclusions drawn from a scientific theory, then they and their god Darwin would not be under so much severe criticism. Instead of ragging Christians about their supposed scientific ignorance, if you went about getting your own ideological house in order you might find the headwinds youve been bucking to be considerably less fierce. But, if you instead prefer engaging in political shin kicking, then dont complain when you find yourself in a shin-kicking contest.
“Small wonder that you find it so exasperatingly difficult to convince any Christian on this forum...”
No. Christians have no problem reconciling their faith with evolution. The members of this forum to whom you refer represent instead a small minority of weak-in-faith literalists. They close their mind to logic and science, and constitute little more than a source of entertainment.
Thank God they only teach science to their own education-deprived kids.
Thanks for the ping!
Most of these threads are not discussions of 'science' anyway.
It's mostly about faith, belief, and theory.
Buck W. is not to be considered a credible source either.
That’s right, these discussion are much more deep and profound than mere science.
And I stopped considering evolution as science after I began to ‘see behind the curtain’ b/c you can win almost any argument if you are allowed to limit its scope.
Is that at the same site in TX where the “fossilized” leg and cowboy boot were found in that creek?
You have something to say?
Or is “you’re a liberal” the end of your intellectual ability?
Sure a true Christian would because the conflict comes in as to whether to believe man or God's word.
The number of evos who claim to be Christians and yet who deny much of the Bible as true and the fact that Jesus Himself, on whom Christianity is based, treated the OT and its events as facts; have to decide whether the Bible is true and Jesus is telling the truth about it, or whether evolution is true and Jesus is lying. You can't have it both ways.
And not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one.
Matt 7:15-23 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
There are plenty of other places in the Gospels where Jesus makes comments like this as well.
You should try reading them sometime.
Sure, it's pretty much SOP for evos.
Correct. Although my professional science background is extensive, I am not published in the fields of paleontology, geology, etc. No real scientist would reference my work there.
You, however, referenced ICR as a source of credible science. That’s analagous to my example above, but much more egregiously desperate and deceptive.
“Sure a true Christian would because the conflict comes in as to whether to believe man or God’s word.”
The bible is allegorical. Christians understand that, and most accept it. Those who don’t fall into 2 categories:
o Those who base their literal argument on faith alone and don’t seek to rely on “science” to prove creation and disprove evolution. This is the larger of the 2 groups. I respect them.
o Those whose faith is week and need to pervert science to provide them some false firmament. These are the cultists. You belong to this group, as does the rest of the ping list.
“egregiously desperate and deceptive” I could hardly agree less. You simply miss the point that I do not accept the modern day re-definition of science aka naturalism. Your words are best reflected by those in the ‘evolutionary religion.’
If you posit there is a God then He most unequivocally must be the God of the Bible due to all of the evidence. However, your posts on FR seem to betray any real allegiance to the one true God.
Wow....a Roman history lesson.
Ooooooo....a BAD analogy concerning surgery and anaethesia.
So why not make similar applications in the forensic science of origins? Darwin published his Origin of Species just before the Civil War. Numerous advances in science since that time bring into question the validity of Darwin's theory, yet biology textbooks today maintain the Darwin mantra, "Darwin said it, I believe it, and that settles it."
Ignorance of genetic research is bliss. Appeal to the simple-minded....
In 1986 I read my first creationist article, written by a biologist. By the time I finished, I knew I could no longer justify my evolutionary thinking.
I LOVE it every time I read about some YEC nut that "read ONE article" and all of a sudden became a believer that Man walked the Earth with dinosaurs 4400 years ago.
She simply pointed out, armed with modern scientific facts, that practically everything I had learned in medical school--especially in genetics--directly conflicted with Darwin's theory.
Wow...."nearly everything learned in medical school" conflicted with the Theory of evolution? I surmise that you didn't talk much about anything having anything to do with evolution in medical school, but you, sir, will NEVER be my PHCP.
....especially genetics???? In exactly what century did you take genetics, Dr.?
