Kinitari said:
Of course, the few religious scientists who refuse to believe in Evolution will eat up any book that claims to kick the legs out from under the theory. We could do this forever, but I'll just stick to the point that this book has been torn to pieces, many many times over. You can just google it and see the clear, simple and straight to point break down.
Torn to pieces my foot. I can take out the book right now and quote the numerous evolutionists verbatim. But that is too time consuming.
I don't understand your point here... if you could clarify, I would really appreciate it. Do you mean many negative mutations are passed down? Yeah, they are - but if they're negative enough to be lethal, that usually means that strain of mutations leads to early death and less chance of passing around, repeat this enough time and it weeds itself out - humans avoid this natural process pretty efficiently, but not perfectly.
This is clarified at the end of this post.
Also, sickle cell isn't necessarily negative, if you are just a carrier you can keep get the benefits of malaria immunity without suffering any negatives from sickle cell.
Surely sickle cell is bad. Have you talked with someone who suffers from the disease?
I don't understand your point exactly but I have a general idea of what you are trying to say. First of all, silly analogies aren't necessary and comparing typing, or computers or clocks to evolution is an act in frivolity. How about just a simple explanation? We see many, many many examples where animals have net positive mutations. We have examples where creatures have developed genes that can only be explained by an 'addition' of information.
We have many examples where animals have net positive mutations? There is not one example found in any science literature! There is not example of a random mutation adding genetic information. Yet evolutionists believe that through random mutations you can get a cell to an ape.
Yes. And there is no reason why more 'information' cannot come about. Heck we've observed it happening. It happening once is enough reason to say "it happens".
Well, the onus is the Evolutionists to show that new genetic information can come about by random mutations. There is not one example!
First I should apologize, sometimes negatives mutations are passed one, but would you agree that a negative mutation poses no benefit for a creature, and reduces its chances to reproduce? Thus increasing the likelihood that mutation will die off.
No, people with sickle cell anemia are more likely or just as likely to reproduce in regions of the world where malaria is rampant. That would be considered a beneficial mutation.
Another example of a beneficial mutations include wingless beetles on small desert islandsif beetles lose their wings and so cant fly, the wind is less likely to blow them out to sea. But that is not the kind of evolution that can get a cell to an ape. There is no new information added to the genome.
Second, I misrepresented sickle cell a bit. For example, you can carry it, have the immunity to malaria, and not suffer from any adverse sickle cell effects. Thus, it is a net positive.
It is a beneficial mutation, albeit a harmful beneficial mutation. But it can't be used as an example for Evolution. There is no new genetic information added. Just the opposite. People with the disease have mutated hemoglobin which leads to breathlessness, fatigue and a host of other problems.
Thirdly, here is a make believe scenario. Disease A is killing off most people in a region, while they are young and unable to reproduce. Disease B comes along and, while it kills you off before your time, you still live till... lets say, 40. If you have disease B, you are immune to disease A. Would being born with disease B be a benefit in this situation?
I think so. Your point?
Forcing evolution through constant radiation is a bad idea, because radiation makes too many radical changes that usually end in death. Positives are usually much more subtle.
Really, says who?
That is the exact same thing as Evolution. This is exactly what scientists claim are evolution. Even then, you say "many" does that mean you concede that some are? Have I gotten through to you?
That type of "evolution" is not going to get a cell to ape. Not in a billion trillion years.
You see, when Evolutionists generally speak about evolution, they mean genetic change through the time. By that definition even Creationists agree with that. But Evolutionists extrapolate that all life evolved from some primordial cell billions of year ago. That is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.
You can't just make up ideas and concepts. Mutations are like noise, noise is bad, therefore mutations are bad.
HOW are Mutations like noise? Even if you want to say that it is like noise, it isn't the exact same thing as noise, thus A != B.
In communication systems, Random Mutation is exactly the same as noise, and noise always destroys the signal, never enhances it.
Are you familiar with Claude Shannon's information theory? Noise is mathematically identical to entropy.
Illustrations:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/shannon_comm_channel.JPG
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna_isomorphic.JPG
You keep stressing positive evolution as the increase of information. Positive evolution is the increase in reproduction and survival, the amount of information is irrelevant.
