The Theory of Evolution is supported by the evidence.

[Kilgore Trout]

That's fine. No reason to debate a theory based on false presumptions.

Indeed - like the false presumption that energy "wants to keep going."

 

[Walkntune]

Indeed - like the false presumption that energy "wants to keep going."

Your opinion is irrelevant to the truth.
I believe my argument has bee relevant to the thread as I don't agree with some of the processes of ToE such as natural selection and if you can present it as fact I would more than willing to hear it out. I personally don't believe in randomness but in a cosmic order.

 

[painted wolf]

what about natural selection do you disagree with?

wa:do

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Your opinion is irrelevant to the truth.

Indeed it is. Evolution was a process long before I knew what it was.

I believe my argument has bee relevant to the thread as I don't agree with some of the processes of ToE such as natural selection and if you can present it as fact I would more than willing to hear it out.

If you were truly interested in learning the truth, you would have. There are mountains of evidence available which support the fact that evolution is a proven process. So, either you are not interested in actually learning about evolutionary theory, or you are unable to understand the concepts. I don't know which, but I find that, almost without exception, those who "disagree" with evolutionary theory are both.

I personally don't believe in randomness but in a cosmic order.

This sentence illustrates not only that you do not understand evolutionary theory, but little about the cosmos as well.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Why do theist's always cite 'randomness' as an objection to evolution? Even cursory reading should be enough to show evolution posits no such thing. Natural selection is anything but random.

 

[Walkntune]

Why do theist's always cite 'randomness' as an objection to evolution? Even cursory reading should be enough to show evolution posits no such thing. Natural selection is anything but random.

I am saying I don't agree with randomness. I believe all changes are deterministic through conscious energy or life given energy.

 

[Autodidact]

Waiting for our creationist friends.

 

[Autodidact]

I am saying I don't agree with randomness. I believe all changes are deterministic through conscious energy or life given energy.

And I'm saying please raise that interesting idea in a separate thread. Thank you.

 

[Danmac]

Waiting for our creationist friends.

Without mutations evolution cannot happen. I think we can agree on this. If not let me know. It is agreed that there are "some" beneficial mutations. However this is the exception and not the rule. Mutations may cause a change in the dna strand, but it wouldn't be helpful if it didn't contain the information for lungs, heart, ears. etc. Besides there are very few beneficial mutations. For evolution to happen there would need to be billions of them. This is not observed in nature.

 

[Autodidact]

Without mutations evolution cannot happen. I think we can agree on this. If not let me know. It is agreed that there are "some" beneficial mutations. However this is the exception and not the rule. Mutations may cause a change in the dna strand, but it wouldn't be helpful if it didn't contain the information for lungs, heart, ears. etc. Besides there are very few beneficial mutations.

All correct.

For evolution to happen there would need to be billions of them. This is not observed in nature.

Incorrect. There are mutations each and every time an organism reproduces, and some of these are beneficial to that organism in that environment. You have mutations from your parents' DNA in your DNA. We observe mutations all the time, including beneficial mutations.

So, do you agree or disagree that new species arise from existing species? [Please don't make me go through the torture of asking you repeatedly; it makes you look like a dough-nut hole.]

 

[Danmac]

There are mutations each and every time an organism reproduces, and some of these are beneficial to that organism in that environment. You have mutations from your parents' DNA in your DNA. We observe mutations all the time, including beneficial mutations.

So, do you agree or disagree that new species arise from existing species? [Please don't make me go through the torture of asking you repeatedly; it makes you look like a dough-nut hole.]

We may observe mutations all of the time but most are harmful. In order for evolution to happen there would need to be billions of beneficial mutations. Show me all of these "beneficial" mutations you speak of.

Reproductive isolation can occur within a "kind" as the result of a smaller gene pool. You may call this a new species , but extinction is more likely than evolution. Take the panda bear or the poodle for example. They are both at a genetic dead end.

 

[Tristesse]

We may observe mutations all of the time but most are harmful. In order for evolution to happen there would need to be billions of beneficial mutations. Show me all of these "beneficial" mutations you speak of.

Reproductive isolation can occur within a "kind" as the result of a smaller gene pool. You may call this a new species , but extinction is more likely than evolution. Take the panda bear or the poodle for example. They are both at a genetic dead end.

No, you're factually in error. MOST mutation are neutral and some are harmful, mutations that are harmful or beneficial mainly rely on the environment.

 

[Autodidact]

We may observe mutations all of the time but most are harmful.

