Uh Oh: Rick Perry Gets Popped With The Dreaded Evolution Question. (Click For Answer)

[Divine Wind]

Try running that experiment the other way and you might impress yourself.

Random mutations that produce adverse effects quickly die out. Those that produce an advantage allow the critter in question to survive.

This is often seen in nature such as the Peppered Moth and in human populations with the nurtured evolution of cattle, dogs, crops and other domesticated animals and plants.

Many evolutionist point to the peppered moth as evidence.

What is your point ?

Scientific fact trumps opinion. God gave us brains. I just wish more people would use them. God gave us the natural laws of the Universe. I just wish more people would try to understand them. God created the Heavens and the Earth. As human societies mature and become more sophisticated, so should their understanding of God and the Universe around us.

 

[FurthurBB]

Let's see how mutations help in improving a sentence.

" mutations help benefit a setence"

1 mutation

mutations help beneEit a setence

2 mutations

mutationsVhelp benefit a tetence

5 mutations

muiafions hZlp ben3fit a seten1e

10 mutations

muaa5ionr hplpbenefit aX8etOnce

That is the reality of random mutations and what they do to the information.

Where does natural selection and reproduction fit into your experiment? Without it, it is pretty useless as an example.

There are processes working to fix the transcription errors,and yes we have natural selection working to remove mutations another process preventing your theory from ever happening. Mutations have a hard time surviving in the genepool. All mutations result in a loss of information not a gain.

So now explain to me how these beneficial mutations survive in the genepool ? Are you telling me natural selection knows the difference in a beneficial mutation and a mutation that needs to be removed ?

While you're at it you show me how many beneficial mutations there are and i'll point out how many harmful mutations exist.

Natural selection does not remove mutations. Natural selection is just that if a species survives to reproduce their genes get passed on. I am not sure what you mean by mutations have a hard time surviving in the gene pool. No mutations add new genetic information and most mutations do not affect the organism in any way. I already explained natural selection and hopefully now you see why your question about knowing mutations is just silly. I could not possibly show you how many beneficial mutations there are because a mutation that is harmful or silent in one environment is the same mutation that allows an organism to survive in another. Mutations rarely pop up that are just beneficial in the environment the organism is living in.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Let's see how mutations help in improving a sentence.

" mutations help benefit a setence"

1 mutation

mutations help beneEit a setence

2 mutations

mutationsVhelp benefit a tetence

5 mutations

muiafions hZlp ben3fit a seten1e

10 mutations

muaa5ionr hplpbenefit aX8etOnce

That is the reality of random mutations and what they do to the information.

Where does natural selection and reproduction fit into your experiment? Without it, it is pretty useless as an example.

There are processes working to fix the transcription errors,and yes we have natural selection working to remove mutations another process preventing your theory from ever happening. Mutations have a hard time surviving in the genepool. All mutations result in a loss of information not a gain.

So now explain to me how these beneficial mutations survive in the genepool ? Are you telling me natural selection knows the difference in a beneficial mutation and a mutation that needs to be removed ?

While you're at it you show me how many beneficial mutations there are and i'll point out how many harmful mutations exist.

mutation happens during replication not during transcription.

there are gain of function and loss of function mutations.

a gain of function can be beneficial or harmful, the same with loss of function.

depends on the function.

then there are silent mutations.

you also do not understand selection.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, no one created terms to support a theory, that is just not the truth. See in science parameters have to be defined. Biology is the science of living organisms and biologists define these parameters for the study of living organism. For the study of evolution, a biological science, the acceptable definition of species is a breeding population. Of course before the theory of evolution there was no need to define this parameter because there was no modern biological science. People thought about it and wrote about it, but since there was no real need to define it, there was no agreed upon definition. This is just how science works and can be useful in a practical way. All the variation you see in dogs today is not enough to separate them from a breeding population. All dogs are capable of interbreeding with each other. Even wild dogs, though ecologically considered to be different species, can still successfully interbreed with domestic dogs. The chimp thing is a little more complicated than that. All living things are so obviously related and genetic variation today is amazing. The really amazing thing is you can follow genetic changes from species to species, by looking at both their chromosomes and the genetic nature of their proteins. The obvious relatedness between certain extant primates and humans is overwhelming on every level. You look at the big picture and think you cannot understand how the theory of evolution is possibly the answer. I look at the intricate details and cannot understand how anybody could believe what you believe.

