‘Living fossil’ rediscovered in Pacific Ocean after 273 million years

Evolution: it's an inexorable that forces creatures to adapt and improve,

Actually, it doesn't force anything. Genetic mutation occur in offspring that doesn't affect in any way the parents. The parents of the mutation continue on, having children just like themselves that will survive, or not, based on local conditions.
There’s no such thing as a mutation that’s beneficial.
No such thing as a beneficial mutation?

Good gawd, man.



Claim CB101:​

Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.

Source:​

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.

Response:​

  1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

    The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

  2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
    • Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
    • Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
    • Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
    • A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
    • Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
    • In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
  3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).




There’s no such thing as a ‘new gene’.
Something in a living creature having something become dominant is still working with the same pot.
Is that along the same, phony claim, “there are no beneficial mutations”?
Name one beneficial mutation.
One.

And not just a gene becoming dominant. A NEW gene.
Good gawd, man.


Recently, we learned of an instance of the de novo origination of a new protein-coding gene in yeasts. This instance involved a mechanism or pathway that seems difficult to some, namely the random appearance of an open reading frame in an otherwise noncoding segment of DNA via judicious appearance of translation start and stop codons. The question naturally arises as to the relevance of such a pathway to real-life biology; was/is this a rather rare event that doesn’t really contribute to protein evolution, or is it a common means by which the protein-coding capacity of a genome is augmented?
Discovering something that has existed is not evolution.
 
The fact there are hundreds of thousands of species that have not changed over millions of years tosses the racist Darwin out the window.

Actually, it doesn't. Mutations are random and only affect the offspring. The parents of the mutation, and all of their other offspring remain unchanged. Only the offspring of the original mutation pass on the new traits.
There’s no such thing as a mutation that is beneficial……
Except for the mutations that are beneficial.
Like?
 
please explain why over 90% of species that have lived on this planet are now extinct
So that disproves the existence of a creator?
I'd say it disproves the story of Genesis as being historical.
In your dreams.
The fact there are hundreds of thousands of species that have not changed over millions of years tosses the racist Darwin out the window.
No it doesn't, it just shows how effective evolution is in creating species adapted to their environment.

So how does the fact that there were no dinos, then there were, and now they're gone square with Genesis?
 
The fact there are hundreds of thousands of species that have not changed over millions of years tosses the racist Darwin out the window.

Actually, it doesn't. Mutations are random and only affect the offspring. The parents of the mutation, and all of their other offspring remain unchanged. Only the offspring of the original mutation pass on the new traits.
There’s no such thing as a mutation that is beneficial……
Except for the mutations that are beneficial.
Like?
Like what I provided for you in post 84.

Pretending the data doesn’t exist in spite of the data existing doesn’t make the data go away.
 
Evolution: it's an inexorable that forces creatures to adapt and improve,

Actually, it doesn't force anything. Genetic mutation occur in offspring that doesn't affect in any way the parents. The parents of the mutation continue on, having children just like themselves that will survive, or not, based on local conditions.
There’s no such thing as a mutation that’s beneficial.
No such thing as a beneficial mutation?

Good gawd, man.



Claim CB101:​

Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.

Source:​

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.

Response:​

  1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

    The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

  2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
    • Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
    • Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
    • Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
    • A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
    • Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
    • In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
  3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).




There’s no such thing as a ‘new gene’.
Something in a living creature having something become dominant is still working with the same pot.
Is that along the same, phony claim, “there are no beneficial mutations”?
Name one beneficial mutation.
One.

And not just a gene becoming dominant. A NEW gene.
Good gawd, man.


Recently, we learned of an instance of the de novo origination of a new protein-coding gene in yeasts. This instance involved a mechanism or pathway that seems difficult to some, namely the random appearance of an open reading frame in an otherwise noncoding segment of DNA via judicious appearance of translation start and stop codons. The question naturally arises as to the relevance of such a pathway to real-life biology; was/is this a rather rare event that doesn’t really contribute to protein evolution, or is it a common means by which the protein-coding capacity of a genome is augmented?
Discovering something that has existed is not evolution.
Claiming there are “no new genes” when there are new genes is not rational, or even honest.
 
please explain why over 90% of species that have lived on this planet are now extinct
So that disproves the existence of a creator?
I'd say it disproves the story of Genesis as being historical.
In your dreams.
The fact there are hundreds of thousands of species that have not changed over millions of years tosses the racist Darwin out the window.
No it doesn't, it just shows how effective evolution is in creating species adapted to their environment.