If you there is no additional genetic information there can be no evolution from a cell to an ape. Point blank.
Dude, I wrote a -really- long OP. It's all there. All of it.
A lot of it is bunk. In fact, a lot of the debunked MISinfo can be found in Icons of Evolution.
For instance, the whole vestigial organs has been debunked long ago. Evolutionists used to think the appendix, tonsils, coccyx, and whale "legs" to be useless evolutionary leftovers which serve no function or of little use only later to discover it did serve an invaluable function. The whale "leg" is not vestigial. Whales use it for proper mounting for mating and for males anchor the muscles attached to the penis. The Tonsils are enriched with disease infection fighting cells. The coccyx is important for moving bowels. The appendix is not so useless as once thought
http://www.scientificamerican.com/p...=thats-no-vestigial-organ-thats-my-a-09-08-24
I'm surprised you didn't add the whole "junk DNA" mess which was debunked years ago.
I would challenge the rest of it but can't because of time constraints.
I mean, I can't find them -anywhere but- those types of sites. A neutral, scientific site, great. If it's ONLY on whythebibletrumpsdarwin.com or whatever, I am sorry, it's not too useful.
Does it matter what site it is on as long as the information is legitimate?
Now you're losing me. Are you saying it's an example of evolution, but not a... good enough one? If evolution happens, it happens, doesn't matter how fabulous it is.
Do I have to go over what I mean by evolution again?
First of all, do you understand the concept of
Gene duplication? I'm honestly not very proficient, but basically, its well understood that genes sometimes, as a mutation, basically just copy themselves. Here is a good example
When that happens, occasionally, the duplicate genes fuse and make something new.
For example, 1010 = digesting vitamin A. 1010+1010 = Digesting vitamin A and B.
That's it, that's how (I think just one way) new information is introduced into DNA. Simple right?
Gene duplication alone does not constitute an increase of genetic. Two copies of todays newspaper contain no more information than one copy. Gene duplication just copies the same information again, rather than adding new information.
You just gave me 4 claims without backing them up in the least, and you want me to avoid rhetoric? Damn.
Show me hard scientific evidence that supports 1-4 (A wikipedia page would be preferable) and we'll talk.
Fair enough. I got the information from Cornell Geneticist John Sanford who argued that Darwinism is wrong because the rate of genetic deterioration is so high that natural selection could not arrest it. If natural selection cannot arrest genetic deterioration, how then could it be the mechanism for evolutionary improvement?
Sanford predicted through his research that human genome is deteriorating:
For many decades geneticists have been worried about the impact of mutation on the human population (Muller 1950, Crow, 1997). When these concerns first arose, they were based upon an estimated rate of deleterious mutation of 0.12 to 0.30 mutations per person per generation (Morton, Crow and Muller, 1956). Since that time there have persisted serious concerns about accumulating mutations in man leading to a high "genetic load" - and a generally degenerating population. There has also been a long-standing belief that if the rate of deleterious mutations approached one deleterious mutation per person per generation, long-term genetic deterioration would be a certainty (Muller, 1950). This would be logical, since selection must eliminate mutations as fast as they are occurring. We need to prevent mutant individuals from reproducing, but we also need to leave enough remaining people to procreate and produce the next generation. By this thinking, deleterious mutations in man must actually be kept below one mutation for every three children - if selection is to eliminate all the mutations and still allow the population to reproduce. This is because global fertility rates are now less than 3 children for every 2 adults - so only one child in three could theoretically be selectively eliminated. For these reasons, geneticists have been naturally very eager to discover what the human mutation rate really is!