Then why did they need two different terms to define evolution and when one of the terms has very little evidence to support it they just call macro-evolution micro-evolution.

They merged the two because they knew all they had was micro-adaptations.

Similarity proves nothing. I have read the closer number is actually 5% DNA difference between humans and chimps. Well when you do the math 5% of 3 billion base pairs is a 150 million base pair difference. That is huge when you figure in how many beneficial mutations would have to take place to make a chimp a human. We know at the current rate of mutations it would have taken 6 billion years for a chimp to become a human.

But that is not the only problem, there are many more neutral and harmful mutations then there are beneficial mutations. That is a problem when you need a major number in the net gain area for beneficial mutations being the engine of macro-evolution.

The rearranging of the information in mutations tend to be more harmful. We have over 4,500 genetic disorders and you can only name a few beneficial mutations. copying errors is not helpful to any equation.

There are not two different terms to define evolution there is only one. Evolution is a change in allelic frequency in a population over time or in layman's terms decent with modification. Macroevolution is a term to describe evolution above the species level, microevolution is the term to describe genetic variations in a species. Both macroevolution and microevolution deal with decent with modification because they are both terms to describe evolution. Also, adaptations is not all anyone has. The evolutionary theory has so much evidence to back it up that you could not read it all if you started now and read every second of the rest of your life. Evolutionary biology is a large and complex field of science. Without it there would be no modern biology and hence no modern medicine. I told you that the deal with chimps is very complex and it is, you have to understand that you can have many hundreds of different base pairs than either of your parents and how many years did it take to get from them to you? Since part of the difference between most primates and humans is a huge chromosomal translocation, how did that figure into your math because I have never heard these figures and have no idea how you are calculating it. You are thinking of mutations and how they effect humans. That is not going to get you anywhere when thinking about the validity of the evolutionary theory. Complex multicellular organisms already have a very high genetic load because everything is very specialized. That means that almost any mutation is going to be detrimental. Now, single celled organisms have a very low genetic load. They can handle multiple mutations before anything really bad is going to happen. I was talking earlier about stationary phase mutagenesis. This is a process by which certain single celled organism replicate their DNA with a low fidelity polymerase during stationary phase to produce mutations. These cells are dying because they cannot grow and only a mutation is going to change that fact. This would never help humans or dogs because it would cause more problems than it would fix, but it helps the organisms who utilize it to survive. Large changes are so much more common when organisms are less complex. Also in history all the niches that are filled today were free, so there were times when more mutations meant more food and more successful reproduction.

Micro-evolution,and Macro-evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Where does natural selection and reproduction fit into your experiment? Without it, it is pretty useless as an example.

There are processes working to fix the transcription errors,and yes we have natural selection working to remove mutations another process preventing your theory from ever happening. Mutations have a hard time surviving in the genepool. All mutations result in a loss of information not a gain.

So now explain to me how these beneficial mutations survive in the genepool ? Are you telling me natural selection knows the difference in a beneficial mutation and a mutation that needs to be removed ?

While you're at it you show me how many beneficial mutations there are and i'll point out how many harmful mutations exist.

Natural selection does not remove mutations. Natural selection is just that if a species survives to reproduce their genes get passed on. I am not sure what you mean by mutations have a hard time surviving in the gene pool. No mutations add new genetic information and most mutations do not affect the organism in any way. I already explained natural selection and hopefully now you see why your question about knowing mutations is just silly. I could not possibly show you how many beneficial mutations there are because a mutation that is harmful or silent in one environment is the same mutation that allows an organism to survive in another. Mutations rarely pop up that are just beneficial in the environment the organism is living in.

