Dr Collins, top geneticist, and CHRISTIAN....

[Youwerecreated]

And your friend WIKI seems to think there is a loss:

"But when selection is weak, mutation bias towards loss of function can affect evolution. For example, pigments are no longer useful when animals live in the darkness of caves, and tend to be lost.[123] This kind of loss of function can occur because of mutation bias, and/or because the function had a cost, and once the benefit of the function disappeared, natural selection leads to the loss. "
Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah ha, is that not what i have been saying Allie ?

 

[AllieBaba]

Live by the wiki, die by the wiki!

 

[Youwerecreated]

I wonder why he didn't ever argue that a mutation don't lose information .all mutations are the result of a loss or rearranged information. That is why spetner felt that some mutations that was just rearranged was new information. Same case we saw with the fruit flies,it was not new information it was rearranged information. The result was still a fruit fly.

Ok it's not fair if i don't answer the questions for you but you will probably kick yourself because it was the most obvious test covering what we are speaking of.

1.Because fast gestation period

2. X-rays

3. 400

4. 12 24 hour periods

5. 0

6. They were all weakened in some kind of way

7. They died off

 

[Youwerecreated]

Live by the wiki, die by the wiki!

I got stung by it appears today.

 

[cbirch2]

I thought macro evolution was the gain of new and beneficial information ? How does a loss of information cause macro evolution ?

Lol you have absolutely no evidence that evolution results in the loss of information. Any given mutation may be a loss, gain, or variation of information, but that says nothing about the gene pool as a whole.

There you go contradicting yourself again..."you have no evidence that evolution results in the loss of information" "Any given mutation may be a loss...of information".

What the hell do you mean?

There is no evidence that there is loss of information...but mutations may be a loss of information....

How schizo can you get?

Dude you should read the whole post tard.

"Any given mutation may be a loss, gain, or variation of information, but that says nothing about the gene pool as a whole."

Wow your stupid. stop trying to look cool it doesnt work.

 

[cbirch2]

And your friend WIKI seems to think there is a loss:

"But when selection is weak, mutation bias towards loss of function can affect evolution. For example, pigments are no longer useful when animals live in the darkness of caves, and tend to be lost.[123] This kind of loss of function can occur because of mutation bias, and/or because the function had a cost, and once the benefit of the function disappeared, natural selection leads to the loss. "
Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You really dont get what im saying. Any given mutation can be addition or loss of information. That doesnt mean the process of evolution as a whole always tends towards a loss of information, like YWC likes to claim. No one is claiming evolution cant result in the loss of information occasionally.

 

[cbirch2]

I wonder why he didn't ever argue that a mutation don't lose information .all mutations are the result of a loss or rearranged information. That is why spetner felt that some mutations that was just rearranged was new information. Same case we saw with the fruit flies,it was not new information it was rearranged information. The result was still a fruit fly.

Ok it's not fair if i don't answer the questions for you but you will probably kick yourself because it was the most obvious test covering what we are speaking of.

1.Because fast gestation period

2. X-rays

3. 400

4. 12 24 hour periods

5. 0

6. They were all weakened in some kind of way

7. They died off

....aaaannnnndddd point?

Im still curious what you have to say about how our ancestors had 48 chromosomes.

 

[cbirch2]

I wonder why he didn't ever argue that a mutation don't lose information .all mutations are the result of a loss or rearranged information. That is why spetner felt that some mutations that was just rearranged was new information. Same case we saw with the fruit flies,it was not new information it was rearranged information. The result was still a fruit fly.

Ok it's not fair if i don't answer the questions for you but you will probably kick yourself because it was the most obvious test covering what we are speaking of.

1.Because fast gestation period

2. X-rays

3. 400

4. 12 24 hour periods

5. 0

6. They were all weakened in some kind of way

7. They died off

Xrays are ionizing radiation. They arent going to substitute a meaningful base pair like natural evolution will. They will rip electrons off the nucleotide and make that codon meaningless garbage. Thats why they died. This isnt fucking spiderman or some shit. Ionizing radiation has no potential to be beneficial. Have you ever heard of someone benefiting from an overdose of xray radiation? No, they get cancer and die.

 

[AllieBaba]

Their genes can potentially mutate..evolution in action!!

 

[cbirch2]

Their genes can potentially mutate..evolution in action!!

Chromosome 2

 

[Youwerecreated]

I wonder why he didn't ever argue that a mutation don't lose information .all mutations are the result of a loss or rearranged information. That is why spetner felt that some mutations that was just rearranged was new information. Same case we saw with the fruit flies,it was not new information it was rearranged information. The result was still a fruit fly.

Ok it's not fair if i don't answer the questions for you but you will probably kick yourself because it was the most obvious test covering what we are speaking of.