One of the most astounding recent findings in the world of genetics is that the human mutation rate (just within our reproductive cells) is at least 100 nucleotide substitutions (misspellings) per person per generation (Kondrashov, 2002). Other geneticists would place this number at 175 (Nachman and Crowell, 2000). These high numbers are now widely accepted within the genetics community. Furthermore, Dr. Kondrashov, the author of the most definitive publication, has indicated to me that 100 was only his lower estimate - he believes the actual rate of point mutations (misspellings) per person may be as high as 300 (personal communication). Even the lower estimate, 100, is an amazing number, with profound implications. When an earlier study revealed that the human mutation rate might be as high as 30, the highly distinguished author of that study, concluded that such a number would have profound implications for evolutionary theory (Neel et al., 1986). But the actual number is now known to be 100-300! Even if we were to accept the lowest estimate (100 mutations), and further assumed that 97 % of the genome is perfectly neutral junk, this would still mean that at least 3 additional deleterious mutations are occurring per person per generation. So every one of us is a mutant, many times over! What type of selection scheme could possibly stop this type of loss of information? As we will see - given these numbers, there is no realistic method to halt genomic degeneration. Since the portion of the genome that is recognized as being truly functional is rapidly increasing, the number of mutations recognized as being actually deleterious is also rapidly increasing. If all the genome proves functional, then every one of these 100 mutations per person is actually deleterious. Yet even this number is too small, firstly because it is only the lowest estimate, and secondly because it only considers point mutations (misspellings). Not included within this number are the many other types of common mutations - such as deletions, insertions, duplications, translocations, inversions, and all mitochondrial mutations.
[...]
The most rapidly mutating regions of the human genome are within the very dynamic micro-satellite DNA regions. These unique regions mutate at rates nearly 1 million-fold above normal, and are not included in normal estimates of mutation rate. Yet these sequences are found to have biological impact, and their mutation results in many serious genetic diseases (Sutherland and Richards, 1995). It is estimated that for every "regular" point mutation, there is probably at least one micro-satellite mutation (Ellegren, 2000). This effectively doubles the mutation count per person per generation, from 100-300 to 200-600.
Of all these mutations - what percent are truly neutral? In the last few years there has been a dramatic shift in the perceived functionality of most components of the genome. The concept of "junk DNA" is quickly disappearing. In fact, it is the "junk DNA" (non-protein-coding DNA), which appears to be key to encoding biological complexity (Taft and Mattick, 2003). The recent Taft and Mattick study strongly suggest that the more "junk" - the more advanced is the organism. So mutations within "junk DNA" can hardly be assumed to be neutral!
[...]
On a per person basis, 100 mutations represent a loss of only a miniscule fraction of the total information in our genome (the 40 The Mystery of the Genome genome is huge). However, the real impact of such a high mutation rate will be at the population level, and is primarily expressed with the passage of time. Since there are six billion people in the world, and each person has added an average of 100 new mutations to the global population, our generation alone has added roughly 600 billion new mutations to the human race. If we remember that there are only three billion nucleotide positions in the human genome, we see that in our lifetime there have been about 200 mutations for every nucleotide position within the genome. Therefore, every possible point mutation that could happen to the human genome has happened many times over - just during our lifetime! Because of our present large population size, humanity is now being flooded by mutations like never before in history. The consequences of most of these mutations are not felt immediately, but will become manifested in coming generations.
As we will be seeing, there is no selection scheme that can reverse the damage that has been done during our own generation - even if further mutations could be stopped. No amount of selection can prevent a significant number of these mutations from drifting deeper into the population and consequently causing permanent genetic damage to the population. Yet our children's generation will add even more new mutations - followed by the next and the next. This degenerative process will continue into the foreseeable future. We are on a downward slide
that cannot be stopped.
When selection is unable to counter the loss of information due to mutations, a situation arises called "error catastrophe". If not rapidly corrected, this situation leads to the eventual death of the species - extinction. In its final stages, genomic degeneration leads to declining fertility, which curtails further selection (selection always requires a surplus population - some of which can then be eliminated each generation). Inbreeding and genetic drift must then take over entirely - rapidly finishing off the genome. When this point is reached, the process becomes an irreversible downward spiral. This advanced stage of genomic degeneration is called "mutational meltdown" (Bernardes, 1996). Mutational meltdown is recognized as an immediate threat to all of today's endangered species. The same process appears to potentially be a theoretical threat for mankind. What can stop this process?
Read more here
http://issuu.com/nitai/docs/mystery_of_genome
Now there is another scientist who bolsters his claim. Michael Lynch (who I believe is not a creationist) of the elite National Academy published on the topic for his inaugural paper.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961.full.pdf+html
And there was another scientists, Brian Sykes, who predicts human males will be extinct will be extinct after a few more generation because of the degradation of the Y chromosome due to mutations.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article1155329.ece
Yet, random mutations are held as a mechanism to get a cell to an ape?