Geneticist R.H. Byles say's the first condition that has to be met for mutation fixation is a naturtal enviornment.

Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation. This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population. Natural selection keeps things stable rather than helping them to change. B. Clarke points out that even so called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size, making their fixation nearly impossible. He adds that they will almost certainly lead to extinction of the mutant gene or organism, and possibly even the entire population.

The effect of Byles's first condition is that the environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change. But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.

 

[L.K.Eder]

There are processes working to fix the transcription errors,and yes we have natural selection working to remove mutations another process preventing your theory from ever happening. Mutations have a hard time surviving in the genepool. All mutations result in a loss of information not a gain.

So now explain to me how these beneficial mutations survive in the genepool ? Are you telling me natural selection knows the difference in a beneficial mutation and a mutation that needs to be removed ?

While you're at it you show me how many beneficial mutations there are and i'll point out how many harmful mutations exist.

Natural selection does not remove mutations. Natural selection is just that if a species survives to reproduce their genes get passed on. I am not sure what you mean by mutations have a hard time surviving in the gene pool. No mutations add new genetic information and most mutations do not affect the organism in any way. I already explained natural selection and hopefully now you see why your question about knowing mutations is just silly. I could not possibly show you how many beneficial mutations there are because a mutation that is harmful or silent in one environment is the same mutation that allows an organism to survive in another. Mutations rarely pop up that are just beneficial in the environment the organism is living in.

Geneticist R.H. Byles say's the first condition that has to be met for mutation fixation is a naturtal enviornment.

Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation. This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population. Natural selection keeps things stable rather than helping them to change. B. Clarke points out that even so called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size, making their fixation nearly impossible. He adds that they will almost certainly lead to extinction of the mutant gene or organism, and possibly even the entire population.

The effect of Byles's first condition is that the environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change. But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.

link to the source.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

The Institute for Creation Research

shut up.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Where does natural selection and reproduction fit into your experiment? Without it, it is pretty useless as an example.

There are processes working to fix the transcription errors,and yes we have natural selection working to remove mutations another process preventing your theory from ever happening. Mutations have a hard time surviving in the genepool. All mutations result in a loss of information not a gain.

So now explain to me how these beneficial mutations survive in the genepool ? Are you telling me natural selection knows the difference in a beneficial mutation and a mutation that needs to be removed ?

While you're at it you show me how many beneficial mutations there are and i'll point out how many harmful mutations exist.

mutation happens during replication not during transcription.

there are gain of function and loss of function mutations.

a gain of function can be beneficial or harmful, the same with loss of function.

depends on the function.

then there are silent mutations.

you also do not understand selection.

My mistake.

Do you know of any benefits to humans that came through the loss of a function ?

I guess i will post an article 0n the 9 conditions for mutation fixation that have to be met to show your theory is just that and never happened.


Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.

NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION

Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject. 1

1. Natural Environment

Byles's first condition is: "Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation." This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations--in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population. Natural selection keeps things stable rather than helping them to change. B. Clarke points out that even so-called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size, making their fixation nearly impossible. He adds that they will almost certainly lead to extinction of the mutant gene or organism, and possibly even the entire population. 2

The effect of Byles's first condition is that the environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change. But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. 3 Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.

2. No Structural Change

Byles's second condition is: "There must be no pleiotropic effect involved with the locus or loci, or, if such effect exists, all the phenotypic structures involved must be selectively neutral." This means that there either must be no changes in physical structure involved, or they must be selectively neutral. If none are involved, then of course evolution does not occur. But if only those occur that are selectively neutral, then they are of no advantage to the mutant and survival of the fittest does not affect it or its non-mutant relatives; again, no evolution.

