Mutations

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Administrator2, Jan 13, 2002.

  1. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Administrator: several threads are represented here. Divisions will be marked.]

    JOHN WELLS

    Evolutionists tell us that mutations are what caused all the change . . . for the good! They are how we got from a single-cell lifeform to become humans. The problem is, they can't find or replicate a "good" mutation. "All creation" is subject to decay as a result of God's curse due to "the Fall"-- including the human genome. And an awful lot of what we see that is so wrong is the result of mutations. Here is a list of some bad mutations:
    Chromosome 1
    -- malignant melanoma
    -- prostate cancer
    -- deafness

    Chromosome 2
    -- congenital hypothyroidism
    -- colorectal cancer

    Chromosome 3
    -- susceptibility to HIV infection
    -- small-cell lung cancer
    -- dementia

    Chromosome 4
    -- Huntington's Disease
    -- polycystic kidney disease

    Chromosome 5
    -- spinal muscular atrophy
    -- endometrial carcinoma

    Chromosome 6
    -- hemochronatosis
    -- dyslexia
    -- schizophrenia
    -- myoclonus epilepsy
    -- estrogen resistance

    Chromosome 7
    -- Growth hormone deficient dwarfism
    -- pregnancy-induced hypertension
    -- cystic fibrosis
    -- severe obesity

    Chromosome 8
    -- hemolytic anemia
    -- Burkitt's lymphoma

    Chromosome 9
    -- dilated cardiomyopathy
    -- fructose intolerance

    Chromosome 10
    -- congenital cataracts
    -- late onset cockayne syndrome

    Chromosome 11
    -- sickle cell anemia
    -- albinism

    Chromosome 12
    -- inflammatory bowel disease
    -- rickets

    Chromosome 13
    -- breast cancer, early onset
    -- retinoblastoma
    -- pancreatic cancer

    Chromosome 14
    -- leukemia/ T-cell lymphoma
    -- goiter

    Chromosome 15
    -- Marfan's syndrome
    -- juvenile epilepsy

    Chromosome 16
    -- polycystic kidney disease
    -- familial gastric cancer
    -- Tuberous sclerosis-2

    Chromosome 17 (done in detail as an example)

    [blockquote]RP13 -- retinitis pigmentosa
    CTAA2 -- cataract
    SLC2A4 -- diabetes susceptibility
    TP53 -- cancer
    MYO15 -- deafness
    PMP22 -- Charcot-Marie-Tooth neuropathy
    COL1A1 -- osteogenesis imperfecta; osteoporosis
    SLC6A4 -- anxiety-related personality traits
    BLMH -- Alzheimer's disease susceptibility
    NF1 -- neurofibromatosis
    RARA -- leukemia
    MAPT -- dementia
    SGCA -- muscular dystrophy
    BRCA1 -- breast cancer; ovarian cancer
    PRKCA -- pituitary tumor
    MPO -- yeast infection susceptibility
    GH1 -- growth hormone deficiency
    DCP1 -- myocardian infarction susceptibility
    SSTR2 -- small-cell lung cancer [/blockquote]

    Chromosome 18
    -- diabetes mellitus
    -- familial carpal tunnel syndrome

    Chromosome 19
    -- myotonic dystrophy
    -- malignant hyperthermia

    Chromosome 20
    -- isolated growth hormone deficiency
    -- fatal familial insomnia
    -- Creutzfeldt-Jakob's disease

    Chromosome 21
    -- autoimmune polyglandular disease
    -- amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

    Chromosome 22
    -- Ewing's sarcome
    -- giant-cell fibroblastoma

    X Chromosome
    -- colorblindness
    -- mental retardation
    -- gout
    -- hemophilia
    -- male pseudohermaphroditism

    Y Chromosome
    -- gonadal dysgenesis

    Mitochondrial DNA
    -- Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy
    -- diabetes and deafness
    -- myopathy and cardiomyopathy
    -- dystonia


    HELEN
    Just as a point of reference, John's list of negative mutations was published by National Geographic in October of 1999.


    KANDDAK
    Mutations that were a benefit to survival in previous generations are right here. You're a walking mass of "good mutations".


    HELEN
    As far as the list of mutations is concerned, evolution declares that mutations plus natural selection, given enough time, produced you from some far distant unicellular ancestor. The list shows what we know mutations really do.


    DANEEL
    So this means there are no "good" mutations? This is a bit like good and bad news. What makes the papers?

    There is another factor working here besides mutation and that is sexual reproduction and variation. There is a lot of genetic flexibility within a population. If you look at the 6 billion people in the world today there is considerable variation. Probably not as much as earlier, as there is evidence that the human population is believed to have suffered a bottle neck event 40 to 50,000 years ago. For that reason it is thought that humans are more similar than they used to be. Too bad we can't go back and see what happened to cut the population from millions to thousands. That is, as long as we could come back when we ran out of food and fuel.

    Most of those "bad" mutations are things each species has to live with. Most are not dominant or if they are they still allow an organism to reproduce and raise offspring before it gets them.


    HELEN
    In that case, you must have a ton of other observations you can give us to show us that our conclusion about mutations is wrong.
    And while you are looking for that list, let me mention that I have never heard of a new parent who, when being told that the new baby has a mutation, has EVER exclaimed, "Wow! Is it a good one?"

    Meanwhile, about 'good' mutations -- I would think any that are found would be trumpeted from the rooftops -- sort of like all the "new" "human ancestors" are that are found in Africa at various points and times. Evolutionists have never been shy about trumpeting their evidences!

    And, lastly, this group of 'bad' mutations, or genetic load, is building in each species, slowly but surely. And there isn't as much variation as in the past -- especially in animals. So how long do you think it has been going on this way at the rate mutations build in the genetic load?

    Oh yeah -- you are right about the bottleneck....
     
  2. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Administrator: A new thread starts here on the same subject.]

    HELEN
    With permission from Dr. Wells, I post the following. He is a Ph.D. in embryology from Cal Berkeley, by the way:

    There is no evidence that genetic mutations can change a body plan (the basic layout of an animal's form, that distinguishes a worm from a starfish from a clam from an insect from a fish). Mutations can cause a fly embryo to grow a limb in the wrong place, but the limb is still a fly limb and the basic body plan remains exactly the same. In all animals, the body plan is the pre-existing context for gene activity, not the consequence of gene activity.

    So the situation for neo-Darwinism is much worse than the "convinced Evolutionist" realizes. It's not that mutations have small probabilities for changing the body plan, so that correlating them will increase the odds. The probability is zero from the start, and it remains zero no matter how many mutations are piled on top of each other. The "convinced Evolutionist" replaces biological reality with neo-Darwinian fantasy.

    According to Richard Dawkins, skeptics of Darwinian evolution rely on an "argument from personal incredulity." The truth is that defenders of Darwinian evolution are relying on an "argument from personal gullibility."


    Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
    Discovery Institute
    Seattle


    THE BARBARIAN
    Nope. That's wrong. As biologists know, evolution doesn't procede by producing "new body plans". It merely alters what's already there.

