flip wrote:The only problem with that bit of crap Ferno, is that so far there is NO beneficial mutation ever been documented. All known mutations so far have been destructive. Anyways my fun is over.
In order for a beneficial mutation to reveal itself, there has to be some sort of stress or force for natural selection on the target population. Meaning there has to be something that will kill you before you can reproduce if you don't have this mutation. Natural selection and evolution work not by selecting and advancing "good" genes, but by making "bad" ones go extinct.
Developing an immunity is not equivalent to evolving into another species. Charles Darwin himself said if his own theory were true, you should see numberless, countless, many, transitional stages in the fossil record. Which we do not. In the post above that I quotemined, the scientist that wrote that states we do see those kind of mutations, but only in tightly controlled situations and environments, with some benefits but also other far worse repercussions. Also, nothing naturally occurring. Immunity does not mean evolution, it means adaptation. Evolution is a genetic mutation that results in something entirely different than the original, which we have no evidence for. Might still be true, but I, like Darwin himself, withhold judgment until something conclusive presents itself. Which hasn't to this point.
Examples include e.coli adapting to higher and lower temperatures, adaptation to a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment by a Clonal Line of Yeast, and evidence of genetic divergence and beneficial mutations in bacteria after 10,000 generations.
However, although this mutation increased fitness under these conditions, it also increased the bacteria's sensitivity to osmotic stress and decreased their ability to survive long periods in stationary phase cultures
Beggars can't be choosers, you either take what comes with the resistance or you go extinct entirely. Sure they are less adept at surviving various scenarios, but they can survive something that is absolutely fatal to a strain without the mutation. Saying \"but they aren't as good at surviving in the wild compared to normal strains\" is like saying you would rather die from gangrene than amputate the offending limb.
Just because it has bad side effects does not mean it is not an evolutionary advantage.
Again, you didn't use the entire quote; but only used the part that was beneficial to YOU.
Heretic wrote:
However, although this mutation increased fitness under these conditions, it also increased the bacteria's sensitivity to osmotic stress and decreased their ability to survive long periods in stationary phase cultures
So are you done yet.
The last part of the quote is important to all this.
it also increased the bacteria's sensitivity to osmotic stress and decreased their ability to survive long periods in stationary phase cultures, so the phenotype of this adaptation depends on the environment of the cells.
The facts remain though. The only adaptations they've been able to show so far are in strictly controlled lab experiments. With the results always being the same. Introduce said virus or bacteria into a hostile environment, it supposedly mutates to survive hostile environment and then from that point on cannot survive when reintroduced into a normal environment. I wonder why they can mutate forward to survive but then not mutate again to continue surviving? These so-called mutations could be no more than scars as we would have from a burn maybe.
Won't happen in a million years. Big/unstressed populations don't change, why do you think roaches, crocodiles and sharks have been around unchanged for so ridiculously long?
Now it won't happen? Isn't the climate change going to stress the population of humans? Which should result in mutation to adapt to the changing climate. Is your mutation theory correct or not?
flip wrote:Introduce said virus or bacteria into a hostile environment, it supposedly mutates to survive hostile environment and then from that point on cannot survive when reintroduced into a normal environment.
You're saying that e. coli's mutations to survive in citric acid are unremarkable because "normally" e. coli doesn't try to live in citric acid? I disagree--I think that makes them even more remarkable.
You've pointed out that the change was a tradeoff, that to be better at surviving in citric acid, they had to be worse at surviving in other things. No one is denying that. Any change is a tradeoff. If you move to a colder place and evolve thicker fur, then you'll be more fit in colder environments. But you think that this shouldn't count because if we made you go back to a warmer environment you'd be less fit? Who cares?
The fitness of a species is a function of your environment. There's no way to say that one species is more fit than another in a vacuum. Your notion of a "normal" environment is vacuous. There's only one environment--the environment you're in.
Heretic wrote:Why do 6.7 billion people have the same Mitochondria DNA from one woman in Africa and All men have Y chromosomes from one man?