Not only would mutations that met this condition appear to contribute little or nothing to evolution, but also they would appear never to happen--or nearly never, anyway. G. Ledyard Stebbins tells us that within the gene there is no such thing as an inactive site at which a mutation will not affect the adaptive properties of the gene. 4 "Every character of an organism is affected by all genes," writes Ernst Mayr, "and every gene affects all characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole." 5

In other words, there may well be no such thing as a mutation having no structural change in the organism. Yet Byles says that a requirement for the fixation of a mutation is that it have none, or that the effect it has must be selectively neutral. Neither case appears ever to happen, and even if the latter did, it would not lead to macro-evolution since it would leave the mutant no more "fit" than any of its relatives. Indeed it would probably be less "fit" because of the tendency of natural selection to weed out rather than preserve mutations in a gene pool.

3. Net Effect Must be Unidirectional

Byles's third condition is: ". . . the mutational event must be recurrent and, furthermore, the rate of back mutation must be so small as to be irrelevant." Byles himself admits, though, that even recurrent mutations are almost never retained in the population: ". . . non-recurrent mutations have a very low probability of remaining in the genepool at all . . . the odds against a recurrent mutation being retained in the gene pool for any significant number of generations are very high." And even "most recurrent mutations have been observed to retain the potential for back mutation." It seems that neither part of his third condition will be fulfilled; yet Byles makes it clear in his article that all the conditions must be fulfilled in order for mutations to be fixed in a population.

4. High Mutation Rate

Byles's fourth condition is: "The mutation rate at the relevant locus or loci must be very large." Yet Francisco Ayala says, "It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation." 6

Byles himself comments on Lerner's estimate of one hundred mutations per one million gametes (one in ten thousand). "Obviously, a mutation rate this small, even given a complete absence of back mutation (which appears never to occur), would result in a very small change in a given gene pool, even given large numbers of generations. This has long been considered one of the major stumbling blocks to the [Probably Mutation Effect] . . . In order for the P.M.E. to be effective, very high mutation rates are clearly necessary."

So it appears that this condition, too, is likely never met in nature.

5. Large Population

Byles's fifth condition is that the population involved must be large. He stipulates this because small populations can easily be destroyed by a mutation. And, as population size decreases, the probability that a mutation will be eliminated increases.

Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steers, however, postulate that a small population with much inbreeding is important: ". . . the ideal conditions for rapid evolution . . . are provided by a species which is divided into a number of small local sub-populations that are nearly but not completely isolated and small enough so that a moderate degree of inbreeding takes place. . . . The division of a species into two or more subspecies is of course dependent on complete isolation being achieved in some way." 7

It seems that evolutionists themselves have realized a great problem but are unable to deal with it. In a small population, a mutation will almost certainly be eliminated. Yet a small population is needed for evolution to occur. Here indeed is an impasse. But the problem gets worse.

Byles adds (in contradiction of Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steere), "If the investigator is dealing with a population which is undergoing contact with genetically dissimilar neighbors, the effect of the mutation is inevitably so minor as to be undetectable. Therefore, to argue that mutation is the cause of change in the population's genetic structure, one must also of necessity argue that this population is not undergoing a process of hybridization." In other words, if the population is large, the effect of the mutation is almost nil. Even when Byles's condition is met, then, the effects of the mutations are almost zero on the entire population. And, furthermore, while Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steere say some interbreeding between dissimilar populations is necessary, Byles says it is death to evolutionary change.

6. Selective Neutrality of Polygenes

Byles's sixth condition is: "Polygenes are not relevant to this argument, unless the entire anatomical complex is itself selectively neutral." This means that for organisms of many genes, the mutation cannot be fixed unless the whole anatomical structure of the organism is selectively neutral relative to the gene which mutates. That this does not occur was shown in our discussion of the second condition.

7. Little Hybridization

Byles's seventh condition is: "There must be little or no hybridizing admixture." This of course is to avoid making the mutation itself insignificant. But if the effect is actually significant, then this contradicts his second condition, which was that the mutation must cause no significant structural change (see under point 2 above). Furthermore, the only way in which to have no hybridizing admixture is to have a small population that is isolated from others of the same kind. This contradicts his fifth condition. If the population is small, the probability of a mutant gene's being eliminated rises steeply.

