31 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayA beneficial mutation has been observed in the Lenski long term ecoli experiment. You can read all about it here.
I looked at your report I saw this:
"The rate at which new mutations arise in
natural populations and their fitness effects are of key importance in evolutionary genetics. Classical mutation accumulation
experiments have indisputably shown that among
the spontaneous mutations that affect fitness,
those that cause deleterious effects are far more
com ...[text shortened]... of
theoretical work, nothing that said we found this mutation. Maybe you
could point me to it?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenski_experiment
Or a more detailed analysis at the Christian website -
http://biologos.org/blog/behe-lenski-and-the-edge-of-evolution-part-1
31 Dec 14
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell, it seems a bit curious to me that your response to new information (that beneficial mutations have indeed been observed) is to dismiss it straight away without even investigating the claims.
Well, it seems a bit curious to me that your response to new information (that beneficial mutations have indeed been observed) is to dismiss it straight away without even investigating the claims. The study I cited is just one of many. Maybe you could consider reading some of these papers so you can form an opinion about their methodology? If your probl ...[text shortened]... you. Unless, of course, you are not really interested in what we actually know about mutations.
I could also say it's curious that many of you here have dismissed counter arguments and claims, and have steadfastly refused to look at evidence or arguments that refute your position. But I think I can do better than to simply look the other way by making one or two sentence assertions, and then passing the explanation off to a link where an 'expert' can speak for me.
You can say the survival of a bacteria due to a damaged (inoperable) gene is an example of beneficial mutation. Because yes, it was a happy coincidence that benefited the bacterias ability to survive in that one particular instance. But in the broader context of evolution (macro) it's not enough for occasional random chance benefits to occur. You need a consistent and accumulative succession of these random chance events, and they must happen in (what appears to be) apparent coordination with one another, eventually leading to a specific and beneficial result.
You can poo poo this appearance of organization as just that, and say it's nothing more than the appearance of design... you can claim it's nothing more than the result of random chance. But where else (other than in the story of evolution) can you see this kind of random chance process happening?
You don't see this mindset in Vegas, where casinos are always on the look out for blackjack "cheats". They don't believe it's possible for anyone to overcome a house advantage through an accumulative succession of lucky guesses and decisions. Can random decisions to take another card or stay result in a consistent pattern of causing your little pile of money to always evolve into bigger and bigger piles of money?
31 Dec 14
Originally posted by lemon limeI'm happy to look at counter-arguments once you present them.
[b]Well, it seems a bit curious to me that your response to new information (that beneficial mutations have indeed been observed) is to dismiss it straight away without even investigating the claims.
I could also say it's curious that many of you here have dismissed counter arguments and claims, and have steadfastly refused to look at evidence or a ...[text shortened]... causing your little pile of money to always evolve into bigger and bigger piles of money?[/b]
You seem a bit confused about what the state of the experiments is. There's more than just one experiment showing a beneficial mutation, you know. Proper Knob's link shows another interesting example. The link is worth reading, should you ever develop an honest interest in evolution.
Evolution is not a "random" process. Like KellyJay, you seem to not know what natural selection is. I recommend reading a bit about it.
31 Dec 14
Originally posted by Proper Knobhttp://biologos.org/
A beneficial mutation has been observed in the Lenski long term ecoli experiment. You can read all about it here.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenski_experiment
Or a more detailed analysis at the Christian website -
http://biologos.org/blog/behe-lenski-and-the-edge-of-evolution-part-1
Thank you for providing this link. I've been looking for such a site. I know this particular site's emphasis is mainly on evolution, but I've been talking for literally years about the harmony between biblical faith and science. Atheists and theists alike should take a gander at this site.
31 Dec 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraEquating natural selection of existing genes with a process of evolutionary gain extending outside the boundaries of an existing species would be like me telling a suspicious casino employee that he has no basis for an accusation of cheating. I could point out to him that the casinos advantage is an illusion, and not based on any credible theory of chance or probability.
I'm happy to look at counter-arguments once you present them.
You seem a bit confused about what the state of the experiments is. There's more than just one experiment showing a beneficial mutation, you know. Proper Knob's link shows another interesting example. The link is worth reading, should you ever develop an honest interest in evolution.
Ev ...[text shortened]... ke KellyJay, you seem to not know what natural selection is. I recommend reading a bit about it.