    What your information is saying Helen, is that one would never see a wasp evolve into a vertebrate. But it certainly would permit an echinoderm to do so, since the "body plan" of a starfish is the same as the "body plan" of a human. That is, the larva of a starfish has the same features as a larval chordate. They develop from the same embryonic tissues,the mesoderm arising in the same way. This is a very ancient branching of the evolutionary tree, and AFAIK, we don't understand the way that the deuterostome and protostomes diverged. The fact that they both form mesoderm from the same tissues and from that mesoderm, a coelom forms, is certainly evidence of their evolutionary affinities. However, at this point, one could invoke the "God of the gaps" argument.


    HELEN
    sure, Barbarian, and you are nothing but an altered unicellular proto-bacteria. Fine with me. I, however, am a vastly different human being, part of a unique special creation by God. The concept of 'body plan' is well known in biology and we do not have the same body plan as a starfish.


    What your information is saying Helen, is that one would never see a wasp evolve into a vertebrate. But it certainly would permit an echinoderm to do so, since the "body plan" of a starfish is the same as the "body plan" of a human. That is, the larva of a starfish has the same features as a larval chordate. They develop from the same embryonic tissues,the mesoderm arising in the same way.

    References on this one, please.


    This is a very ancient branching of the evolutionary tree, and AFAIK, we don't understand the way that the deuterostome and protostomes diverged. The fact that they both form mesoderm from the same tissues and from that mesoderm, a coelom forms, is certainly evidence of their evolutionary affinities. However, at this point, one could invoke the "God of the gaps" argument.

    Presuming evolutionary relatedness due to similarities does not make it a fact. You are supposing evolution is true to begin with and then shoving data around (it's called 'massaging the data') until you get some kind of a fit. That is not good science.


    Evolution always works by modifying what is already there.

    Which is why all we ever see is variation within kind.


    THE BARBARIAN
    I, however, am a vastly different human being, part of a unique special creation by God.

    Of course. So are we all. But our bodies were created by natural means, not by magic. That's how God creates things in this world. Our souls, however are a different matter, and while God says that living things, including humans were brought forth from the earth, the soul is what differentiates us from the others.


    The concept of 'body plan' is well known in biology and we do not have the same body plan as a starfish.

    Sure we do. The adult forms hide the fact that they are formed in embryo with a bilateral symmetry (as we are).


    References on this one, please.

    Sure. [Consider] a common starfish larva. Note the mouth at the front end, the gut behind,and the bilateral symmetry. Later, the larva develops brachia, and assumes the apparent pentaradial form.

    [section snipped by administrator due to very technical explanation and examples that would not be understood by most readers here ]

    This is a very ancient branching of the evolutionary tree, and AFAIK, we don't understand the way that the deuterostome and protostomes diverged. The fact that they both form mesoderm from the same tissues and from that mesoderm, a coelom forms, is certainly evidence of their evolutionary affinities.
    However, at this point, one could invoke the "God of the gaps" argument.

    …Nevertheless, the idea that evolution must suddenly produce new body plans is the Cartoon Version, which is not part of the real theory of evolution.


    Which is why all we ever see is variation within kind.

    That would mean chimps and humans are one kind. Since there is more difference between the animals creationists assert evolved from the "kinds" on the Ark, than there is between chimps and humans, we would have to conclude humans and chimps are a single baramin.

    On the other hand, since we have evidence in the fossil record and in genetics, and biochemical analyses, that legs first evolved in fish, and only later were used to get around on land, then tetrapods, including us would have to be one kind with fish. And in a sense, we are.

    Given the deep genetic similarities among all living things, all of them can be considered to be on one "kind". Since no one can come up with a testable definition of "kind", it's hard to say what anyone means by that.


    HELEN
    For those reading this, a prokaryote is a unicellular organism such as a bacteria which does not have a membrane-bound nucleus or membrane-bound organelles (little jobbies inside it which do different jobs for the cell). It is considered the most 'primitive' form of cellular life known today. A eukaryote is the kind of cell which has a regular nucleus and stuff like mitochondria, and other organelles, all with their own membranes and operating like little internal factories in the cell. It is the kind of cell that makes up you and animals and the plants that grow in the garden. Current evolutionary theory is divided on whether prokaryotes came first and then got better organized and became eukaryotic or whether eukaryotes came first, lost a lot of stuff, and then became prokaryotes. I have seen articles arguing both ways. One way or another, evolution says the precursor of even one of these gradually, via mutations and natural selection, given lots of chance and time, became diversified into all the life forms we see today and in the fossil record.

    Barbarian has given the standard evolution dogma that this development proceeded simply by changing a little at a time. What he does not seem to grasp is that at some point a new body plan had to emerge. Neither he nor you or your pet gerbil is in any way simply a progressively altered unicellular organism. This is something the original post in this thread brought out so clearly. That was written by Jonathan Wells, a Ph.D. in embryology and currently doing original research in that field. He is also the author of Icons of Evolution, a book that points out that each of the major 'evidences' for evolution which has been bandied about in texts right up to the present time has been known for dozens of years to be false. But it's all they have, so they keep on presenting the peppered moths, the beaks of the finches, the Urey-Miller experiment, etc. If they had better evidence, I'm sure they would use it.

    .
    Of course. So are we all. But our bodies were created by natural means, not by magic. That's how God creates things in this world. Our souls, however are a different matter, and while God says that living things, including humans were brought forth from the earth, the soul is what differentiates us from the others.

    You are wrong on both counts. We were separately created directly from the original elements, or the 'dust of the ground.' If you would like to argue with God, go ahead, but I know who will win.
    Secondly, the soul, or nephesh, is the same 'breath of life' which was a prerequisite for animals which were to be included on the Ark. Man and the 'higher' animals all have soul, which is the ability to learn, fight for life, fight for progeny, have relationships with individuals of other species, etc. It is expressed through the central nervous system. What makes man unique is spirit. That is how we are created in the image of God for, as Jesus told the woman at the well in John 4, "God is spirit." Personality is not what marks man. That is something to do with nephesh and is shared by many animals. It is spirit that marks man. Nevertheless, we are told clearly in the Bible that our bodies were made directly from the elemental substances. This is not 'natural means,' but supernatural means. It is not magic, as magic is deception at heart.

    :
    Helen: The concept of 'body plan' is well known in biology and we do not have the same body plan as a starfish.

    Barbarian: Sure we do. The adult forms hide the fact that they are formed in embryo with a bilateral symmetry (as we are).


    Bilateralism does not mean relationship. Nor does it mean the same body plan. Part of the description of a body plan can be 'bilateral symmetry', but that is not a body plan in and of itself. Please learn what 'body plan' refers to.


    a common starfish larva. Note the mouth at the front end, the gut behind,and the bilateral symmetry. Later, the larva develops brachia, and assumes the apparent pentaradial form.

    A one-way digestive tract does not a body form make. It is simply a contributing factor.
    The 'apparent' pentaradial form is part of the primary body plan, however!