This seventh condition, if fulfilled, makes evolution impossible because the mutation would not be retained due to the necessarily small population. But if unfulfilled, it leaves evolution impossible due to the insignificance of the effect of the mutation.

8. Necessity of High Penetrance

Byles's eighth condition is: "The genetic structures involved must have high 'penetrance.'" Put simply, this means that the genes must be highly susceptible to mutation. It thus means almost the same as Condition Four.

Yet it occasions another problem. As soon as the structure becomes highly susceptible to mutation, it must also become highly susceptible to back mutation. But his third condition states that the rate of back mutation must be irrelevant. Again there is contradiction: fulfill Condition Eight and you can't fulfill Condition Three. Fulfill Condition Three and you can't fulfill Condition Eight. Yet Byles says that all of the conditions must be fulfilled for mutation fixation to occur; and without mutation fixation there is no macro-evolution.

9. High Heritability

Byles's ninth condition is: "The phenotype must have high heritability." This condition is almost never met for mutational phenotypes. Byles himself told us that the probability of retaining even a recurring mutation is "very low."

TALLYING THE SCORE

It appears that the probability of meeting any one of these conditions in nature is extremely low, if not non-existent. Recall now that the fifth and seventh conditions effectively cancel each other out, as do the third and eighth, and we are forced to the conclusion that it is impossible to meet all the conditions. Mutation cannot be the mechanism for macro-evolution.

This is why Macro-evolution has never been documented or observed.

REFERENCES

1 R.H. Byles, "Limiting Conditions for the Operation of the Probable Mutation Effect" Social Biology, 19 (March, 1972):29-34. All citations from Byles in this article are from this source.
2 B. Clarke, "Mutation and Population Size," Heredity, 31 (Dec. 1973):367-79.
3 J.T. Giesel, "Maintenance of Genetic Variability in Natural Populations; Alternative Implications of the Charlesworth-Giesel Hypothesis," American Naturalist, 106 (May, 1972): 412-14, p. 412.
4 G. Ledyard Stebbins, "Building Bridges Between Evolutionary Disciplines" Taxon 23(I) (Feb. 1974):11-20, p. 14.
5 Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species and Evolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970), p. 103.
6 Francisco J. Ayala, "Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology," Philosophy of Science, 37 (March, 1970), p. 3. Cited in Henry M. Morris, ed., Scientific Creationism (San Diego, Calif.: Creation-Life, 1974), p. 55.
7 Theodosius Dobzhansky, et al., Evolutionary Biology, vol. 2 (N.Y.: Appleton-Century-Croft, 1968), p. 259.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

 

[Youwerecreated]

Natural selection does not remove mutations. Natural selection is just that if a species survives to reproduce their genes get passed on. I am not sure what you mean by mutations have a hard time surviving in the gene pool. No mutations add new genetic information and most mutations do not affect the organism in any way. I already explained natural selection and hopefully now you see why your question about knowing mutations is just silly. I could not possibly show you how many beneficial mutations there are because a mutation that is harmful or silent in one environment is the same mutation that allows an organism to survive in another. Mutations rarely pop up that are just beneficial in the environment the organism is living in.

Geneticist R.H. Byles say's the first condition that has to be met for mutation fixation is a naturtal enviornment.

Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation. This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population. Natural selection keeps things stable rather than helping them to change. B. Clarke points out that even so called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size, making their fixation nearly impossible. He adds that they will almost certainly lead to extinction of the mutant gene or organism, and possibly even the entire population.

The effect of Byles's first condition is that the environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change. But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.

link to the source.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

The Institute for Creation Research

shut up.

I posted the whole article so everyone can see what you were doing. You're arguing theory not reality.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Geneticist R.H. Byles say's the first condition that has to be met for mutation fixation is a naturtal enviornment.

Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation. This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population. Natural selection keeps things stable rather than helping them to change. B. Clarke points out that even so called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size, making their fixation nearly impossible. He adds that they will almost certainly lead to extinction of the mutant gene or organism, and possibly even the entire population.

The effect of Byles's first condition is that the environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change. But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.

link to the source.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

The Institute for Creation Research

shut up.

I posted the whole article so everyone can see what you were doing. You're arguing theory not reality.

what i was doing was providing the source which you copied and pasted in part without revealing the source.

you are a dishonest ignorant clown.

you were not created that way, you have yourself to blame for turning out to be such a miserable failure.

 

[Youwerecreated]

link to the source.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

The Institute for Creation Research

shut up.

I posted the whole article so everyone can see what you were doing. You're arguing theory not reality.

what i was doing was providing the source which you copied and pasted in part without revealing the source.

you are a dishonest ignorant clown.

you were not created that way, you have yourself to blame for turning out to be such a miserable failure.

So you don't attack the message, you attack the person because he didn't add the source.

I have debated this very issue many times in this forum. And from time to time i make a mistake but to call someone dishonest is just your sides way of turning attention away from the message, but your objection is noted.

 

[Youwerecreated]

link to the source.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

The Institute for Creation Research

shut up.

I posted the whole article so everyone can see what you were doing. You're arguing theory not reality.

what i was doing was providing the source which you copied and pasted in part without revealing the source.

you are a dishonest ignorant clown.

you were not created that way, you have yourself to blame for turning out to be such a miserable failure.

So if you know more then Geneticist R.H. Byles let's here it.

 

[L.K.Eder]

I posted the whole article so everyone can see what you were doing. You're arguing theory not reality.

what i was doing was providing the source which you copied and pasted in part without revealing the source.

you are a dishonest ignorant clown.

you were not created that way, you have yourself to blame for turning out to be such a miserable failure.

So if you know more then Geneticist R.H. Byles let's here it.

your knowledge of mutations is as deep as your spelling capability is impressing.

i blame nurture.

 

[Youwerecreated]

what i was doing was providing the source which you copied and pasted in part without revealing the source.

you are a dishonest ignorant clown.

you were not created that way, you have yourself to blame for turning out to be such a miserable failure.

So if you know more then Geneticist R.H. Byles let's here it.

your knowledge of mutations is as deep as your spelling capability is impressing.

i blame nurture.

Still insults and nothing of substance. Yes I am a creationist we are not gonna agree on many things but because I don't agree with you does not make you right. We look at things differently because you're an evolutionist and I am a creationist. Not that hard to grasp. If someone here does not understand the reality of mutations,its not I.

 

[JMadison]

Shit! where did the "prayer" step go?!?!

This should help you understand.

 

[FuelRod]

The only chance in hell the left has to win in 2012 is to make this election about social issues.

 

[Luissa]

I don't why evolution disturbs people on the right, but it does. No wonder America ranks up their with Turkey in denying evolution.

I don't get why God couldn't have thought of evolution? Its like they think God was too stupid to come up with it.

 

[JMadison]

I don't why evolution disturbs people on the right, but it does. No wonder America ranks up their with Turkey in denying evolution.

I don't get why God couldn't have thought of evolution? Its like they think God was too stupid to come up with it.

Only Darwinians think that way.

 

[FurthurBB]

Then why did they need two different terms to define evolution and when one of the terms has very little evidence to support it they just call macro-evolution micro-evolution.

They merged the two because they knew all they had was micro-adaptations.

Similarity proves nothing. I have read the closer number is actually 5% DNA difference between humans and chimps. Well when you do the math 5% of 3 billion base pairs is a 150 million base pair difference. That is huge when you figure in how many beneficial mutations would have to take place to make a chimp a human. We know at the current rate of mutations it would have taken 6 billion years for a chimp to become a human.