That is correct.

In order for evolution to happen there would need to be billions of beneficial mutations.

Well, not really. Just one per generation. Do you see why?

Show me all of these "beneficial" mutations you speak of.

Here is a page listing some.

A great example would be the famous "nylon bug," which, due to a mutation, is able to digest nylon, and substance that did not exist 100 years ago. This bacteria now lives entirely on nylon, in the effluent from nylon factories.

Reproductive isolation can occur within a "kind" as the result of a smaller gene pool. You may call this a new species , but extinction is more likely than evolution. Take the panda bear or the poodle for example. They are both at a genetic dead end.

What the heck is a "kind?"

And why do you say pandas are at a "genetic dead end?" What does that even mean?

Second time: Do you agree or disagree that speciation happens? (Just ask if you don't know what any of these terms mean.)

 

[Autodidact]

No, you're factually in error. MOST mutation are neutral and some are harmful, mutations that are harmful or beneficial mainly rely on the environment.

I stand corrected; Tristesse is right. Most mutations are neutral, a few harmful, a few beneficial.

 

[Autodidact]

We may observe mutations all of the time but most are harmful. In order for evolution to happen there would need to be billions of beneficial mutations. Show me all of these "beneficial" mutations you speak of.

Reproductive isolation can occur within a "kind" as the result of a smaller gene pool. You may call this a new species , but extinction is more likely than evolution. Take the panda bear or the poodle for example. They are both at a genetic dead end.

It's not what I call a species that matters, Danmac, but what biologists call it. My question for you is, do you agree that in the scientific definition of species, we get new ones, in the way the Theory of Evolution (ToE) describes? Or are you saying that every species now in existence has always existed in its present form?

 

[tumbleweed41]

We may observe mutations all of the time but most are harmful. In order for evolution to happen there would need to be billions of beneficial mutations. Show me all of these "beneficial" mutations you speak of.

Reproductive isolation can occur within a "kind" as the result of a smaller gene pool. You may call this a new species , but extinction is more likely than evolution. Take the panda bear or the poodle for example. They are both at a genetic dead end.

12% (3 out of 26) random mutations in a strain of bacteria improved fitness in a particular environment.

Contribution of individual random mutations to genotype-by-environment interactions in Escherichia coli
Susanna K. Remold* and Richard E. Lenski Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Edited by M. T. Clegg, University of California, Riverside, CA, and approved July 30, 2001 (received for review March 22, 2001)
Numerous studies have shown genotype-by-environment (G×E) interactions for traits related to organismal fitness. However, the genetic architecture of the interaction is usually unknown because these studies used genotypes that differ from one another by many unknown mutations. These mutations were also present as standing variation in populations and hence had been subject to prior selection. Based on such studies, it is therefore impossible to say what fraction of new, random mutations contributes to G×E interactions. In this study, we measured the fitness in four environments of 26 genotypes of Escherichia coli, each containing a single random insertion mutation. Fitness was measured relative to their common progenitor, which had evolved on glucose at 37°C for the preceding 10,000 generations. The four assay environments differed in limiting resource and temperature (glucose, 28°C; maltose, 28°C; glucose, 37°C; and maltose, 37°C). A highly significant interaction between mutation and resource was found. In contrast, there was no interaction involving temperature. The resource interaction reflected much higher among mutation variation for fitness in maltose than in glucose. At least 11 mutations (42%) contributed to this G×E interaction through their differential fitness effects across resources. Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose, a resource novel to the progenitor. More generally, our findings demonstrate that G×E interactions can be quite common, even for genotypes that differ by only one mutation and in environments differing by only a single factor.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
​

 

[tumbleweed41]

Adaptation of yeast to a glucose limited environment via gene duplications and natural selection

When microbes evolve in a continuous, nutrient-limited environment, natural selection can be predicted to favor genetic changes that give cells greater access to limiting substrate. We analyzed a population of baker's yeast that underwent 450 generations of glucose-limited growth. Relative to the strain used as the inoculum, the predominant cell type at the end of this experiment sustains growth at significantly lower steady-state glucose concentrations and demonstrates markedly enhanced cell yield per mole glucose, significantly enhanced high-affinity glucose transport, and greater relative fitness in pairwise competition. These changes are correlated with increased levels of mRNA hybridizing to probe generated from the hexose transport locus HXT6. Further analysis of the evolved strain reveals the existence of multiple tandem duplications involving two highly similar, high-affinity hexose transport loci, HXT6 and HXT7. Selection appears to have favored changes that result in the formation of more than three chimeric genes derived from the upstream promoter of the HXT7 gene and the coding sequence of HXT6. We propose a genetic mechanism to account for these changes and speculate as to their adaptive significance in the context of gene duplication as a common response of microorganisms to nutrient limitation. Brown CJ, Todd KM, Rosenzweig RF (1998) Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Mol Biol Evol 1998 Aug;15(8):931-42 Nature 387, 708 - 713 (1997)


http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
​

 