So how does the fact that there were no dinos, then there were, and now they're gone square with Genesis?
Where do you get this stuff? Dinos existed then became extinct because they couldn’t adapt to the post flood climate.
 
The fact there are hundreds of thousands of species that have not changed over millions of years tosses the racist Darwin out the window.

Actually, it doesn't. Mutations are random and only affect the offspring. The parents of the mutation, and all of their other offspring remain unchanged. Only the offspring of the original mutation pass on the new traits.
There’s no such thing as a mutation that is beneficial……
Except for the mutations that are beneficial.
Like?
Like what I provided for you in post 84.

Pretending the data doesn’t exist in spite of the data existing doesn’t make the data go away.
Quote it then, I see nothing. Name the new gene.
 
please explain why over 90% of species that have lived on this planet are now extinct
So that disproves the existence of a creator?
I'd say it disproves the story of Genesis as being historical.
In your dreams.
The fact there are hundreds of thousands of species that have not changed over millions of years tosses the racist Darwin out the window.
No it doesn't, it just shows how effective evolution is in creating species adapted to their environment.

So how does the fact that there were no dinos, then there were, and now they're gone square with Genesis?
Where do you get this stuff? Dinos existed then became extinct because they couldn’t adapt to the post flood climate.
Somebody call security, please.
 
The fact there are hundreds of thousands of species that have not changed over millions of years tosses the racist Darwin out the window.

Actually, it doesn't. Mutations are random and only affect the offspring. The parents of the mutation, and all of their other offspring remain unchanged. Only the offspring of the original mutation pass on the new traits.
There’s no such thing as a mutation that is beneficial……
Except for the mutations that are beneficial.
Like?
Like what I provided for you in post 84.

Pretending the data doesn’t exist in spite of the data existing doesn’t make the data go away.
Quote it then, I see nothing. Name the new gene.
I did quote it and I gave you the link.
 
The fact there are hundreds of thousands of species that have not changed over millions of years tosses the racist Darwin out the window.

Actually, it doesn't. Mutations are random and only affect the offspring. The parents of the mutation, and all of their other offspring remain unchanged. Only the offspring of the original mutation pass on the new traits.
There’s no such thing as a mutation that is beneficial……
Except for the mutations that are beneficial.
Like?
Like what I provided for you in post 84.

Pretending the data doesn’t exist in spite of the data existing doesn’t make the data go away.
Quote it then, I see nothing. Name the new gene.
I did quote it and I gave you the link.
You copying and pasting things you don’t understand doesn’t name this new gene fantasy of your. You have no clue, that’s why you can’t quote.
 
The fact there are hundreds of thousands of species that have not changed over millions of years tosses the racist Darwin out the window.

Actually, it doesn't. Mutations are random and only affect the offspring. The parents of the mutation, and all of their other offspring remain unchanged. Only the offspring of the original mutation pass on the new traits.
There’s no such thing as a mutation that is beneficial……
Except for the mutations that are beneficial.
Like?
Like what I provided for you in post 84.

Pretending the data doesn’t exist in spite of the data existing doesn’t make the data go away.
Quote it then, I see nothing. Name the new gene.
I did quote it and I gave you the link.
You copying and pasting things you don’t understand doesn’t name this new gene fantasy of your. You have no clue, that’s why you can’t quote.
I see you’re lashing out because your fraudulent claims are refuted by the facts.
 
The fact there are hundreds of thousands of species that have not changed over millions of years tosses the racist Darwin out the window.

Actually, it doesn't. Mutations are random and only affect the offspring. The parents of the mutation, and all of their other offspring remain unchanged. Only the offspring of the original mutation pass on the new traits.
There’s no such thing as a mutation that is beneficial……
Except for the mutations that are beneficial.
Like?
Like what I provided for you in post 84.