He would undoubtedly be persuaded by this explanation, and especially so if I used evolution as an example of how it's possible to overcome insurmountable odds without the need for any intelligently guided process. I could say "I don't know anything about blackjack, I'm just unbelievably lucky", and then provide a link to a website that supports my position. And if I really am this lucky, the casino employee might also happen to be someone well versed in the theory of evolution and believe that it's a plausible story... and momentarily forget the industry he works in and who he works for.
In other words, I should be able to rely on a progression of beneficial advantages that all work in my favor to prevent me from being forced to leave the blackjack table... but only if I really am unbelievable lucky, so that part must necessarily be true.
01 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorra... if on the other hand, the casino employee sees me winning three straight hands in a row, and extrapolates from this that I have a system for overcoming the odds, then he would be equally in error. Because in one scenario I've convinced him I have no intelligently designed system (when I obviously do) and in the other he is convinced I have an intelligently designed system for winning based only on three straight beneficial wins.
I'm happy to look at counter-arguments once you present them.
You seem a bit confused about what the state of the experiments is. There's more than just one experiment showing a beneficial mutation, you know. Proper Knob's link shows another interesting example. The link is worth reading, should you ever develop an honest interest in evolution.
Ev ...[text shortened]... ke KellyJay, you seem to not know what natural selection is. I recommend reading a bit about it.
The theory of evolution looks at a blind process of selecting existing genes, and then extrapolates from that an equally blind process of selecting entirely new and previously non-existing structures. The problem with trying to equate natural selection of existing genes with evolution centers on how a process of construction can be achieved before a benefit is realized. This is the question being asked by creationists and ID proponents. So if you can stop squinting through a microscope and focus on what is really being debated here, it would be greatly appreciated.
And if encouraging me to study evolution is your way of saying "Go away, and don't come back until I've had time to catch up", then just say so.
Because who knows... I might actually honor the request.
01 Jan 15
Originally posted by Proper KnobIt is factual, evolution we are told is so slow no one has ever seen this
The magical change from a simple cell to a zebra has never been seen? Is this statement tongue in cheek Kelly?
slow build up of good mutations from something that went from a life
form as simple as a single cell to even a jellyfish, but it is believed. What
is seen are small tiny changes like the ones I have already brought up,
birds beaks getting larger/smaller, dogs changing breeds, but those are all
still birds and dogs nothing really new like a dog growing wings. You may
talk about flies losing wings, in which I said so what losing information or
body parts is not the same as getting a new one. So no it was not tongue in
cheek.
01 Jan 15
Originally posted by stellspalfieWe have just gone over reasons "evidence" for pages in this thread I didn't
[b]" You can dismiss anything brought to you as evidence just by saying it isn't
scientific"
i could try, but i would be wrong. i don't get to decide if its scientific or not. the scientific method decides if its scientific or not.
if you provide me with scientific evidence....and i say its wrong...then im an idiot.
so before you decide t ...[text shortened]... ot scientific evidence.....could you provide me with some....
.....or accept there is none.[/b]
see you dispute them. Go back over the discussion about how the universe
has to be properly setup for life or there isn't any from the micro or sub
atomic level to the placement of stars and planets, and all the forces that
come into play. Look at the quote I took from KazetNagorra below I'm not
the only saying mutation accumulation favor bad results over the good
ones, yet you still believe the random much rarer mutation that could show
up would stay in place and even build upon itself to create such things as
blood, eyes, brains, and so on. You are blind and you will remain so not
because there universe isn't full of things that show you are, but just
because you want to be.
See e.g. Perfeito et al. Science 317, 813-815 (2007).
"The rate at which new mutations arise in
natural populations and their fitness effects are of key importance in evolutionary genetics. Classical mutation accumulation
experiments have indisputably shown that among
the spontaneous mutations that affect fitness,
those that cause deleterious effects are far more
common than those that cause increases in fitness. Whereas there are currently several direct
and indirect estimates of the deleterious mutation rate in different organisms, data are lacking
for beneficial mutations"
01 Jan 15
Originally posted by Proper KnobIt isn't anything new I already told I agree that you'd see things like dogs
A beneficial mutation has been observed in the Lenski long term ecoli experiment. You can read all about it here.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenski_experiment
Or a more detailed analysis at the Christian website -
http://biologos.org/blog/behe-lenski-and-the-edge-of-evolution-part-1
getting larger or smaller, birds changing and so on, so you show me
bacteria at the start and bacteria at the end. Nothing new here!