All it takes to end your matriline (or patriline) is to have all boys (or all girls). So this isn't saying that we aren't also related to other women contemporary to Mitochondrial Eve, just that at some point they had all boys.
I thought when man evolved a large brain, that was pretty much the end of the need to adapt to the environment, because we now adapt the environment to us. (for the most part)
Not to say that man won’t continue to evolve. But the ability to survive from here on out will probably be mental.
I'm thinking a more correct way of looking at the outcome would be this Jeff. Although the citric acid bath wasn't immediately fatal to the E-Coli it was definitely wounded by it and decreased it's chances of long term survival.
Now it won't happen? Isn't the climate change going to stress the population of humans? Which should result in mutation to adapt to the changing climate. Is your mutation theory correct or not?
If the climate were a factor, we would have already produced a full body of hair via the last ice age. Here's the deal you were born naked and hairless just like a mouse. Now explain to me why you DON'T have hair!
Don't give me that it's because we invented fire and clothes crap.
Simple FACT of the matter, we are not mice, we are MAN!
It's never good to wake up in the shrubs naked, you either got way too drunk, or your azz is a werewolf.
We wear clothes, that is also part of our environment. If we hadn't worn clothes, then we probably would have gone extinct outright, or grown fur / mutated by other means to tolerate cold and survive.
Because we wear clothes to keep warm, growing fur doesn't provide a significant advantage to passing on genes so we remain hairless. Things stay the same unless natural selection provides a reason not to. Evolution is not random or accidental, it is about as deliberate as something can be.
So environmental changes caused a split from chimps 4 million years. Then around 200,000 years ago homosapien evolved but instead of evolving with fur or other means of survival, due to the environment, we started wearing clothes to adapt. Now that we are wearing clothes the environment will not cause homosapien to split into 2 different species which evolution states should happen. After all evolution is an on going process and you can see it happening right now.
There is no reason to expect that humans will continue evolving at present, the population is too large and too stable for it to really change. Mutations just get diluted back into nothing because of the mixing population rather than turning into anything significant.
Of course the inbreeding redneck hicks all over America could isolate themselves enough to cause a split to happen... ya never know.
Krom wrote:..Of course the inbreeding redneck hicks all over America could isolate themselves enough to cause a split to happen... ya never know.
I'm thinking there is evidence of a similar scenario has already begun playing out, in that, a lot of people out in Berkeley Ca. area are so voluntarily cut off from reality that they are evolving into host type life forms that shelter parasites that suck the life out of humans.
Human diseases associated with genetic mutations are being found more and more. So according to evolution humans are still evolving. Except now they are calling mutations diseases instead of evolution.
So why now do you believe there is no reason humans to evolve futher and split?
Can mutations produce real evolutionary changes? Don’t make any mistakes here. Mutations are real; they’re something we observe; they do make changes in traits. But the question remains: do they produce evolutionary changes? Do they really produce new traits? Do they really help to explain that postulated change from molecules to man, or fish to philosopher?
The answer seems to be: “Mutations, yes. Evolution, no.” In the last analysis,mutations really don’t help evolutionary theory at all. There are three major problems or limits (and many minor ones) that prevent scientific extrapolation from mutational change to evolutionary change.
(1) Mathematical challenges. Problem number one is the mathematical. I won’t dwell on this one, because it’s written up in many books and widely acknowledged by evolutionists themselves as a serious problem for their theory.
Fortunately, mutations are very rare. They occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule (107, a one followed by seven zeroes). That’s fairly rare. On the other hand, it’s not that rare. Our bodies contain nearly 100 trillion cells (1014). So the odds are quite good that we have a couple of cells with a mutated form of almost any gene. A test tube can hold millions of bacteria, so, again, the odds are quite good that there will be mutant forms among them.
The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: one in 107 x 107, or 1014. That’s a one followed by 14 zeroes, a hundred trillion! Any two mutations might produce no more than a fly with a wavy edge on a bent wing. That’s a long way from producing a truly new structure, and certainly a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organism. You need more mutations for that. So, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? That’s one in a billion trillion (1021). Suddenly, the ocean isn’t big enough to hold enough bacteria to make it likely for you to find a bacterium with three simultaneous or sequential related mutations.