1.Because fast gestation period

2. X-rays

3. 400

4. 12 24 hour periods

5. 0

6. They were all weakened in some kind of way

7. They died off

Xrays are ionizing radiation. They arent going to substitute a meaningful base pair like natural evolution will. They will rip electrons off the nucleotide and make that codon meaningless garbage. Thats why they died. This isnt fucking spiderman or some shit. Ionizing radiation has no potential to be beneficial. Have you ever heard of someone benefiting from an overdose of xray radiation? No, they get cancer and die.

You're one rude arrogant little guy. Why are you like this ? I point something out to you and you have the nerve to come in here and act like you knew this information all along.

For your information natural mutations were observed as well,guess what ? they died prematurely as well. So much for your rebuttal. And there were other tests done guess what same results. These other tests were done with chemical substances that were administered with sperm baths and vaginal douches.

For your theory that you contradicted yourself with yesterday when you said that evolution can come from a loss of genetic information. For this theory to work you have to have more beneficial mutations then negative mutations. The only beneficial mutation i have ever heard of is that bacteria that resulted from a mutation built up antibiotic resistant,but that really wasn't a beneficial mutation because once the antibiotics were removed the bacteria didn't do so well.

So can you point to a beneficial mutation that i'm not aware of ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

To add cbirch, when i said they were all weakend,They were weakened by all the mutations observed. They didn't just die off most of them suffered from deformity in some way. Examples,extra pair of wings that get in the way of the normal set. Antennas in the wrong place or damaged. They were blind. missing body parts. so on and so on.

Most mutations cause deformity or disease,that is the evidence observed. They prove to be harmful to organisms not beneficial. It's absurd to believe that beneficial mutations can flourish enough to cause macro evolution.

Think this over,how can one organism evolve from another organism where the information contained in chromosomes for both organisms is so vastly different ? don't forget the mutation rate dilemma and the fact that most mutations result in defective genes.

 

[cbirch2]

I wonder why he didn't ever argue that a mutation don't lose information .all mutations are the result of a loss or rearranged information. That is why spetner felt that some mutations that was just rearranged was new information. Same case we saw with the fruit flies,it was not new information it was rearranged information. The result was still a fruit fly.

Ok it's not fair if i don't answer the questions for you but you will probably kick yourself because it was the most obvious test covering what we are speaking of.

1.Because fast gestation period

2. X-rays

3. 400

4. 12 24 hour periods

5. 0

6. They were all weakened in some kind of way

7. They died off

Xrays are ionizing radiation. They arent going to substitute a meaningful base pair like natural evolution will. They will rip electrons off the nucleotide and make that codon meaningless garbage. Thats why they died. This isnt fucking spiderman or some shit. Ionizing radiation has no potential to be beneficial. Have you ever heard of someone benefiting from an overdose of xray radiation? No, they get cancer and die.

You're one rude arrogant little guy. Why are you like this ? I point something out to you and you have the nerve to come in here and act like you knew this information all along.

For your information natural mutations were observed as well,guess what ? they died prematurely as well. So much for your rebuttal. And there were other tests done guess what same results. These other tests were done with chemical substances that were administered with sperm baths and vaginal douches.

For your theory that you contradicted yourself with yesterday when you said that evolution can come from a loss of genetic information. For this theory to work you have to have more beneficial mutations then negative mutations. The only beneficial mutation i have ever heard of is that bacteria that resulted from a mutation built up antibiotic resistant,but that really wasn't a beneficial mutation because once the antibiotics were removed the bacteria didn't do so well.

So can you point to a beneficial mutation that i'm not aware of ?

Are you fucking serious? I talk down to you because your an ignorant little fuck that has no idea whats going on.

I didnt contradict myself yesterday. I said any single mutation can result in a loss or gain of mutation, and that that says nothing about the process of evolution as a whole. your just too stupid to understand that very simple concept.

Are you seriously this fucking stupid? You want me to point out a beneficial mutation? I have like 5 times already you retard cant you read. What about penicillin resistant bacteria. Thats a beneficial mutation. God your fucking stupid. Your saying beneficial mutations are impossible by quoting Dr spetner, even after ive shown you proof that he knows some beneficial mutations are possible. How dont you get this?

Tell me again how chromosome two isnt fused. lol retard.

 

[cbirch2]

And you claim that natural mutations caused deaths too but you have no fucking idea and thats purely speculation. Natural mutations occur by the hundreds every time a cell replicates. Meaning every single one of those fruitflies contained thousands of single nucleotide mutations and those researchers could not have possibly accounted for even a small fraction of those natural mutations. Only the x ray induced mutations was counted as mutations, hence all mutations were damaging. Simple fucking concept.

 

[cbirch2]

To add cbirch, when i said they were all weakend,They were weakened by all the mutations observed. They didn't just die off most of them suffered from deformity in some way. Examples,extra pair of wings that get in the way of the normal set. Antennas in the wrong place or damaged. They were blind. missing body parts. so on and so on.

Most mutations cause deformity or disease,that is the evidence observed. They prove to be harmful to organisms not beneficial. It's absurd to believe that beneficial mutations can flourish enough to cause macro evolution.