01 Jan 15
Originally posted by lemon limeYes. So does everyone else except you. Don't be accusing articles of misusing words when you don't know their meanings yourself.
You can call a damaged gene a mutation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
In genetics, a mutation is a permanent change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA or other genetic elements.
You can also call a dead possum lying in the middle of the road a mutation, because it can't do anything either... except decompose.
No, you can't.
01 Jan 15
1 edit
I have been diagnosed as having a mutation known as C677T. From my reading so far, I believe this mutation is both beneficial and detrimental. It is a relatively new discovery, so studies into its effects are on going. Genes of this nature are not uncommon ie genes where the human population has several variants of the gene and the gene has benefits in some instances and is detrimental in others.
Probably the best known example is the gene for sickle cell anaemia that gives some protection against malaria, but can also cause life threatening illness.
Anyone here either has light skin or dark skin or a skin color in between. The mutations that affect skin color, are beneficial in that light skin color helps in the production of vitamin D in northern countries, while dark skin color helps to prevent sunburn in equatorial countries.
01 Jan 15
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo in other words, a damaged (dead, inoperable) gene can also fall under this definition, seeing as how the definition doesn't appear to distinguish between operable and inoperable genes. Is this correct?
Yes. So does everyone else except you. Don't be accusing articles of misusing words when you don't know their meanings yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MutationIn genetics, a mutation is a permanent change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA or other genetic elements.
[b] You ...[text shortened]... he road a mutation, because it can't do anything either... except decompose.
No, you can't.[/b]
You can also call a dead possum lying in the middle of the road a mutation, because it can't do anything either... except decompose.
No, you can't.
Why not? The only major difference is one can be copied and carried over to the next generation and the other simply decomposes. A dead possum can cause cars to swerve out of the way, and a dead gene can cause a bacteria to survive an intelligently guided attack by virtue of it being dead... so both can be inoperable and still have a demonstrable impact on their surroundings.
Are you presuming perhaps the dead gene can be revived to function again? Let's say, for example, the gene has been irreparably damaged by radiation. Can showering more radiation on it cause it to work again? I suppose it's possible... if dropping a television set out of a 5 story window can irreparably damage a television set, then maybe dropping it out the same window again might possibly make the set functional.
However, according to the definition you provided, in order for a gene to fall under the definition of mutation the change must be permanent... and I'm pretty sure a dead possum will stay dead, so I think it's safe to call that a permanent change as well.
01 Jan 15
Originally posted by lemon limeNatural selection is a process that removes traits from the gene pool. Without mutations adding new ones, life would perish. Again, I recommend reading a bit about natural selection as this will help you form an opinion about the theory of evolution.
Equating natural selection of existing genes with a process of evolutionary gain extending outside the boundaries of an existing species would be like me telling a suspicious casino employee that he has no basis for an accusation of cheating. I could point out to him that the casinos advantage is an illusion, and not based on any credible theory of ...[text shortened]... ble... but only if I really am unbelievable lucky, so that part must necessarily be true.
01 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayGiven that we know that beneficial mutations occur, what mechanism prevents them from resulting in large-scale changes over time? Does DNA store some information about its past composition, halting mutations after a certain number are reached? How would it work specifically?
It is factual, evolution we are told is so slow no one has ever seen this
slow build up of good mutations from something that went from a life
form as simple as a single cell to even a jellyfish, but it is believed. What
is seen are small tiny changes like the ones I have already brought up,
birds beaks getting larger/smaller, dogs changing breeds, but ...[text shortened]... ormation or
body parts is not the same as getting a new one. So no it was not tongue in
cheek.
01 Jan 15
Originally posted by lemon limeIt hasn't been too long ago that I had a television that the picture only showed a white horizontal line on the screen until I slapped it on the side when the full picture would appear. This worked every time for a month or two until it began to require more than one slap to get the full picture. after another month or two I could not get a picture after slapping for 10 or 15 minutes, so I went out and bought a new TV.
So in other words, a damaged (dead, inoperable) gene can also fall under this definition, seeing as how the definition doesn't appear to distinguish between operable and inoperable genes. Is this correct?
[b]You can also call a dead possum lying in the middle of the road a mutation, because it can't do anything either... except decompose.
No, ...[text shortened]... dead possum will stay dead, so I think it's safe to call that a permanent change as well.