    As far as your embryological similarities are concerned which so amazed you, perhaps you had better delve a little deeper into embryology. Here is a quote from Wells posted at the True.Origins site:

    Animal embryos then enter the "gastrulation" stage, during which their cells move relative to each other, rearranging themselves to generate basic tissue types and establish the general layout of the animal's body. The consequences of this process are so significant that embryologist Lewis Wolpert has written that "it is not birth, marriage, or death, but gastrulation which is truly the important event in your life." (Wolpert, 1991, p. 12) Like cleavage patterns, gastrulation patterns vary markedly among the major groups of animals, including the different classes of vertebrates. (Elinson, 1987)

    Only after gastrulation do the embryos of mammals, birds, fishes, and reptiles begin to resemble each other. In the "pharyngula" stage, every vertebrate embryo looks vaguely like a tiny fish, with a prominent head and a long tail. The neck region of a vertebrate pharyngula also has a series of "pharyngeal pouches," or tiny ridges, which recapitulationists misleadingly refer to as "gill slits." Although in fish embryos these actually go on to form gills, in other vertebrates they develop into various other head structures such as the inner ear and parathyroid gland (Lehman, 1987) The embryos of mammals, birds and reptiles never possess gills.



    Barbarian, you are using evolutionary glasses to look at everything, so it all looks colored the same because that is the way you are seeing it, but if you quit presuming evolution happened and simply look at the evidence you may be amazed at the contradictions in these fields where evolution is concerned. You believe in evolution, evidently, because you are incredulous that it could have happened any other way, regardless of what God says!

    Your presupposition is evolution itself. And it has been expanded to accommodate whatever it finds because it has been declared to be true. Period. What evolution has actually had to do is shove more and more tricks and explanations into its magic sack so that all sorts of anomalous data could be at one point for all living creatures with them, the explanation was that 'convergent' evolution had happened and eyes developed thirty or forty times! That's the way it is with all of evolutionary 'theory'. If things didn't happen one way, well, then, they happened another. But no matter what, evolution happened. That, Barbarian, is a statement of pure faith.


    THE BARBARIAN
    The fact is, biologists generally agree that we aren't simply the product of a prokaryote that evolved all sorts of organelles. Rather, eukaryotic cells are a collection, a symbiosis of cells. Our mitochodria, for example, look like bacteria. They have their own DNA that looks more like bacterial DNA. Chloroplasts have a similar situation in green plants; they look like photosynthetic bacteria. Lynn Margulis' "Symbiotic Planet" has a good deal of detail on these and other symbioses. And yes, we have partial symbioses that aren't quite obligatory.


    One way or another, evolution says the precursor of even one of these gradually, via mutations and natural selection, given lots of chance and time, became diversified into all the life forms we see today and in the fossil record.

    I don't hear much about chance, these days. And sometimes, the jump could have been discontinuous, as when the first eukaryotes came about by symbiosis.


    Barbarian has given the standard evolution dogma

    Dogma is creationism. Science depends on evidence. Evolutionary theory is based on the evidence, such as the evidence I mentioned above for a symbiotic origin of eukaryotes. How that came about is still quite controversial, and there is no standard dogma or even general agreement on all points.


    that this development proceeded simply by changing a little at a time.

    Nope.


    What he does not seem to grasp is that at some point a new body plan had to emerge.

    Symbiosis would qualify, I suppose. "Body plans" had to wait for metazoans. And by that time, eukaryotes were ancient, indeed.


    Neither he nor you or your pet gerbil is in any way simply a progressively altered unicellular organism.

    True. Individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve.


    This is something the original post in this thread brought out so clearly. That was written by Jonathan Wells, a Ph.D. in embryology and currently doing original research in that field. He is also the author of Icons of Evolution, a book that points out that each of the major 'evidences' for evolution which has been bandied about in texts right up to the present time has been known for dozens of years to be false.

    Actually, even Wells admits that they aren't "major evidences" of evolution. He makes the much more modest claim that they are often found in a misleading way in textbooks. I have seen lots of arguments about evolution on the net, but I have yet to see any scientist advance these as the "major evidences" for evolution. Far as I know, Wells completely avoids discussing the major evidence for evolution, such as we've been talking about.


    But it's all they have, so they keep on presenting the peppered moths, the beaks of the finches, the Urey-Miller experiment, etc.

    Urey-Miller, as you know, is not about evolution. "The Beak of the Finch" is a wonderful book about the first exhaustive observation of evolution in any vertebrate population. Turns out the theory works as advertised. But it's a very short time, and microevolutionary. The evidence for macroevolution is in the nature of the fossil record that shows innumerable intermediates, in our genes, showing for example that chimp telomere in our 2nd chomosome, right where fusion would have to have occured, in the fact that biochemical phylogenies match up with earlier anatomical ones, etc. Wells' stuff is very minor, as he admits. His arguement is that we it is presented in a misleading way. And you and I have often agreed that secondary school textbooks have numerous errors in them.

    …creationists generally concede that evolution is a fact to the level of family. But then, they speculate, it has to stop, due to some "wall".
    There is no evidence for such a "wall". It is simply a product of creationist presuppositions that it must exist. No one can show what it is, or even what species have reached the limit of variation. That being so, there is no possibility of scientists being convinced of creationism as a viable theory. Those few that do, have religious reasons for doing so.


    HELEN
    There is no way to respond to your stuff without encouraging you to go on. The readers here are intelligent enough to see what you are doing, I'm sure. I'll leave it with them.

    In the meantime, because you say so does not make something true.
    But…

    1. Wells' stuff is not 'minor' -- and, knowing the man, I know he did not say that!

    2. The finches' beaks go back and forth in size from generation to generation depending on the amount of rainfall. That is conveniently ignored by those who present the beak as evolution. Nothing is happening, in general, to the finch population. They remain finches and the beaks remain varied from year to year.

    And if there is no 'wall' between kinds (which are the members of the original populations and their progeny, by definition), then after a hundred years of working with E.coli, we would have gotten something besides fat E.coli.
    With a generation time of 20 minutes, we are talking millions of generations which have ended up, being subjected to every mutagent imaginable, and are either live E.coli or dead E.coli at the end of things.

    Evolution is a fairy story. No empirical evidence past simple (and reversible) variation has ever been seen -- even in single-celled organisms, and even after a hundred years of working with them.
    Is a hundred years too short? Not when you have over 2 million generations it had better not be!
    In the meantime, when I ask you for references, you sure do get quiet in a hurry!


    THE BARBARIAN
    1. Wells' stuff is not 'minor' –

    Yep. Microevolutionary stuff, most of it. Not at all what scientists consider major evidence for evolution.


    and, knowing the man, I know he did not say that!

    I had a chance to thumb through "Icons of Evolution" on a plane ride home. I'll see if I can get a copy and tell you about it.


    2. The finches' beaks go back and forth in size from generation to generation depending on the amount of rainfall. That is conveniently ignored by those who present the beak as evolution.

    That is microevolution. If we saw a permanent change in climate, then those changes would persist. The point was natural selection, which this study showed to work as expected. It was not about the evolution of new species.


    Nothing is happening, in general, to the finch population. They remain finches and the beaks remain varied from year to year.

    As natural selection would predict. We see permanent changes only where the environment is changed and the change persists. As the theory also predicts.


    And if there is no 'wall' between kinds (which are the members of the original populations and their progeny, by definition), then after a hundred years of working with E.coli, we would have gotten something besides fat E.coli.

    The changes in bacteria are not in shape, but in biochemistry. And the changes have been far greater than exist between humans and chimps. So again, we have the choice of accepting that new kinds of bacteria have evolved, or that humans and apes are a single kind.


    With a generation time of 20 minutes, we are talking millions of generations which have ended up, being subjected to every mutagent imaginable, and are either live E.coli or dead E.coli at the end of things.