Darwin believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics--that is, if an animal acquired a physical characteristic during its lifetime, it could pass that characteristic on to its progeny.
This is quite a STUPID thing to say and shows ignorance in the ToE. One does not acquire a charachteristic over one's lifetime.....one acquires it at conception from one's parents. Man, this Dr. is stupid, but this is just a strawman to kick around in the next few sentences as THAT is not the ToE, Dr,.
Of course, it is an established fact that living things can only pass on the genetic information they inherit from their parents.
Of COURSE, it's that way.....but you had to claim the notion of Evolution being "acquiring a characteristic over your life" so you could kick it around.
Will a man who loses a leg in an accident have one-legged children?
No, but you have to follow your stupid line of strawman thinking. HOWEVER, a genetic mutation that leads directly to a one-legged offspring will get passed on to HIS offspring, though this could get taken care of in the synaptonemal complex.
No, his children will have two legs, because although the man's body (or phenotype) changed, his genotype (or DNA) remains the same.
ANOTHER stupid thing to say. His "phenotype" didn't change one freakin' bit. His physical appearance changed. Phenotype is the physical expression of the GENOTYPE, you stupid summabitch. Kind Dr. here didn't pay attention in genetics class.
But natural selection only explains survival of the fittest; it fails to explain arrival of the fittest
D'uh...stupid comment #853. "Natural selection" is not SUPPOSED to explain "arrival of the fittest" any more than the ToE is SUPPOSED to explain the origin of life.
Natural selection, i.e., the forces of nature, does not change the DNA of the individual animal at all, and can only change the total gene pool of a species by eliminating unfit individuals (leading to the loss, not gain, of genetic information).
Stupid comment #948. Natural selection does not ELIMINATE unfit individuals, it merely makes one individual more likely to pass on its genes to viable, reproducing offspring. Increasing likelihood of A does not eliminate B.
Typical usage of scriptural term "kind"....we in thescience world use the term "species", Dr.....as "kind" has a chameleon definition to suit the needs.
Biology textbooks in theory present positive and negative mutations to students as though these were commonplace and roughly equal in number.
How simple-minded of you, Dr.....what about mutations that do not change the amino acid sequences of proteins? MY biology books taught that NEUTRAL mutations that might or might not have a +- affect in the present, might in the future with further mutations or not. REALLY didn't pay much attention in genetics class.
However, these books fail to inform students that unequivocally positive mutations are unknown to genetics, since they have never been observed (or are so rare as to be irrelevant).
The specific mutations on chromosome 2 that lead to adult lactose tolerance is a positive mutation noted in real-time....but nice qualifier "unequivocally" is.
The biology textbooks in other chapters teach that most mutations are pathologic, or disease-causing, but they don't apply that information to evolution.
MY books taught me that MOST mutations are neutral and do not alter the amino acid sequence expressed.
However, the biology textbooks, when discussing mutation in evolution, only discuss the very rare "positive" mutation, like sickle cell anemia. The fact of some 4,000 devastating genetic diseases is suppressed from publication.
Uhhhh.....NO FREAKIN' SHI'ITE. When discussing EVOLUTION and mutation, it's useless to go talking about 4,000 deleterious mutations. When discussing GENETICS and mutation, THERE is where one would talk about deleterious mutations more. Maybe, Dr, you should've paid attention in genetics class or MAYBE you should have taken a population genetics/biology class. No, it's not "supporessed"...it's NOT RELEVANT TO THE THEORY.
Ooooo....a lesson on polycystic kidney disease....pretty cool stuff. Kind Dr, you don't know squat about "fitness"....PKD si diagnosed at ages 30-40....most likely AFTER the individual already passes it on to offspring....as such, it will persist in a population with a minimal affect on fitness....a maximal affect on the longevity of life.
OK...there's genetic diseases.....established.
Since a random change of three nucleotides in a three-billion-part genome is fatal (0.0000001%), how is it remotely possibly that a chimp could be the evolutionary cousin of a human?