Pretending the data doesn’t exist in spite of the data existing doesn’t make the data go away.
Quote it then, I see nothing. Name the new gene.
I did quote it and I gave you the link.
Let me help you. A black boy has blue eyes. It is not a mutation. It’s simply the ability - THAT ALL HUMANS HAVE - for the blue eyed gene to become dominant.
 
The fact there are hundreds of thousands of species that have not changed over millions of years tosses the racist Darwin out the window.

Actually, it doesn't. Mutations are random and only affect the offspring. The parents of the mutation, and all of their other offspring remain unchanged. Only the offspring of the original mutation pass on the new traits.
There’s no such thing as a mutation that is beneficial……
Except for the mutations that are beneficial.
Like?
Like what I provided for you in post 84.

Pretending the data doesn’t exist in spite of the data existing doesn’t make the data go away.
Quote it then, I see nothing. Name the new gene.
I did quote it and I gave you the link.
You copying and pasting things you don’t understand doesn’t name this new gene fantasy of your. You have no clue, that’s why you can’t quote.
I see you’re lashing out because your fraudulent claims are refuted by the facts.
Yeah, asking you to support your assertion I’d an assault to you.
 
The fact there are hundreds of thousands of species that have not changed over millions of years tosses the racist Darwin out the window.

Actually, it doesn't. Mutations are random and only affect the offspring. The parents of the mutation, and all of their other offspring remain unchanged. Only the offspring of the original mutation pass on the new traits.
There’s no such thing as a mutation that is beneficial……
Except for the mutations that are beneficial.
Like?
Like what I provided for you in post 84.

Pretending the data doesn’t exist in spite of the data existing doesn’t make the data go away.
Quote it then, I see nothing. Name the new gene.
I did quote it and I gave you the link.
Let me help you. A black boy has blue eyes. It is not a mutation. It’s simply the ability - THAT ALL HUMANS HAVE - for the blue eyed gene to become dominant.
Should I take this to mean that you acknowledge your earlier claim to be false and unsupported?
 
The fact there are hundreds of thousands of species that have not changed over millions of years tosses the racist Darwin out the window.

Actually, it doesn't. Mutations are random and only affect the offspring. The parents of the mutation, and all of their other offspring remain unchanged. Only the offspring of the original mutation pass on the new traits.
There’s no such thing as a mutation that is beneficial……
Except for the mutations that are beneficial.
Like?
Like what I provided for you in post 84.

Pretending the data doesn’t exist in spite of the data existing doesn’t make the data go away.
Quote it then, I see nothing. Name the new gene.
I did quote it and I gave you the link.
You copying and pasting things you don’t understand doesn’t name this new gene fantasy of your. You have no clue, that’s why you can’t quote.
I see you’re lashing out because your fraudulent claims are refuted by the facts.
Yeah, asking you to support your assertion I’d an assault to you.
I gave you links to the data. You hope to ignore it thinking it will go away.
 
The fact there are hundreds of thousands of species that have not changed over millions of years tosses the racist Darwin out the window.

Actually, it doesn't. Mutations are random and only affect the offspring. The parents of the mutation, and all of their other offspring remain unchanged. Only the offspring of the original mutation pass on the new traits.
There’s no such thing as a mutation that is beneficial……
Except for the mutations that are beneficial.
Like?
Like what I provided for you in post 84.

Pretending the data doesn’t exist in spite of the data existing doesn’t make the data go away.
Quote it then, I see nothing. Name the new gene.
I did quote it and I gave you the link.
You copying and pasting things you don’t understand doesn’t name this new gene fantasy of your. You have no clue, that’s why you can’t quote.
I see you’re lashing out because your fraudulent claims are refuted by the facts.
Yeah, asking you to support your assertion I’d an assault to you.
I gave you links to the data. You hope to ignore it thinking it will go away.
Your links say nothing about any new gene. An existing gene becoming dominant is not a mutation. It’s merely a black man with blue eyes.
 
The fact there are hundreds of thousands of species that have not changed over millions of years tosses the racist Darwin out the window.