[tumbleweed41]

Evidence of genetic divergence and beneficial mutations in bacteria after 10,000 generations

Papadopoulos, D., Schneider, D., Meier-Eiss, J., Arber, W., Lenski, R. E., Blot, M. (1999). Genomic evolution during a 10,000-generation
experiment with bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96: 3807-3812 Edited by John R. Roth, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, and approved February 3, 1999 (received for review July 21, 1998)
Molecular methods are used widely to measure genetic diversity within populations and determine relationships among species. However, it is difficult to observe genomic evolution in action because these dynamics are too slow in most organisms. To overcome this limitation, we sampled genomes from populations of Escherichia coli evolving in the laboratory for 10,000 generations. We analyzed the genomes for restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLP) using seven insertion sequences (IS) as probes; most polymorphisms detected by this approach reflect rearrangements (including transpositions) rather than point mutations. The evolving genomes became increasingly different from their ancestor over time. Moreover, tremendous diversity accumulated within each population, such that almost every individual had a different genetic fingerprint after 10,000 generations. As has been often suggested, but not previously shown by experiment, the rates of phenotypic and genomic change were discordant, both across replicate populations and over time within a population. Certain pivotal mutations were shared by all descendants in a population, and these are candidates for beneficial mutations, which are rare and difficult to find. More generally, these data show that the genome is highly dynamic even over a time scale that is, from an evolutionary perspective, very brief.


http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
​

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

No, you're factually in error. MOST mutation are neutral and some are harmful, mutations that are harmful or beneficial mainly rely on the environment.

Exactly. A visualization experiment for our creationist friends:
Imagine a massive climate change, and the native habitat of black panthers becomes an arctic environment. Imagine a mutation where the fur of a litter of kittens is white rather than black. It is easy to imagine this new found camouflage would be a boon to hunting, and thus survival. These new white panthers would be more likely to breed than their black, more obvious to spot in the snow counterparts. This would be a benificial mutation.

Now imagine, exact same scenario only the jungle environment is unchanged. These white kittens would stick out like a sore thumb and would most likely never make it to maturity.

Whether a mutation is beneficial or not is entirely dependent on the environment.

 

[Danmac]

Evidence of genetic divergence and beneficial mutations in bacteria after 10,000 generations

Papadopoulos, D., Schneider, D., Meier-Eiss, J., Arber, W., Lenski, R. E., Blot, M. (1999). Genomic evolution during a 10,000-generation
experiment with bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96: 3807-3812 Edited by John R. Roth, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, and approved February 3, 1999 (received for review July 21, 1998)
Molecular methods are used widely to measure genetic diversity within populations and determine relationships among species. However, it is difficult to observe genomic evolution in action because these dynamics are too slow in most organisms. To overcome this limitation, we sampled genomes from populations of Escherichia coli evolving in the laboratory for 10,000 generations. We analyzed the genomes for restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLP) using seven insertion sequences (IS) as probes; most polymorphisms detected by this approach reflect rearrangements (including transpositions) rather than point mutations. The evolving genomes became increasingly different from their ancestor over time. Moreover, tremendous diversity accumulated within each population, such that almost every individual had a different genetic fingerprint after 10,000 generations. As has been often suggested, but not previously shown by experiment, the rates of phenotypic and genomic change were discordant, both across replicate populations and over time within a population. Certain pivotal mutations were shared by all descendants in a population, and these are candidates for beneficial mutations, which are rare and difficult to find. More generally, these data show that the genome is highly dynamic even over a time scale that is, from an evolutionary perspective, very brief.


http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
​

It is obvious that mutations are solely a destructive mechanism. Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, is quite clear on this point in a comment he made about mutations. Grassé compared mutations to "making mistakes in the letters when copying a written text." And as with mutations, letter mistakes cannot give rise to any information, but merely damage such information as already exists. Grassé explained this fact in this way:
Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how…. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms.html