Genetically ignorant thing to sy, Dr. Just because a mutation in 3 nucleotides is bad, doesn't mean all mutations are bad.
The lowest estimate of the genetic differences between our DNA and that of chimps is at least 50 million nucleotides
Wow....only 1.7% different? That's the best I've seen.
The ratio of "beneficial mutations" to harmful mutations is 0.00041!
Irrelevant statistic directed at ignorant people to make them think the ratio means something.....set up for the false conclusion.
Thus, even if a very rare mutation is "beneficial," the next 10,000 mutations in any evolutionary sequence would each be fatal or crippling, and each of the next 10,000 imaginary mutations would bring the evolution process to a halt.
Presupposes that one that receives a beneficial mutation will then receive a negative mutation.
This creates bacterial resistance to that antibiotic. Does this support evolutionary genetic theory? No, since the mutant bacteria do not survive as well in the wild as the native (non-mutant) bacteria. That is, the resistant (mutant) bacteria will only do well in an artificial situation, where it is placed in a culture medium with the antibiotic.
BOLD baseless statement, Dr., actually it's a false one. Guess you didn't pay attention in micro-class either. Take a fat look at MDRSA, which does quite well in humans. How about the mutation in SA that gave it protein A as a surface protein....which binds up human antibodies in a useless position? Such ignorance...
In the wild, the native bacteria are always more vigorous than the mutant bacteria.
However, the majority of mutations are "neutral mutations" that do not cause any detectable change in the phenotype or body of the animal.
Harmful mutations destroy the individual organism, preventing the gene from being passed on.
BS ALERT!!!! Harmful mutations only prevent the gene from being passed on IF they kill the individual BEFORE they generate offspring.....many harmful mutations do not kill until post-reproduction years.
The "neutral mutations" will ultimately destroy entire species, because the mutated genes will be passed on and accumulate.
BS ALERT.....what if, Dr....ther eis no further mutation at that site for 1,000,000 generations and then only in ONE individual in the population? Genetics ignorance is bliss.
Evolutionary science teaches that all the wonderful organs and enzymes in humans and animals--eyes, hemoglobin, lungs, hearts, and kidneys, all coded with DNA--arose totally by random chance through mutations in DNA.
Yes, to simple-minded folk. There is also a degree of direction from less beneficial to more beneficial accumulations. Once beneficial proteins are created, they are retained and increased in prevelance in the population such that beneficial mutations can accumulate to a higher degree in those that already HAVE beneficial mutations. Such that populations accumulate beneficial mutations.
Research is demonstrating that the "near-neutral" mutations are accumulating far too rapidly for organisms to have avoided extinction if they indeed have existed over the millions of years claimed by evolutionary biologists.
Is THAT so....just another ignorant statement, but the Dr has a tale to tell.
Harmful mutations destroy the individual organism, preventing the gene from being passed on. The "neutral mutations" will ultimately destroy entire species, because the mutated genes will be passed on and accumulate.
BS alert....simple-minded nonsense. Harmful mutations don't necessarily destroy the individual before reproducing. Neutral mutations do NOTHING. Passed on, they DO NOTHING. Accumulated, they do NOTHING. Further mutations at the same site that alter protein expression may do something.....may not....may cause a fatal genetic flaw and be removed from the pool.
On rare occasions, however, a mutant allele |gene| may actually fit its bearer to the environment better and enhance the reproductive success of the individual."
AND BINGO WAS HIS NAME-O...
equivocally beneficial mutations (which still have a downside) are extremely rare (about one in 10,000),
Only 1/10,000?? What happened to the 1/1,000,000 that YOU touted? So, at a minimum, 1 in every 10 offspring has a beneficial mutation (mutation rate of 100-200 per offspring) SWEEEEEET.....
....and for the false conclusion, complete with baseless statements:
Carl Sagan, in his Cosmos program "One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue," stated that evolution was caused by "the slow accumulations of favorable mutations." While this may be the current popular theory, real science disagrees. The perpetuation of the Darwin myth clashes with reality--the God-created reality--where living things and their genomes were created "very good" and have degenerated from there. Genetic science demonstrates that the absolutely essential ingredient for the origin of life is an infinite Intelligence. Of all the origin stories, only one contains this essential ingredient--Genesis 1.