    No. Depending on the species, generational time varies, but 20 minutes would not be millions of generations. We do see what creationists deny can happen, though:

    "For example, in the common bacteria E coli, there are three genes in the B-gal system : a permease (lacY), which allows B-galactosides into the cell; a B-galactosidase (lacZ), which digests the B-galactosides into usable sugars (galactose and glucose, through allo-lactose); and an enhancer (lacI), which increases production of the other two lac proteins about 500 to 1000x in the presense of B-galactosides. This is an 'irreproducbly complex' system - remove any one of the proteins (lacY, lacZ, or lacI), and the cell can't use B-galactosides as a carbon source.

    Back in 1982, Barry Hall removed the lacZ gene from a strain of E coli, then plated them to see how long it would take the bacteria to re-develop lacZ function. It took less than 3 weeks.

    The bacteria had another protein (completely unrelated to lacZ) that could catalyze the needed reaction, but at about one thousandth the needed levels (even if 100% of the protein in the bacteria were this, it wouldn't be enough). A mutation increased its ability to catalyze the reaction to usable levels. A second, later mutation altered the protein again, so that the end product could activate the lac system again - IT WAS NOW REGULATED (only active in the presence of substrate); the old lacI and lacY proteins were now part of a new system (which is now, again, irreproducibly complex).


    "Evolution on a Petri Dish : The evolved B-galactosidase system as a model for studying acquisitive evolution in the lab", Barry G Hall, Evolutionary Biology (1982) #15, pg 85-150."


    Evolution is a fairy story.

    Nope. Even the ICR admits it happens. They just want to limit it to new species, genera, and families. (according to the ICR-endorsed "Ark Feasibility Study". When I got started in this, creationists were denying new species evolved. If the trend continues, we won't have anything to argue about in a few years.


    No empirical evidence past simple (and reversible) variation has ever been seen -- even in single-celled organisms, and even after a hundred years of working with them.

    Nope. The Faroe Island Mouse, for example. It is not going to become Mus domesticus, because it can no longer reproduce with the species from which it evolved.

    Essentially, creationists have redefined evolution to mean "any change that takes more time than we've had time to observe." The old "Yes a man can walk to my door, but I don't believe he can walk a block to the post office." theory.


    Is a hundred years too short?
    Not when you have over 2 million generations it had better not be!


    Nope. Not too short. As you can see, an entirely new metabolic pathway evolved (irreducibly complex, no less) in a few weeks. But we can see such dramatic change in bacteria because they are so numerous and reproduce so fast.
     
  3. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    HELEN
    Barbarian - if there was ever anyone who could evade issues, present straw men, drag stinking herrings across paths, offer rabbit trails, and redefine things to suit the argument, you are he. I honestly think you have chosen to believe the lie for so long that you don't know what the truth looks like.

    Regarding Wells: I have read his book twice through, lectured on it, use it as a reference, and have distributed copies. In fact I have a first edition, which cannot be had anymore. You don't have to condescend to offer to tell me what it says. What amazes me is that you pronounce that he is only dealing with microevolutionary material which you pronounce as 'minor' and say he did, too (which he did not), and you have not even read the book! He deals with Haeckel's deceitful presentation of embryos, which is a far cry from anything 'micro' or 'minor'. He deals with the ape and man having the same ancestor garbage, presenting material from peer-reviewed journals showing that professionals in the field know better. This is not 'micro' or 'minor' either.

    His chapter on homology in vertebrate limbs is not dealing with anything minor, but strikes at the heart of one of the main 'evidences' put forward by evolutionists. In every chapter he references peer-reviewed major journals which have already published material acknowledging the falsity of that particular presentation by evolution apologists.

    Yes, please read the book.

    You stated that if the environment changed permanently, the finch beaks would change permanently. Possibly. First of all, you have no evidence for that. Secondly, if it did happen, what natural selection would have done would be to eliminate all alternatives to what was chosen. This is deletion - a loss of information in the genome of the finch population which would effectively boost them up a fitness peak. There is no way down from such a peak, for alternate information is lost to the population. That is why we have so many endangered species today - they no longer have (if they ever had) the capacity to vary enough to meet the demands of changing environments. That is what natural selection leads to.

    Twenty minutes generation time for E.coli leads to approximately 2,628,000 generations in a hundred years, and we have been working with E.coli longer than that. Keep in mind, as well, that that is LINEAR generations, meaning all the millions of sister cells of that generation are not being taken into account. You said we would not have millions of generations. You did not do the math, or did not do it well.

    Regarding the material from Evolution in a Petri Dish etc., the bacteria already had in place the ability to mutate at 'hot spots', which is known. It is the only way unicellular organisms can vary enough to survive in various environments. But slightly different regulatory pathways do not a different organism make. E.coli remains E.coli, and that is the point of the entire argument from the creation side.

    Next you tried to say that creationists were saying there was no speciation, but that evolution took place at the species level and we finally admitted it with Woodmorappe's book. The point you are endeavoring to make is faulty on two counts. First, people have been breeding horses, dogs, cats, pigeons, cattle, and what have you, for a very long time, and are and were VERY aware of variation. This variation is still and only what is taking place and creationists have NEVER denied that! What is more, however, and is not either recognized or acknowledged by you and others in your camp is that there was a time when the DEFINITION of species was considered to be the biblical 'kind.' THIS is the reason why the argument was raised that there was no such thing as a new species. As long as the definition of species is equated with kind, that is true. However the definition of species has not only changed, but is right now not even settled! Right now it seems to be centering on the concept of an isolated and interbreeding population. It has everything to do with mating cues and nothing to do with either genetics or morphology! Animals like dogs, with such different morphologies are more than happy to breed with each other because the mating cues are olfactory. Size, shape, and color make no nevermind. Thus animals with even different numbers of chromosomes, such as the various members of the equine family, are also quite happy to interbreed. The genetics don't matter - the smell does! However hummingbirds, for example, are so picky about coloration that birds that are barely different in color markings and identical in both size and genetics will refuse to interbreed and so they are referred to as different species!

    So, basically, speciation is a joke the animals have played on humans. It means little or nothing biologically in the real world. In the meantime, variation within a kind goes on, and dogs are distinctly dogs, mosquitoes are distinctly mosquitoes, vipers are distinctly vipers, etc. Whereas evolutionists seem to have a hard time with the concept of 'kind,' the animals don't have any problem with it at all.

    I think it is clear as crystal to anyone reading who is not already an indoctrinated evolutionist that the evidence is flat out on the side of special creation exactly as the Bible presents it. Organisms were created by kind, and while there has been a lot of variation within each kind, the kinds are separate and distinct. Why do you think we call the lions and tigers 'big cats'? People know!


    THE BARBARIAN
    Haeckel's theory of recaptiulation was exposed and refuted a long time ago. It is not even considered to be correct, much less an argument for evolution. Scientists know that the similarities in embryos do not mean that we become fish and salamanders, and reptiles in turn. It merely means that embyros retain some characteristics that went before. The brachial arches that formed gill arches in early chordates, become jaws, the bones of the ear,and so on. In fish, some of them do become gill arches, but not in mammals. In some chordates, they all become gill arches. Some of the books approved by the state of Texas have photographs of embyros, but I haven't seen Haeckel's drawings in any of them. Early in the process, I asked one publisher if they had read Well's book, so maybe that helped.