You know why they used E.coli bacteria for a lot of these tests? Its because a single E.coli can grow and split in two in about twenty minutes under optimal conditions, which means after starting with one it takes about three and a half hours to reach a million of them. The growth curve is exponential. So whats the big deal? You say 10^14 is big right? Well in powers of two its closest to 2^47 (140 trillion). Now lets figure out copies of their DNA they could perform in about the time life has been on earth. That's 20 minutes per generation which is 72 generations per day times 365 days in a year times two billion years. Assuming each generation is a even split the number of times that the DNA would have been copied would be 2^52560000000000 (a number so astronomical it is truly absurd, good luck calculating it).
Honestly I have no idea which way your goin Spidey. Is what is wrote in that quote wrong or not? I find it just as amusing that people accept the THEORY of evolution as true when even real evolutionist scientist don't. Prove it flatlander, other wise I'm keeping my options open. There were also more reasons made on that site but Krom uses just the one and then comes up with an ingenious way to convolute it without even really seriously considering what was said . Touche internet ninja. Well done. Fact is, evolution is just theoretical science 150 years after it's authored with very little still to substantiate it. That's the only thing I've claimed so far and no one can dispute it. All I hear is \"mutations, mutations, mutations\" lol it's laughable. At least there is still doubt in the minds of real evolutionary scientists who at least admit it's unsubstantiated to this point. You guys act like it's canon or something and then offer nothing to back it up. Poo Poo on science and accept astronomical odds is what you guys are doing. I'm just questioning the likeliness of it and pointing out that it is nowhere proven.
flip wrote: Fact is, evolution is just theoretical science ...
um, yeah, and gravity is a theory too ... and I count on it every time I take a step.
The problem with all of your AiG probability arguments, flip, is that evolution is not random. Mutations, yeah, those are random, but natural selection is the very opposite of random.
Your and Heretic's posts are shot through with misconceptions about evolutionary theory that you then attempt to harpoon, except that you're no longer near the actual target. If you want to find out what evolutionary theory actually says, don't waste your time trying to find out about it on AiG.
flip wrote:Honestly I have no idea which way your goin Spidey. Is what is wrote in that quote wrong or not? I find it just as amusing that people accept the THEORY of evolution as true when even real evolutionist scientist don't. Prove it flatlander, other wise I'm keeping my options open. There were also more reasons made on that site but Krom uses just the one and then comes up with an ingenious way to convolute it without even really seriously considering what was said . Touche internet ninja. Well done. Fact is, evolution is just theoretical science 150 years after it's authored with very little still to substantiate it. That's the only thing I've claimed so far and no one can dispute it. All I hear is "mutations, mutations, mutations" lol it's laughable. At least there is still doubt in the minds of real evolutionary scientists who at least admit it's unsubstantiated to this point. You guys act like it's canon or something and then offer nothing to back it up. Poo Poo on science and accept astronomical odds is what you guys are doing. I'm just questioning the likeliness of it and pointing out that it is nowhere proven.
What's the point? It's obvious that nothing I post about it is going to change your mind. Go read a book about it or something. I could care less if evolution is an accepted scientific theory or not. If tomorrow it was disproven (say, by finding an authentic fossil of a modern animal in ancient strata), I wouldn't cry or lose any sleep over it. Scientists would discard or modify the theory or come up with a new one to better fit their observations.
You and Heretic are the ones that seem to be so bent on not believing an accepted scientific theory - why is that?
Eh, I didn't even realize the name of that sight until I put the url tag around it, but as soon as I noticed it I knew it would make a great diversion. Bah at me for being lazy and not finding the very same thing on a different site not having an agenda. My fault for not looking ahead.
Evolution teaches that in the beginning, inanimate matter, through countless combinations and a great deal of time, arrived at the present highly complex forms of life found on the earth. Let's see what the experts have to say:
...anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cube faces at random. Now imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously [emphasis original] arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the earth is evidently nonsense of the highest order.