You, sir, will NEVER be my PHCP or my urologist, if I ever need one.
This is how I respond to correspondents who ask, get a very specific, unequivocal answer, and still pretend that I was "unresponsive". There was a very specific quote from the discussed source, stating that natural selection appears AFTER self-replication.
Please don’t hold back, tell me how you really feel! :o)
From my quoted source “unequivocally positive mutations are unknown to genetics, since they have never been observed...”
Lactose intolerance is that all you got? I regret to say I read your entire post... err ranting... and came away with very little connstructive information from you.
Your pomposity did shine through once again though. :’)
When I told my son about Santa Claus, was I "lying"? Or was I using an accepted reference suitable for his age to teach a larger lesson? Should he reject everything I've said since then because I "lied" about that?
Everybody thinks some of the Bible isn't true. You yourself have tried to explain how the "windows of Heaven" aren't really windows. Is the Bible lying when it says there are holes in the sky? Jesus referenced Noah, as creationists love to point out. Does that mean Jesus was lying about there being holes in the sky?
And not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one.
And here we come to the crux of the matter. This isn't really about the evidence or the science. This is about being able to tell other people they're not Christian. How ironic that you chose to quote the chapter that starts with "judge not."
“If you posit there is a God then He most unequivocally must be the God of the Bible due to all of the evidence. “
Of which bible do you speak—the allegorical one?
Are Catholics Christians?
Will you respond to me via private mail as you did earlier, or make your weak argument public?
Evos are nothing if not arrogant.
unequivocally positive mutations are unknown to genetics, since they have never been observed
...is a well-couched false statement. "Beneficial" is a couched phrase, "unequivocally" is a couched phrase.....and "unknown to genetics, since they have never been observed" is a lie liek saying "there have been no mutations that ensure a life span of 400 years.
Lactose intolerance is that all you got?
To prove a lie that they don't exist.....that's all that's needed. Need more? Lipoprotein lipase mutations (3 known)? Coagulation factor VII mutations. The CCR5 delta 32 mutation.
I wouldn't expect for you to get anything from me, you've done "research" on "YEC sites"...where dinosaurs live in the time of Man.
Maybe in the circles you run in, but I doubt anyone who really believes that the Bible is the written word of God thinks that there's lies in it.
You simplistic rendering of something that God describes as *windows of heaven* does nothing to weaken the integrity and truthfulness of Scripture.
Do I believe that what you propose is the interpretation of *windows of heaven* is accurate? Absolutely not.
Do I believe that they exist in some manner that we don't fully understand and that the description of them as God gave us is the most accurate that we are able to comprehend? Yes.
The fundamental question is not where life came from but where the universe came from. Life is a subset of existence.
Beneficial is as beneficial does, Forrest.
Yes, a mutation causing adult lactase production is a beneficial trait, increasing genetic fitness by increasing nutrition, decreasing malnutrition throughout breeding ages.
Yes, it will also have the negative cause of a higher fat diet, higher body fat, and more heart attacks......LONG AFTER REPRODUCTION AGE. As in, they have limited negative affects on genetic fitness that are overshadowed by the increase in genetic fitness.......which is why the prevalence of the known mutations is increasing in the population. Breast cancer genes persist because they don't kill the individual until after they have kids. They REALLY persist in place liek Iceland because of the island effect....little genetic variability.
“Do I believe that they exist in some manner that we don’t fully understand and that the description of them as God gave us is the most accurate that we are able to comprehend? Yes.”
Can’t you make the same case for the bible’s description of “breathing life” into man, given that the people who existed on earth thousands of years ago were unable to comprehend God’s method of evolution?
Wow—I think we’re making progress! You’re beginning to understand allegory!
No, I don’t think it’s allegory. I think it’s actual *windows* (floodgates) of heaven but it’s better to use the definition than a Hebrew word that nobody can translate.