    He deals with the ape and man having the same ancestor garbage, presenting material from peer-reviewed journals showing that professionals in the field know better.

    Nope. That's false. What paleontologists or primatologists think that humans and apes don't have a common ancestor? Every one that I've read think that they do. I won't need a quote, unless you've read the entire article and know that the quote accurately represents what they think, and that they are actually paleontologists or primatologists.


    His chapter on homology in vertebrate limbs is not dealing with anything minor, but strikes at the heart of one of the main 'evidences' put forward by evolutionists. In every chapter he references peer-reviewed major journals which have already published material acknowledging the falsity of that particular presentation by evolution apologists.

    The literature still points out the homologies. Again, I suspect we have some quote mining going on. I would be pleased to have the names of the evolutionists who think homology is not a fact, and will see if I can verify that.


    You stated that if the environment changed permanently, the finch beaks would change permanently. Possibly. First of all, you have no evidence for that.

    Sure I do. That's precisely what happened to an entire assemblage of birds that colonized the Hawaian Islands. That's in "The Beak of the Finch", too.


    Secondly, if it did happen, what natural selection would have done would be to eliminate all alternatives to what was chosen.

    Nope. Some of those Hawaian forms have beaks found in no other bird.


    This is deletion - a loss of information in the genome of the finch population which would effectively boost them up a fitness peak.

    Nope. We see new alleles evolving in numerous organisms. I gave you some examples of that in the bacterium that evolved a new, irreducibly comples metabolic pathway.


    There is no way down from such a peak, for alternate information is lost to the population.

    No, that's wrong, too. Since we know favorable mutations happen, and can accumulate to form new features, it's not hard to figure out how it happens.


    That is why we have so many endangered species today - they no longer have (if they ever had) the capacity to vary enough to meet the demands of changing environments.

    For the ones I know, it's mostly humans or introduced species affecting their habitats.

    Fortunately, as we have seen, new species are evolving even today. Unfortunately, vertebrates don't reproduce quickly enough to adapt in most cases.


    Regarding the material from Evolution in a Petri Dish etc., the bacteria already had in place the ability to mutate at 'hot spots', which is known. It is the only way unicellular organisms can vary enough to survive in various environments.

    Yep. It happens in vertebrates, too, but not as quickly, of course. Some sites are more prone to mutate than others.


    The point you are endeavoring to make is faulty on two counts. First, people have been breeding horses, dogs, cats, pigeons, cattle, and what have you, for a very long time, and are and were VERY aware of variation. This variation is still and only what is taking place and creationists have NEVER denied that!

    Speciation, and certainly the evolution of new genera and families is very much different than varieties of the same species.


    What is more, however, and is not either recognized or acknowledged by you and others in your camp is that there was a time when the DEFINITION of species was considered to be the biblical 'kind.'

    Actually, scientists tended to use "races". And they classified species after Linneaus, who differentiated many species within what creationists would call "kind".


    THIS is the reason why the argument was raised that there was no such thing as a new species.

    No. Darwin came along long after Linneaus and his system.

    Indeed. If God actually created these animals independently, we would expect to see nice neat categories. But we don't. We see half-species, and ring species in which nearby populations in the ring are interfertile, but the widely-separated ones are not. It's messy because we see speciation in progress.


    So, basically, speciation is a joke the animals have played on humans. It means little or nothing biologically in the real world.

    It means everything. Because reproductive isolation, when finally achieved, means that the two populations are now unable to share genes, and mutations, and recombinations, and will thereafter accumulate differences which will become increasingly great.


    Why do you think we call the lions and tigers 'big cats'? People know!

    True. A study of the taxonomy of New Guinea tribesmen for birds showed that they followed the evolutionary phylogenies almost perfectly. In fact, in one case, they had accurately classified one bird that had been mistakenly placed in a different group, before it had been extensively studied!

    Cats did indeed evolve from less evolved carnivores, and the resemblance shows. I have the skull of a wildcat on my desk, and the "catness" is apparent, even compared to a cougar and a housecat skull. As you and I once discussed, teeth are key to classifying mammals, and the teeth of cats are mostlike those of animals two which they have most other anatomical and genetic resemblences.


    PHILLIP
    Helen,
    This one is for you. Years back I was sitting on our back porch cooking steaks in the grill and watching my dogs play with some ducks I bought for my kids for Easter. The ducks were full grown. One was a BEAUTIFUL large white duck, I cannot remember her breed.

    This was the first time evolution really hit me and the fact that it cannot be true. I watched that duck fly across the yard and since I have a lot of knowledge in aeronautics I could see that a duck is an EXTREMELY complex flying machine. More effecient based on weight and fuel than any aircraft being used commercially today. I have to clip the wings (which is not paintful it is only a few feathers on one side that grow back each year to make the duck unstable --one wing has more lift than the other.) But the animal is perfectly balanced, perfect center of gravity, perfect tail section designed to stabilize the flying animal. Wings that create not only lift but forward thrust, etc. etc. This may not be a very scientific post--but at that moment I realized there could be NOTHING as a step in between this flying animal and an animal that lives on the earth. Regardless of remarks about flying squirrels, or dinos with skin wrapped around (they could fly) etc. there can be NO links tying them together. Then I started looking at individual body parts. Let us talk about the human eye for a moment. What would develope on a human that would sense light to the point where it would keep evolving to come up with an adjustable lens and F-stop opening with automatic exposure control that projects it upside down on the retina which not only contains black and white sensors (rods), but color sensors (cones). WHAT IN THE WORLD COULD BE THE STEPS BETWEEN. I can understand a fish loosing its sight in a cave, but give me a break. Develope and eye, develope an ear with a frequency band of 20 Hz to approximately 14 to 20 Khz depending on age? Then tie all of this to the world's most complex piece of machinery, the human brain, that can process data and drive down a highway while discussing another subject and notice danger without conscious thought (most of the time--there are accidents), but to take all of this input and process it into signals to take evasive actions without conscious thought. Then there is the spider that builds the web and knows to build the cross webs with sticky substance and the structural webs (spokes) with non sticky threads.

    I remember a story of a man who demonstrated evolution by picking up a rock from his driveway and a carved rock he bought as a souvineer and asked his son which one had obvious intelligence behind it. It was obvious. Then he told his son to look at any animal or man and ask, "Is there a plan involved here?" a blue print of some sort? Then we find the most complex communication in the world, the human (and animal too) DNA that passes down coded information in a way that is so complex the odds of it occuring randomly just can't even hardly be calculated. We search the heavens for a sign of life or a signal from God when we have a message right here, inside every single cell in our bodies.
    Evolution? It takes more faith than faith in God!


    REKLAW
    Not that I'm an expert on the subject, but under what I know, I would contend that just because creatures are similar in genetic build, then it doesn't necessarily prove a common link, but a common design. The only way I could imagine Darwinism never having been originated is if all creatures were created differently in all aspects. We could be made out of energy and cats could be made out of mud perhaps?