Actually, it doesn't. Mutations are random and only affect the offspring. The parents of the mutation, and all of their other offspring remain unchanged. Only the offspring of the original mutation pass on the new traits.
There’s no such thing as a mutation that is beneficial……
Except for the mutations that are beneficial.
Like?
Like what I provided for you in post 84.

Pretending the data doesn’t exist in spite of the data existing doesn’t make the data go away.
Quote it then, I see nothing. Name the new gene.
I did quote it and I gave you the link.
You copying and pasting things you don’t understand doesn’t name this new gene fantasy of your. You have no clue, that’s why you can’t quote.
I see you’re lashing out because your fraudulent claims are refuted by the facts.
Yeah, asking you to support your assertion I’d an assault to you.
I gave you links to the data. You hope to ignore it thinking it will go away.
Your links say nothing about any new gene. An existing gene becoming dominant is not a mutation. It’s merely a black man with blue eyes.
That’s odd. The citation from the link is: “the de novo origination of a new protein-coding gene…”
 
The fact there are hundreds of thousands of species that have not changed over millions of years tosses the racist Darwin out the window.

Actually, it doesn't. Mutations are random and only affect the offspring. The parents of the mutation, and all of their other offspring remain unchanged. Only the offspring of the original mutation pass on the new traits.
There’s no such thing as a mutation that is beneficial……
Except for the mutations that are beneficial.
Like?
Like what I provided for you in post 84.

Pretending the data doesn’t exist in spite of the data existing doesn’t make the data go away.
Quote it then, I see nothing. Name the new gene.
I did quote it and I gave you the link.
You copying and pasting things you don’t understand doesn’t name this new gene fantasy of your. You have no clue, that’s why you can’t quote.
I see you’re lashing out because your fraudulent claims are refuted by the facts.
Yeah, asking you to support your assertion I’d an assault to you.
I gave you links to the data. You hope to ignore it thinking it will go away.
Your links say nothing about any new gene. An existing gene becoming dominant is not a mutation. It’s merely a black man with blue eyes.
That’s odd. The citation from the link is: “the de novo origination of a new protein-coding gene…”
Then it should be easy for you to name this gene that appeared out of nowhere.

Still waiting.
 
The fact there are hundreds of thousands of species that have not changed over millions of years tosses the racist Darwin out the window.

Actually, it doesn't. Mutations are random and only affect the offspring. The parents of the mutation, and all of their other offspring remain unchanged. Only the offspring of the original mutation pass on the new traits.
There’s no such thing as a mutation that is beneficial……
Except for the mutations that are beneficial.
Like?
Like what I provided for you in post 84.

Pretending the data doesn’t exist in spite of the data existing doesn’t make the data go away.
Quote it then, I see nothing. Name the new gene.
I did quote it and I gave you the link.
You copying and pasting things you don’t understand doesn’t name this new gene fantasy of your. You have no clue, that’s why you can’t quote.
I see you’re lashing out because your fraudulent claims are refuted by the facts.
Yeah, asking you to support your assertion I’d an assault to you.
I gave you links to the data. You hope to ignore it thinking it will go away.
Your links say nothing about any new gene. An existing gene becoming dominant is not a mutation. It’s merely a black man with blue eyes.
That’s odd. The citation from the link is: “the de novo origination of a new protein-coding gene…”
Then it should be easy for you to name this gene that appeared out of nowhere.

Still waiting.
How nice that your conspiracy theories shelter you from reality.
 
The fact there are hundreds of thousands of species that have not changed over millions of years tosses the racist Darwin out the window.

Actually, it doesn't. Mutations are random and only affect the offspring. The parents of the mutation, and all of their other offspring remain unchanged. Only the offspring of the original mutation pass on the new traits.
There’s no such thing as a mutation that is beneficial……
Except for the mutations that are beneficial.
Like?
Like what I provided for you in post 84.

Pretending the data doesn’t exist in spite of the data existing doesn’t make the data go away.
Quote it then, I see nothing. Name the new gene.
I did quote it and I gave you the link.
You copying and pasting things you don’t understand doesn’t name this new gene fantasy of your. You have no clue, that’s why you can’t quote.
Do you need a library of conspiracy theories?

 

Forum List

Back
Top