Words can define more than one thing, you know, and not be allegory.
How do we know, then, whether other such passages in the bible are translation issues or allegory?
Did you want to make it public? It’s fine w/ me, I thought I was doing you a favor keeping my insults private.
It certainly would be in character for you though since it adds nothing constructive to FR threads.
Ummm it’s really not judging when you simply point out scriptures that indicate some people will fool even themselves and only God and the believer know if the truth is sincere and secure in your heart. With others we’re simply told to see what kind of fruit they bear, but even that imho can be mis-leading sometimes.
When you think someone is ‘judging’ try to think if they are actually handing down some punishment for you and if it is binding.
By all means! Please entertain us all!
“It certainly would be in character for you though since it adds nothing constructive to FR threads.”
One more clarification for you: “constructive” is not synonymous with “supports BrandtMichaels weak arguments”.
No to what? You say no to an incomplete and out-of-context back quote. You then make an allegation you cant factually support. But, thats what Trolls do: cast aspersions and deny, deny, deny.
Thanks for the additional examples. I will wait and see if science eventually finds these mutations also cause problems rather than improving the DNA code.
Also your tagline says it and you often mention it:
“where dinosaurs live in the time of Man”
This is not a problem for me, too bad it seems to be a stumbling block for you. Are you not aware that since the fall, mankind has and still does survive in spite of meat-eating animals [some are even bigger than us] and poisonous plants? Surely you are b/c even though some do become victims, mankind continues to use his brain to make his family and community safer.
It’s not just a case of being faster than the others being preyed upon, but it’s also the case that we are simply not the favorite food of these man-eating animals and most of the time they show a natural fear of man, hence our God given dominion. They only lose this fear when someone ignoramus thinks they can befriend them, and/or in the extremes of starvation. I’m sure you knew all that in spite of your tagline though.
Are you really as dense as you seem to be?
And that very specific quote was not referenced in my post to you. I specifically referenced a different quote in your post, Anyway, no sane biologist/biochemist would confuse origins of life with evolution of species, and directed your attention to that. You ducked, pretending it never happened (speaking of just a little intellectual integrity to discuss with a minimum of honesty).
But . . . if thats the best you can do . . .
A Troll you are. A Troll doing what a Troll does. Doing Troll is Troll.
Jesus gives us criteria by which to determine if someone is a follower of His.
We are commanded in other places in Scripture to test the spirits to see if they are from God and to compare doctrine to the apostle’s teachings to see if it’s from God.
Believers are not to simply believe everyone who comes along and claims to be from God.
But that is not judging in the condemning sort of way. That’s Christ’s job and He will do it.
But there’s no other way to point out error and warn people that they are on the wrong path than to point out error. If they don’t want to hear it and shut down debate by accusing the other person of *judging*, then so be it. That’s their choice.
But recognizing and pointing out that something doesn’t line up with Scripture is necessary, otherwise there would be no way for people on the wrong path to find out.
Not telling them that they are in error compared to the Bible is not doing them any favors.
I thought you got a little rough on me there but I’ll explain. That book was the inspiration for Sanger (abortion), Hitler (the master race), and the eugenicists who sought to build a better human being by removing as much as possible members of undesirable ethnic groups, the congenitally disabled and those of low intellectual ability from the gene pool.
There’s a philosophy wrapped around the science in that book.
I thought folks would get my meaning when I compared it to a recipe book.
I do not dispute all modern biological teaching or call for it to be replaced by the teaching of Creationism or Intelligent Design. But, like Einstein, I think science might be about figuring how God did it.
Best wishes, nice to meet you.
Ducked? No, sir. I supported my “no sane biologist...” claim with a particular excerpt from the UBerkeley page (initially used as evidence by YOUR side) that clearly states that they consider the existence of self-replicating systems mandatory for natural selection to occur. CONTRARY to the initial metmom’s claims, contrary to the reason for GGG to initiate this thread, and contrary to your current spinning and twisting the truth.