    I've imagined how to contradict the idea that we're all made and evolved from what's already there, and I think I can't, but not for the reason some may think of. Some animals just don't have the same genetic material to evolve into another animal out there (fish can't grow fur and pigs can't turn blue), but it may be said that keeping latent information in your DNA that you no longer need is nonessential, so it can be discarded can be an argument. So you could say that there was a more unified "part" that no longer exists that links vertebrates and invertebrates, etc. Granted, I'm not too informed on genetics, but ignoring even my own ignorance on the subject, it seems logical, to even the uninformed, of some facts about Darwinism that pop up. It's the type of "science" that you can make up a new fact about and avoid conflict altogether. Since we don't know much of anything about the principles or evidence for evolution, we really can't argue, but we sure can be imaginative. It was designed very well... wonder by who?


    HELEN
    Phillip and Reklaw,
    I agree with your posts. Phillip, when the Lord had finally stripped off the blinders I had regarding His creation, and when I finally separated myself from evolution presuppositions, I was amazed and stunned at how much I had missed. Belief in evolution had blinded me to the most incredible things. You saw it in that duck. It took me years to see it in anything. What I finally started understanding biologically and not just theologically (why had I separated the meaning of the two?) was that what we see around us is the remains of a perfect world. We live in a world that is crumbling, not progressing.

    Every once in awhile, though, there is something that helps us look back in time. You saw the perfection of the duck (by the way, we have chickens and I know about clipping wings...grin) flying. I spend a lot of time in my garden. I love growing things. I have seen it there -- the flower untouched by bugs or disease, at least for awhile.

    And then you stop and look around and see the damage in a new light. It is everywhere. A crippled child, a rotting barn, a stunted stalk of corn. Little things, big things -- it takes enormous work to maintain the good things and to also prevent damage and wear however we can. Work, and intelligence, and time -- just to keep things going.

    And yet evolution wants us to take more of the time that destroys so much and somehow it then becomes the rescuer, accomplishing miracles of organization and accomplishment!

    When I look at Pat's posts (Barbarian), I remember myself before. Maybe that is why I get so angry with him. He is still so blind, so full of excuses to prop up Darwinism. I remember my own arrogance when I see his, and perhaps it is the shame I feel about myself then which makes me react so now. How can a person be so blind?

    But I was. I remember seeing, and even considering, evidence that evolution of microbe to man was impossible -- and suppressing it. Because I believed evolution was true. I remember thinking creationists were the biggest ignoramuses in the book.

    Now I is one!

    Reklaw, yes, it is stories. Imagination takes over for evolution when data doesn't work. A French biologist (Grasse, I think) called evolution a fairy story for adults.

    As far as genetics goes, I have learned that evolution is impossible. Variation takes place because it is coded into the genome, natural selection deletes information, and those extraordinarily rare mutations which can be considered 'good' by any standard at all, are good only in selected environments for special reasons. Just like the super-bugs in the hospitals, they lose the battle when the real world intrudes.

    I can't talk to Pat. Look at his posts! He has learned nothing that I can discern in the four or five years I have seen him on forums. He repeats his mantras over and over again, and he honestly believes them. That is a choice a person makes.

    I am so grateful to have been set free from the trap of the evolutionary mindset. The enforced blindness -- I am still amazed at the difference in the world I saw when that blindness was gone.

    But how can that be explained to anyone? How to explain light to a person born and raised in a cave? How does one explain breathing air to a fish?


    REKLAW
    During my studies at college, in one of my Philosophy classes, there was an illustration given by Socrates. There is a man chained to a wall in the middle of a cave. All he is capable of seeing is the back of the cave, which has shadows of people moving, given off by the sun, which is outside of the cave, shining a faint light inside. Some others are with him, but they are in the same situation and cannot see one another. At one point the man's bonds are broken, and he is freed. He explores the cave and comes to the entrance, or the exit in his case. He encounters the sun for the first time and is blinded by it, as he is not used to the light. He becomes accustomed to this and approaches a stream before anything else. He gains his true vision and looks down into the stream to see reflections, and is astonished by what he sees. He then looks up and sees the real world, and this frightens yet fascinates him. After spending time here, he goes back to the cave to tell the others, but cannot see because he isn't used to the darkness. Eventually he becomes accustomed and finds the others, and tells them of the true nature of things, and how we are not all shadows. The others cannot see him because of the darkness, only shadows on the wall. They dismiss him as insane and forsake him because of it.

    This is purely representative: the man is one who is trapped in false teachings (the cave and darkness). He sees the truth (the sun) through the shadows on the wall, but in fact knows very little. When he is able to venture nearer the truth he is blinded by it until he can fathom some aspect of it. This is when he can clearly distinguish a lesser yet greater aspect of truth in the river. After being able to grasp not only this but the real world (truth itself), he returns to his disillusioned friends and tells them of the truth. In their ignorance they dismiss him as a fool, saying that the truth is clearly before them, and that if he says differently then he must be insane or using an attempt to lead them all down a path of destruction.

    I think you can see why I decided to post this. It's a pretty nice little illustration.


    HELEN
    Yes, and thank you for fleshing that out. I had the Socrates cave illustration in mind when I posted that, Reklaw. And it was C.S. Lewis who has the illustration of trying to explain air breathing to a fish in one of his essays. They both seemed apt. It's neat that you recognized the one, and thank you for the expanded version, which is really fascinating to think about.
     
  4. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    THE BRIGUY
    Barbarian says "Nope. It's almost certain that eukaryotes are not simply altered bacteria, but symbioses of several kinds.
    Would you like to review the evidence for this?


    Notice the word "almost"
    Also he uses the word "generally" (in another spot)
    I am sure there are many examples of such other words in his writing but I did not have the stomach to read it all.
    The point is all that stuff is unproved speculation and probabilities.
    I will stick to the word of God - Thank you


    THE BARBARIAN
    It is the nature of science to never "prove" anything. It merely gathers more and more information. Hence, although it is theoretically possible for bacteria to evolve into eukaryotes, the evidence is that it was a matter of symbiosis. The fact that many organelles have bacteria-like DNA of their own, and replicate independently of the cell is powerful evidence for this theory, as is the fact that such endosymbiosis has been directly observed to occur in amoebas.

    "Generally", is due to the fact that almost everything (darn, there's that word again) in biology has a counter-example. For those who like their nature stories in "just so" black and white, this is a constant aggravation.


    HELEN
    There is no 'evidence' that it was a matter of symbiosis, Pat! There is theory. That's it. And 'bacteria-like' DNA?
    Pray, tell, what does that mean? As far as evolutionsts are concerned, we also have 'bacteria-like' DNA. So if everything has it, then it means anything you want it to mean -- either common ancestor or common Designer.

    By the way, throwing around 'endosymbiosis' in amoeba as though it were indicative of bacterial evolution is rather deceptive...


    THE BARBARIAN
    There is no 'evidence' that it was a matter of symbiosis, Pat! There is theory. That's it.

    Nope. That's wrong. Those organelles have an entirely different genome than is contained in the nucleus. T


    And 'bacteria-like' DNA?

    Duplex, circular DNA molecules, not separated from the matrix by a surrounding membrane. This describes bacterial and organelle DNA.

    If these arose autogeneously, they would have homologies with their cell. But they don't. They have homologies with bacteria and cyanophytes.

