2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayThe only problem I have with your argument is that no one has been able to point to a mutation and verify that it is indeed beneficial. It's impossible to prove or deny this because the theory demands that this process take place over thousands if not hundreds of years... so it's impossible to verify one way or the other.
There are many issues with this theory, the big one I have is there is no
reason to believe after a good random mutation occurs that another cannot
come behind it and take it away. There isn't anything while random
changes are occurring that would drive them to mold themselves into
fitting better in any environment, random changes are just that random. ...[text shortened]... d that ever be? Nothing drives those
changes and why would there be if the changes were random?
One other problem with trying to argue against speculation over the role of mutation are discoveries of subtle (though naturally occurring) processes in the overall natural selection process. And because any new discovery is new (meaning that it isn't yet well understood) it can then become part of the discussion, and immediately linked to the idea of "beneficial" mutation.
And by the way, it seems now they are calling any change (including variation within a species) a "mutation". So we are clearly not arguing against a concept anymore... we're arguing with people who use buzz words for triggering a response.
Originally posted by lemon limeIf you are adopting the anti-evolution line on mutation, you might find the following site to be of interest:
The only problem I have with your argument is that no one has been able to point to a mutation and verify that it is indeed beneficial. It's impossible to prove or deny this because the theory demands that this process take place over thousands if not hundreds of years... so it's impossible to verify one way or the other.
One other problem with trying ...[text shortened]... nst a concept anymore... we're arguing with people who use buzz words for triggering a response.
http://creationwiki.org/Mutation
From there you can link to the main page of the site.
This seems to be a sincere site.
Originally posted by lemon limeWell, if that's your only problem, I'm happy to report that beneficial mutations have indeed been observed. See e.g. Perfeito et al. Science 317, 813-815 (2007).
The only problem I have with your argument is that no one has been able to point to a mutation and verify that it is indeed beneficial.
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357You proposed God using evolution for the establishment of life as we now see it. Not a bad compromise, but I think we may have to add something to that theory.
If you are adopting the anti-evolution line on mutation, you might find the following site to be of interest:
http://creationwiki.org/Mutation
From there you can link to the main page of the site.
This seems to be a sincere site.
We should add that God went back to remove evidence of the evolutionary process, so that it appears to satisfy conditions outlined in the Genesis account. This makes the theory a win/win scenario. It can satisfy evolutionists who appear hell bent on promoting their theory in spite of evidence to the contrary, as well as satisfying theologians who are able to point to this tampered evidence as proof of what they believe.
This new and improved (modified) theory would solve the abiogenesis and Cambrian problem without challenging the basic tenets of evolution, while at the same time giving theologians evidence that appears to support their position.
It doesn't satisfy the demands of atheism but let's face it, you can't please everyone.
Originally posted by lemon limeNo one has been able to point to a beneficial mutation? I'm afraid you are mistaken.
The only problem I have with your argument is that no one has been able to point to a mutation and verify that it is indeed beneficial. It's impossible to prove or deny this because the theory demands that this process take place over thousands if not hundreds of years... so it's impossible to verify one way or the other.
One other problem with trying ...[text shortened]... nst a concept anymore... we're arguing with people who use buzz words for triggering a response.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOne of my favorite mutation stories is a follow up paper, about a failed attempt to completely eliminate a nasty little bacteria that causes stomach problems. Medical biologists came up with a chemical that only interacts with a particular enzyme (produced by the bacteria) and creates a poison that kills the bacteria. The poison quickly breaks down and becomes harmless, and the chemical interacting with the enzyme is harmless as well, so nothing is harmed other than that one nasty little bacteria.
Well, if that's your only problem, I'm happy to report that beneficial mutations have indeed been observed. See e.g. Perfeito et al. Science 317, 813-815 (2007).
But it didn't kill off the entire population. And so the remaining bacteria multiplied and the science guys were back to where they started. Someone proposed that the bacteria must have quickly mutated into a resistant form, but that couldn't be right because the remaining bacteria would have had to mutate and become resistant after they had died. So they examined the remaining bacteria, and found that the gene responsible for creating the enzyme (targeted for interaction) was damaged and could not produce the enzyme.
It was an interesting read, and the words "evolution" "mutation" and "adaptation" were liberally sprinkled throughout the entire paper. But the bacteria containing the damaged gene didn't adapt or mutate. They didn't change at all. And there was no environmental pressure (intelligently guided or otherwise) working to cause it to change, or enough time for the organism to respond in any way.
And yet, even after they discovered what really happened, the paper continues on using the words "evolution" "mutation" and "adaptation". The paper was worthy of publication without the need for evolution-affirming buzz words, but there they were... sitting there like little insurance policies, so that everyone will know which side of the evolution debate those particular scientists support.
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon lime"Someone proposed that the bacteria must have quickly mutated into a resistant form..."
One of my favorite mutation stories is a follow up paper, about a failed attempt to completely eliminate a nasty little bacteria that causes stomach problems. Medical biologists came up with a chemical that only interacts with a particular enzyme (produced by the bacteria) and creates a poison that kills the bacteria. The poison quickly breaks down and be ...[text shortened]... that everyone will know which side of the evolution debate those particular scientists support.
That "someone" is ignorant of how it works.