This quote was from Sir Fred Hoyle, an honorary research professor at Manchester University and University College Cardiff. He was a University lecturer in Mathematics at Cambridge. He is a well known and well respected scientist. Chance development of life on earth, in his opinion, is \"nonsense of the highest order.\"
Here's one from somebody just being honest about the odds. I hope. Let me say this too. Everyone here knows I believe in God, and everyone here should also know that I don't pressure anyone else to believe the way I do. I honestly don't care and don't claim to have those powers of persuasion. I approached this whole debate without one reference to God and only questioning some of the claims of evolution and it's likeliness as a free thinking individual. I understand the theory and the concepts and remain unconvinced. Gravity, pfft not even in the same category as a theory. It maybe be a theory still but its demonstrable in many ways so holds alot more validity than the morphing of creatures from slime which has nothing but conjecture and faith to back it up. Don't believe in God , what do I care, but damnit at least hold a true weight in your beliefs towards what's unprovable. They both deserve the same skepticism.
Maybe I don't believe because of the blind faith others put in to the scientific theory of evolution and the total disregard any evidence to the contrary. Like Flatlander says nothing he can say will change my mind just as nothing I can say will change yours. Fact remains that scientist on both sides of this theory disregard any evidence that don't fit their theories.
flip wrote:Evolution teaches that in the beginning, inanimate matter ...
um, wrong. theories of abiogenesis and evolution are entirely separate items.
... , through countless combinations and a great deal of time, arrived at the present highly complex forms of life found on the earth. Let's see what the experts have to say:
...anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cube faces at random. Now imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously [emphasis original] arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the earth is evidently nonsense of the highest order.
This quote was from Sir Fred Hoyle, an honorary research professor at Manchester University and University College Cardiff. He was a University lecturer in Mathematics at Cambridge. He is a well known and well respected scientist. Chance development of life on earth, in his opinion, is "nonsense of the highest order."
Fred Hoyle - good astronomer; lousy biologist.
Here's one from somebody just being honest about the odds. I hope. Let me say this too. Everyone here knows I believe in God,
me too.
... and everyone here should also know that I don't pressure anyone else to believe the way I do. I honestly don't care and don't claim to have those powers of persuasion. I approached this whole debate without one reference to God and only questioning some of the claims of evolution and it's likeliness as a free thinking individual. I understand the theory and the concepts and remain unconvinced. Gravity, pfft not even in the same category as a theory. It maybe be a theory still but its demonstrable in many ways so holds alot more validity than the morphing of creatures from slime which has nothing but conjecture and faith to back it up. Don't believe in God , what do I care, but damnit at least hold a true weight in your beliefs towards what's unprovable. They both deserve the same skepticism.
sorry flip, but I just don't believe that you understand evolution very well at all. The very fact that you can make a statement like "alot more validity than the morphing of creatures from slime" makes me suspect that you have a lot of mistaken notions. There's a lot of good contemporary reading on the topic that doesn't require a Ph.D. Don't care to read Dawkins; hey, try Ken Miller.
Hmm ok maybe I don't understand evolution so let me just state what i think has been presented then you can point me in the right direction.
At one time there was nothingness. The a huge explosion called the Big Bang happened and created the Universe and all it's elements. There was obviously no life at this point. Over a period of time, certain mutations happened to inanimate matter. I can't reconcile Big Bang to instantly creating biological life but maybe I'm wrong there, but at some point in time from that explosion what we know as life begins to exist. Over a large portion of time, these lifeforms that came from somewhere, chemical reactions whatever I don't know, began mutating into more complicated structures. As time goes by these mutations keep occurring, creating more and more advanced forms of life.
I'll stop right there as this is my understanding of the very beginning of things. Where at this point have I strayed? This is what I understand is being taught or does the Big Bang theory not co-exist with the theory of Evolution? If you agree with me so far as to that's the general accepted idea then I'll continue explaining my understanding of what's being taught.