But that is not the only problem, there are many more neutral and harmful mutations then there are beneficial mutations. That is a problem when you need a major number in the net gain area for beneficial mutations being the engine of macro-evolution.

The rearranging of the information in mutations tend to be more harmful. We have over 4,500 genetic disorders and you can only name a few beneficial mutations. copying errors is not helpful to any equation.

There are not two different terms to define evolution there is only one. Evolution is a change in allelic frequency in a population over time or in layman's terms decent with modification. Macroevolution is a term to describe evolution above the species level, microevolution is the term to describe genetic variations in a species. Both macroevolution and microevolution deal with decent with modification because they are both terms to describe evolution. Also, adaptations is not all anyone has. The evolutionary theory has so much evidence to back it up that you could not read it all if you started now and read every second of the rest of your life. Evolutionary biology is a large and complex field of science. Without it there would be no modern biology and hence no modern medicine. I told you that the deal with chimps is very complex and it is, you have to understand that you can have many hundreds of different base pairs than either of your parents and how many years did it take to get from them to you? Since part of the difference between most primates and humans is a huge chromosomal translocation, how did that figure into your math because I have never heard these figures and have no idea how you are calculating it. You are thinking of mutations and how they effect humans. That is not going to get you anywhere when thinking about the validity of the evolutionary theory. Complex multicellular organisms already have a very high genetic load because everything is very specialized. That means that almost any mutation is going to be detrimental. Now, single celled organisms have a very low genetic load. They can handle multiple mutations before anything really bad is going to happen. I was talking earlier about stationary phase mutagenesis. This is a process by which certain single celled organism replicate their DNA with a low fidelity polymerase during stationary phase to produce mutations. These cells are dying because they cannot grow and only a mutation is going to change that fact. This would never help humans or dogs because it would cause more problems than it would fix, but it helps the organisms who utilize it to survive. Large changes are so much more common when organisms are less complex. Also in history all the niches that are filled today were free, so there were times when more mutations meant more food and more successful reproduction.

Micro-evolution,and Macro-evolution.

That is fine too but I prefer the accepted microevolution Microevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and macroevolution Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia even though spellcheck might not.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I don't why evolution disturbs people on the right, but it does. No wonder America ranks up their with Turkey in denying evolution.

I don't get why God couldn't have thought of evolution? Its like they think God was too stupid to come up with it.

Only Darwinians think that way.

No, only evolution deniers think that way.


If anyone ever says "evolution disproves a god exists" that person deserves as much ridicule as the evolution deniers do.

 

[FurthurBB]

There are processes working to fix the transcription errors,and yes we have natural selection working to remove mutations another process preventing your theory from ever happening. Mutations have a hard time surviving in the genepool. All mutations result in a loss of information not a gain.

So now explain to me how these beneficial mutations survive in the genepool ? Are you telling me natural selection knows the difference in a beneficial mutation and a mutation that needs to be removed ?

While you're at it you show me how many beneficial mutations there are and i'll point out how many harmful mutations exist.

Natural selection does not remove mutations. Natural selection is just that if a species survives to reproduce their genes get passed on. I am not sure what you mean by mutations have a hard time surviving in the gene pool. No mutations add new genetic information and most mutations do not affect the organism in any way. I already explained natural selection and hopefully now you see why your question about knowing mutations is just silly. I could not possibly show you how many beneficial mutations there are because a mutation that is harmful or silent in one environment is the same mutation that allows an organism to survive in another. Mutations rarely pop up that are just beneficial in the environment the organism is living in.

Geneticist R.H. Byles say's the first condition that has to be met for mutation fixation is a naturtal enviornment.

Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation. This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population. Natural selection keeps things stable rather than helping them to change. B. Clarke points out that even so called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size, making their fixation nearly impossible. He adds that they will almost certainly lead to extinction of the mutant gene or organism, and possibly even the entire population.

The effect of Byles's first condition is that the environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change. But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.

Gene fixation is another subject all together.