Think this over,how can one organism evolve from another organism where the information contained in chromosomes for both organisms is so vastly different ? don't forget the mutation rate dilemma and the fact that most mutations result in defective genes.

Not all mutations are caused by defective genes you fucking retard. Any time three base pairs is inserted into a gene sequence that constitutes an addition of information. If the number of base pairs between two stop codons is divisible by three that segment will code for a valid protein. The addition of just three base pairs provides an addition full codon, that codons codes for one additional amino acid to be added to the protein, and that protein gains a new function. Thats the addition of information. Even substitution of one nucleotide for another codes for an entirely new amino acid and therefore an altered protein. That is how diversifications spread. Darwins finches evolved from slight variations in how the protein BMP4 was expressed from island to island. Different expression of that same protein caused different skeletal formation significant enough to constitute new species, mainly in reference to the beak. Im not going to debate you if you dont know the simple basics of fucking genetics. Come back when you know what a chromosome is fool.

 

[Dr.Drock]

CB I agree with pretty much everything you've said, and I understand you're frustrated but you could be a little, well a lot, more civil with YWC.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Everyone saw your contradiction . So what that bacteria became penicillin resistant and excuse my blunder how is it a benefit when the penicillin is removed ? Oh by the way you did not get one question right on your quiz yesterday genius. I would be careful who you call stupid . You got schooled yesterday and to dumb to realize it. We are in things way over your head. Notice how none of the others ate coming to your aid. Because they saw my argument was correct. You go ahead think what you like but you demonstrated nothing except you know a little biology. If you think you learn enough about genetics from just biology,you are in for a tough road. The only thing you had going for you was the #2 chromosome but that don't really matter if you look at the dilemma I presented.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Cbirch,just for giggles you list all the beneficial mutations and I will list all the bad mutations and let's just see whose theory stands up to the evidence..

 

[Dr.Drock]

Cbirch,just for giggles you list all the beneficial mutations and I will list all the bad mutations and let's just see whose theory stands up to the evidence..

CB has already stated the effect of mutations is random, whether it's benefical, harmful or neutral.

Most are neutral.

Are Mutations Harmful?

Q: Doesn't evolution depend on mutations and aren't most mutations harmful?
A: No. Most mutations are neither harmful nor helpful.

That's the short answer. The long answer is that mutations can be neutral (neither helpful nor harmful), strictly harmful, strictly helpful, or (and this is important) whether they are harmful or helpful depends on the environment. Most mutations are either neutral or their effect depends on the environment. Let's look at an example of a mutation which may be harmful or helpful, depending upon circumstances.

English peppered moths come in two varieties, light and dark. Before the industrial revolution dark moths were very rare. During the worst years of the industrial revolution when the air was very sooty dark moths became quite common. In recent years, since the major efforts to improve air quality, the light moths are replacing the dark moths. A famous paper by H.B.D. Kettlewell proposed the following explanation for this phenomenon:

Birds eat the kind of moth they can see the best.

In England before the Industrial Revolution trees are often covered with light colored lichens. As a result light moths were favored because they were hard to see on the bark of trees whereas the dark moths were easy to see; birds ate the dark moths. During the worst years of the Industrial Revolution the air was very sooty so tree bark was dark because of soot. Dark moths were hard to see whereas the light moths were easy to see; birds ate the light moths. As a result the dark moths became common and the light moths became rare.

 

[cbirch2]

Everyone saw your contradiction . So what that bacteria became penicillin resistant and excuse my blunder how is it a benefit when the penicillin is removed ? Oh by the way you did not get one question right on your quiz yesterday genius. I would be careful who you call stupid . You got schooled yesterday and to dumb to realize it. We are in things way over your head. Notice how none of the others ate coming to your aid. Because they saw my argument was correct. You go ahead think what you like but you demonstrated nothing except you know a little biology. If you think you learn enough about genetics from just biology,you are in for a tough road. The only thing you had going for you was the #2 chromosome but that don't really matter if you look at the dilemma I presented.

"So what that bacteria became penicillin resistant and excuse my blunder how is it a benefit when the penicillin is removed?"

Wow. You dont even know what penicillin is. Holy shit. Penicillin is the antibiotic we use to kill bacteria. Its not something native to the bacteria themselves; its not being "removed" from the bacteria. The bacteria become resistant to penicillin and it no longer has any effect on them. How can you not understand how thats beneficial? Isnt not dying pretty fucking beneficial?

Im still wondering what contradiction your talking about? The one where i specifically said that it doesnt cause a loss in information for the entire gene pool? Because thats not a contradiction. Loss of information in one organism has nothing to do with the gene pool as a whole. Thats exactly what i said. Just because your too stupid to understand it doesnt mean i contradicted myself. It just means your stupid.

I really cant believe what i just read. You really dont know what penicillin is. I cant believe im trying to have an educated discussion about speciation and segments of nucleotides in a DNA sequence, and you cant comprehend something as simple as "penicillin kills bacteria." Holy shit....