    There's more. In the protist Cyanophora paraoxa, there are two to four cyanelles. These are photosynthetic structures that closely resemble independent cyanophytes. They have the same sort of thylakoids and pigments that use light to make sugar. It has its own DNA, but cannot be cultured apart from the host. This indicates that it is a relatively recent endosymbiont evolved from cyanophytes.

    Cyanophytes, like Prochloron tend to enter other cells and become endosymbionts, although they usually don't become obligately so. They exist as such in ascidians, among others. But chloroplasts very closely resemble these cyanophytes. They have the same thylakoid structure, chlorophyls.

    There are others, but I'd have to go check on them. You might read Lynn Margulis' "Symbiotic Planet" for more details.


    Pray, tell, what does that mean? As far as evolutionsts are concerned, we also have 'bacteria-like' DNA.

    No, that's a misconception. Ours is not circular, as it is bacteria and our mitochondria. I believe ribosomal DNA is also circular. I can check on that for you, if you'd like to know.


    So if everything has it, then it means anything you want it to mean -- either common ancestor or common Designer.

    But that's not the case. It indicates a bacterial origin for mitochondria.


    By the way, throwing around 'endosymbiosis' in amoeba as though it were indicative of bacterial evolution is rather deceptive...

    Nope. It merely demonstrates that bacteria can enter cells and become endosymbionts. (in this case obligate endosymbionts; the ameobae can no longer live without them)


    HELEN
    Helen: There is no 'evidence' that it was a matter of symbiosis, Pat! There is theory. That's it.
    Barbarian: Nope. That's wrong. Those organelles have an entirely different genome than is contained in the nucleus.


    I never said they didn't. That is not even part of the argument. I already know they don't! But when that fact was discovered, evolutionists sure had to scramble with their ideas to make up some way that could have happened! Bet you guys sure appreciate Margulis' imagination!


    Helen: And 'bacteria-like' DNA?
    Barbarian: Duplex, circular DNA molecules, not separated from the matrix by a surrounding membrane. This describes bacterial and organelle DNA.


    Well, since organelles don't have interior membranes (they are much too small to contain a double layer of lipids with proteins incorporated), what other options are there? They have the lack of something the same way bacteria do, but that means nothing! It's a desperation move on the part of evolutionists. There is NOTHING aside from the astounding discovery that mitochondria has its own DNA and that the form of this DNA is forced onto it by size, that would mark it as a bacteria or previous bacteria, or anything other than designed-to-be-in-the-cell mitochondria.


    If these arose autogeneously, they would have homologies with their cell. But they don't.

    According to 'design by Pat.'


    They have homologies with bacteria and cyanophytes.

    EVERYTHING has some kind of homology with everything else. That means nothing.


    There's more. In the protist Cyanophora paraoxa, there are two to four cyanelles. These are photosynthetic structures that closely resemble independent cyanophytes. They have the same sort of thylakoids and pigments that use light to make sugar. It has its own DNA, but cannot be cultured apart from the host. This indicates that it is a relatively recent endosymbiont evolved from cyanophytes.

    No it doesn't. It simply means that it cannot survive independently of the host. What happened before that is not known.


    Cyanophytes, like Prochloron tend to enter other cells and become endosymbionts, although they usually don't become obligately so. They exist as such in ascidians, among others. But chloroplasts very closely resemble these cyanophytes. They have the same thylakoid structure, chlorophyls. There are others, but I'd have to go check on them. You might read Lynn Margulis' "Symbiotic Planet" for more details.

    No thanks. She's one of the desperate inventors who is trying to prop up evolution with imagination. I prefer reality, thanks.


    Helen: Pray, tell, what does that mean? As far as evolutionsts are concerned, we also have 'bacteria-like' DNA.
    Barbarian: No, that's a misconception. Ours is not circular, as it is bacteria and our mitochondria. I believe ribosomal DNA is also circular.

    You are avoiding the research I was referring to, or maybe you don't know about it? Initial reports following the completion of the human genome project were that 223 of our genes seem to have come from bacteria. At first this was thought to be via some kind of unknown lateral transfer. But instead it was decided that we had "inherited" these genes from ancestral common ancestors. So I was not talking about shape, but about content.


    Helen: So if everything has it, then it means anything you want it to mean -- either common ancestor or common Designer.
    Barbarian: But that's not the case. It indicates a bacterial origin for mitochondria.


    No it doesn't. It means you folks can't figure how on earth mitochondria ended up having its own DNA and you are grasping at straws.


    Helen: By the way, throwing around 'endosymbiosis' in amoeba as though it were indicative of bacterial evolution is rather deceptive...
    Barbarian: Nope. It merely demonstrates that bacteria can enter cells and become endosymbionts. (in this case obligate endosymbionts; the ameobae can no longer live without them)


    Wrong. It demonstrates that you want that to have happened so you don't have to deal with special creation. That is ALL it demonstrates. You are working off the presumption that each organism should only have one sort of DNA. That is your presumption. That is not the way it is. So you have to make up stories to fit with your presumption. And that is all they are - stories.

    From what I can see in your post above, Barbarian, is the same tactic you have tried to use before which has been unsuccessful -- change the argument just a little so that you can wow someone with some technical words (forget explaining them for anyone else reading -- it's easier to let them think you really know your stuff! But you don't.) You are parroting things you have read and accepted as evolutionary gospel. When they change, all of you folks will quietly adapt, throwing out what you swore was true before so that you can adjust your thinking to new data.

    Creationists are actually in a much more enviable position. We believe what the Creator said He did, and, lo and behold, the data keep lining up to fit with it. It must be very frustrating for you folks, actually. Evolution has nothing to go on but a combination of easily seen and acknowledged variation and imagination. We are in the enviable position of being able to rely on empirical data.

    You see, animals still breed according to kind. The cell is so amazingly complex that it boggles the mind.
    That's OK with us -- it's kind of exciting to see the wonders of God's creative Hand.



    THE BARBARIAN
    When new facts appear, scientists always have to start collecting data to figure things out. Marulis' genius was not in imagination, so much as knowing where to look to make sense of the facts. The fact that many organelles resemble bacteria in many ways is important evidence about their origin.

    Mitochondria, for example have an double membrane between the exterior of the organelle, and the cristae. The DNA, however, is not enclosed in a membrane, which is the way it is in bacteria. Another reason that scientists have concluded that these are actually evolved bacterial endosymbionts. As I pointed out earlier, we do know that such endosymbiosis happens, since we have a directly observed example.

    They strongly resemble bacteria, even down to the form of their DNA, and their lack of nuclear membrane, and the circular form of the DNA strand. Even more telling, Chloroplasts have internal structures strong resembling chlorophytes. It's just too much to dismiss.

    Nothing says that a small genome has to be circular, or that it has to be more similar to bacteria than to other organisms. Size isn't the issue.

    If we knew nothing about mitochondria, and found one apart from its cell, we would call it a bacterium. It resembles one, it has a genome like a bacterium, even the genes are more like bacteria than like animals or plants.

    Since these little things look so very much like bacteria, and have all the other bacterial features noted above, and since we know bacteria can easily become endosymbionts, it's not hard to figure out what it means.

    Fact is, there's no reason why these organelles should look so much like prokaryotic endosymbionts (which we know happens) unless that's exactly what they are.


    What we see today - empirical evidence and all - is that animals mate with their own kind. Do you assume it was not always that way, perhaps?