When you have a bunch of bacteria, you have mutants living among them. Some might have switched on a gene for resistance to a chemical that they've never encountered. They didn't do it in reaction to the chemical, it just happened. Part of the population has this mutation and because it doesn't itself do any harm, they live with it.
Then the chemical comes along and wipes out the non-resistant bacteria. The resistant ones thrive.
Get it?
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeThe issue is I have is the thought that if a good mutation occurs it stays,
The only problem I have with your argument is that no one has been able to point to a mutation and verify that it is indeed beneficial. It's impossible to prove or deny this because the theory demands that this process take place over thousands if not hundreds of years... so it's impossible to verify one way or the other.
One other problem with trying ...[text shortened]... nst a concept anymore... we're arguing with people who use buzz words for triggering a response.
when the claims are they come randomly. If they come randomly then
the same good that came could be the next one that leaves, there would
never be a piece of DNA that was immune to leaving or getting changed.
Natural selection doesn't ask anything, it is a filter, that only gets to play
the cards it is dealt. It does not get to say if an environment starts getting
colder, only the good mutations now that help life live in cold start coming!
Natural selection would allow for all life that is already best suited to live
in the cold to stay it would weed out those that could not. So then the
argument could be made that well that means that those that can live in
the cold would get all the good mutations, this is still established life forms
changing not those that never had these abilities acquiring them. Those
that support evolution seem to bounce back and forth using modern
examples of life forms changes to show who they could have millions of
years ago. That is an apples and orange debate, no one I know says that
established life forms cannot alter a little, but that is all I think they have
ever done, those we can see. The magical change from a say a simple cell
to a zebra has never been seen.
2 edits
Originally posted by JS357Nice try, but if your vacuum cleaner is damaged and can't work anymore it doesn't mean your vacuum cleaner switched itself off. Mutation was probably the first thought that popped into someones head when the brainstorming began... it happens.
"Someone proposed that the bacteria must have quickly mutated into a resistant form..."
That "someone" is ignorant of how it works.
When you have a bunch of bacteria, you have mutants living among them. Some might have switched on a gene for resistance to a chemical that they've never encountered. They didn't do it in reaction to the chemical, it just ha ...[text shortened]... ical comes along and wipes out the non-resistant bacteria. The resistant ones thrive.
Get it?
The method for killing the bacteria was a clever idea that seemed fool proof. It has practical application, so this means it's worth a lot ($$) to the team involved in carrying it off. So when it didn't work (100% eradication) I'm guessing there was considerable surprise leading everyone to wonder "How could this not work?" Some quick brainstorming immediately follows (did it mutate?) and then someone comes up with the bright idea of going back to the drawing board to examine the gene responsible for producing the enzyme (sanity is restored).
It's bizarre someone would even think of bacteria quickly evolving to prevent itself from dying. It seems even more bizarre to see a follow up paper that explains what really happened. If the explanation appears in a follow up paper, then what in the world could they have reported in the paper before it?
"We had this bright idea, see? It shoulda worked... right? But it didn't."
There were many inappropriate references to evolution in the follow up paper. So I'm guessing the first paper made even more references to evolution and mutation and adaptation than the second, and then it was published in spite of the fact that their fool proof method didn't work. It wouldn't be the first time someone got so excited over evolutionary implications that they were willing to risk failure over someone else beating them to it. If they quickly publish and fail, it's no big deal. But if they are the first to publish and it sticks, then hurrah for them!
Originally posted by lemon limeMissed point.
Nice try, but if your vacuum cleaner is damaged and can't work anymore it doesn't mean your vacuum cleaner switched itself off. Mutation was probably the first thought that popped into someones head when the brainstorming began... it happens.
The method for killing the bacteria was a clever idea that seemed fool proof. It has practical application, so ...[text shortened]... ail, it's no big deal. But if they are the first to publish and it sticks, then hurrah for them!
Originally posted by KellyJayMutations that have the potential for doing more than nothing, and are not harmful, need to accumulate before some happenstance benefit can be realized. As far as I know, there is no known selection process at work until there is an actual benefit.
The issue is I have is the thought that if a good mutation occurs it stays,
when the claims are they come randomly. If they come randomly then
the same good that came could be the next one that leaves, there would
never be a piece of DNA that was immune to leaving or getting changed.
Natural selection doesn't ask anything, it is a filter, that only ge ...[text shortened]... , those we can see. The magical change from a say a simple cell
to a zebra has never been seen.
Evolution may not presume an intelligently designed purpose or process before there is a benefit... so the organism doesn't know that in order to evolve, it must first collect potentially useful mutations. I don't see how any of this can be called a blind process when it's clear the blind-man seems to already know where to go, and how to get there.
Originally posted by lemon limeI agree.
Mutations that have the potential for doing more than nothing, and are not harmful, need to accumulate before some happenstance benefit can be realized. As far as I know, there is no known selection process at work until there is an actual benefit.
Evolution may not presume an intelligently designed purpose or process before there is a benefit.. ...[text shortened]... d process when it's clear the blind-man seems to already know where to go, and how to get there.
Originally posted by lemon limeSo they screwed up. So? Does this disprove evolution?
The gene was damaged. Genes that can switch on and off are not damaged. The only thing a damaged gene can do is be copied and carried over to the next generation... it can go along for the ride, but that's all it can do.