    Hybridization does sometimes result in new species. But more often, it's just descent with modification, until at some point, there's reproductive isolation, and then the two lines diverge more and more until there are new genera or families. And then we see that these diverge further and further.


    From what I can see in your post above is the same tactic you have tried to use before which has been unsuccessful -- change the argument just a little so that you can wow someone with some technical words (forget explaining them for anyone else reading -- it's easier to let them think you really know your stuff!

    You're welcome to check my assertions about organelles. I'm right. The evidence is just what I said it is.


    When they change, all of you folks will quietly adapt, throwing out what you swore was true before so that you can adjust your thinking to new data.

    As noted earlier, it is the way of science to change the theory as facts require. It is the nature of creationism to alter the facts to fit the theory.

    Our way might seem wrong to you. But there is very little that humans do that works better than science.


    We believe what the Creator said He did, and, lo and behold, the data keep lining up to fit with it.

    A theistic evolutionist would say the same thing, and he would actually have evidence to back it up.
     
  5. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Administrator: A new thread starts here on the same subject.]

    SCOTT PAGE
    Many have hawked this phenomenon as evidence against evolution, and even gone so far as to claim that it provides a mechanism for the post-flood hyperevolution required by YECism.

    Is there any actual genetic evidence that this occurs in 'higher' animals such as mammals?

    If so, are there any working hypotheses or tests of hypothese in any published works?

    Let me clarify that - in any freely available published works that I wouldn't have to buy?


    HELEN
    Hi Scott,

    I honestly don't know much about what is argued here on either side. I do know a couple of things, though, pertaining to this:

    1. We know hot spots of mutation areas exist where more frequent mutations take place, both in unicellular and multicellular animals.

    2. We know that certain mutagents cause certain mutations with certain effects.

    3. We know that a simple point mutation can affect a number of different functions physiologically.

    I know that you know all this, but your question is a good one and I just saw it now, buried under everything. So, for anyone else reading, there are some of the things that are known generally in this area. Anyone can play with the above three points to logically come to any number of conclusions.

    I would also like to know about articles in this area of research, though. I'm even willing to pay, to an extent!


    SCOTT PAGE
    1. We know hot spots of mutation areas exist where more frequent mutations take place, both in unicellular and multicellular animals.

    Yes we do. Most of these hot spots are in non-coding regions and can act to 'simplify' recombinations and such.


    2. We know that certain mutagents cause certain mutations with certain effects.

    Yes.


    3. We know that a simple point mutation can affect a number of different functions physiologically.

    Yes - that is why [any argument about] 'pinpointed mutation' gibberish is just that.

    There was an article in Science a few weeks ago about this phenomenon. Creationists have tried to make much of it, from 'explaining' post-flood hyperevolution to explaining away 'Haldane's dilemma' for in-kind variation. Of course, when you ask for their actual supporting evidence, you get a Spetner and a handful of 1980's articles (the same one's Spetner used to wildly extrapolate from), and a total ignorance of what has happened since, namely, more experimentation/observation has shown that the mutations are not 'directed' at all, rather they are genome wide. Even one of the early advocates - Cairns - disavowed his original conclusions.


    JOHN PAUL
    (1988) "Adaptive evolution that requires multiple spontaneous mutations.
    I. Mutations involving an insertion sequence," Genetics, vol. 120, pp. 887-897. In the last, Hall investigated the occurance of the precise deletion of IS103 in the presence of saline.
    2 mutations had to occur in order for Hall's strain to metabolize salacin. The sequence IS103 had to be precisely deleted, then the right nucleotide had to be changed or else a sequence called IS1, or another one called IS5, had to be inserted into the cryptic regulatory gene. Hall tried to measure the spontaneous rate of the precise deletion of IS103 but found it to low to measure (he gave it a probability of less than 2 in a trillion). In the absence of saline these two mutations occur in the same cell with a chance less than 10 to the -19th.
    If the two are indeed independent of each other, then the chance of the rifgt double mutation in at least one cell of the population in two weeks (many generations of bacteria) is about one in 30 million. But wait! In two weeks Hall found that 60% of his colonies underwent both mutations and could metabolize salacin. Imagine that.
    Just looking at the IS103 deletion, which was to low to measure before, 89% of the colony underwent that deletion in 8-12 days.

    Then we have:
    Speedy Species surprise http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/docs/v23n2_speedy.asp

    Why is this evidence for 'directed' mutations? The speed argues aginst random mutations culled and directed by [natural selection]...



    RUFUS ATTICUS
    For all who care,
    Directed mutations are still very controversial in Genetics. Not for any supposed link to creationism, but because the data is still a little iffy and much more work needs to be done. As far as I know no mechanism has been presented to account for directed mutations. And until it is, the prevaling mechanism of random mutations will stand. We never know what future science will reveal, but directed mutations are still very contoversal.

    [Administrator: There were a number of posts following this one by RufusAtticus which were arguments over a thread from another board. They were deleted here for that reason. ]
     
  6. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Administrator: this is from a separate thread.]

    DAVEW
    I've seen a lot here recently from creationists about "degeneration" of genomes from some imagined ideal ancestor. But what is the mechanism for this "degeneration"?

    If a population produces a new generation that includes some "degenerates" due to harmful mutations (either single mutations or accumulations of mutations that are neutral individually but collectively cause some harm), then these "degenerates" are at a disadvantage in terms of survival and/or reproduction compared to the others.
    And over time, the "degenerates" will be outcompeted by the others.

    (If the "degenerates" suffer no ill effects, then they're not degenerated, and if they have an advantage in terms of survival or reproduction, then they're actually an improvement).

    So, it would seem that the only way for this "degeneration" to take place would be for every single individual in a new generation to have the exact same mutation or group of mutations).

    Unless, of course, natural selection is totally bogus, and that that the fittest don't tend to survive.* Is that the case, creationists? Do organisms not differ at all in terms of which ones are likely to survive and/or reproduce?

    * Note: If you wish to discuss why "fitness" as a concept is tautological, please explain first why slower gazelles are no more likely to be eaten by cheetahs than faster ones.


    STEVE SCHAFFNER
    I don't think your argument holds water. Nothing in evolutionary theory prohibits the deleterious mutation rate in a species from exceeding the rate at which natural selection can remove the deleterious mutants. (Such a species will eventually go extinct, of course, but YEC time-scales are short enough that "eventually" could still be in the future.) "Degeneration" would come about not because everyone had the same deleterious mutation, but because everyone had one or more deleterious mutations of any kind. Humans, in fact, are not all that far from this condition: the number of deleterious mutations (i.e. mutations that will eventually be removed by selection) per human offspring is probably in excess of one.

    Not that human genetics supports YEC -- quite the contrary -- but this particular argument doesn't persuade me, at any rate.


    DAVEW
    OK Steve, fair enough, "degeneration" could happen even despite natural selection.

    But surely natural selection has a "braking" effect on the proposed "degeneration,'" by disproportionately selecting out the "degenerates."

    And as such, natural selection poses a much bigger problem for the creationist notion of speciation through "degeneration" over a few thousand years than to the evolutionary concept, which relies on rare beneficial variations being selected for, rather than the creationist concept of harmful "degenerations" causing creatures (e.g. parasites) to be highly adapted to different environments.
     

Share This Page

Loading...