[_ Old Earth _] The importance of knowing what you're talking about

[Grazer]

http://www.upworthy.com/senator-ask...-discovers-he-doesnt-actually-understand-what

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Barbarian]

We can't write him off as a complete moron; remember the state of education in Louisiana. He's abysmally ignorant, not stupid.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

http://www.upworthy.com/senator-ask...-discovers-he-doesnt-actually-understand-what

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Your link isn't working. Refers to an "application error"

 

[reba]

Worked for me Number.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

And for me, today. I found this interesting ...

For those playing the home game, the senator had evolution backwards. His understanding of evolution is that all creatures eventually turn into humans, whereas in reality, it's that one common ancestor split off in a billion directions, with humans becoming just one arbitrary direction of billions of potential outcomes.
​

Most everyone who has a passing knowledge of evolutionary theory understands that requires billions upon billions of mutations. Interesting thing about mutations:

In the process of evolution, a change, called a mutation, in the genetic code of an organism occurs because of radiation, chemicals, or a chance event. This change is then either kept or removed by natural selection. If the organism survives, it passes its traits on to its offspring. Over time, these changes accumulate in the population and another species evolves, which is totally different from its ancestors.

However, scientists have questioned this explanation for the variety of organisms on earth. Professor E. W. Bride wrote in Nature:

'Natural Selection' affords no explanation…of any…form of evolution. It means nothing more than 'the survivors survive.' Why do certain individuals survive? Because they are the fittest. How do we know they are the fittest? Because they survive.
​

Neither natural selection nor mutations introduce any new genetic data into the organism's DNA. Natural selection only selects out the disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a population. It cannot produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs and thus cannot make anything evolve.

Mutations have never been observed to have any useful effect despite thousands of experiments. Just as earthquakes bring destruction to a city, so do mutations bring harm to an organism.

Evolutionary theorist Warren Weaver wrote in Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation:

Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect - evolution to higher forms of life - result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?

In addition, mutations add no new data to the organism's DNA. They only cause data to be torn from their places and destroyed or moved to new places. They cannot make an organism acquire a new organ.

Even if a mutation occurs in an organism, it has to occur in the reproductive cells of the organism. For example, a human eye altered by the effects of radiation or other causes will not be passed onto subsequent generations.
​

 

[lordkalvan]

If, indeed, 'Mutations have never been observed to have any useful effect...' perhaps you would care to comment on these questions:

Is the sickle cell mutation wholly and only bad for the affected population?

Is the CCR5-delta32 mutation wholly and only bad for the affected population?

Is the lactose-tolerance mutation wholly and only bad for the affected population?

These are only a few examples. There are others, not restricted to Homo sapiens.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

If, indeed, 'Mutations have never been observed to have any useful effect...' perhaps you would care to comment on these questions:

Is the sickle cell mutation wholly and only bad for the affected population?

Is the CCR5-delta32 mutation wholly and only bad for the affected population?

Is the lactose-tolerance mutation wholly and only bad for the affected population?

These are only a few examples. There are others, not restricted to Homo sapiens.

Assuming the reality of the bat "evolving" from a rat, the development of a skin membrane between the body and legs was undoubtedly thought to be beneficial also. But until the animal learned how to fly with that skin membrane, the accompanying elongated toes used for gripping tree branches or barn beams or cave walls served as a massive detriment to the animal's ability to run, and with the inability to escape, predators would have no trouble catching the animal and the good mutation would perish along with the bad. Highly unlikely the bat "evolved" but was created as-is.

The CCR5-delta-32 mutation has an advantage in that it apparently makes some people immune to the HIV virus, may hamper the advancement of multiple sclerosis and perhaps arrests of the development of cerebral malaria. But it is also a mutation that hinders cellular response to inflammation, both for immune responses and for homeostatic processes involving cellular migration for tissue development and maintenance. Therefore, it may have advantages but these could potentially be offset due to the body becoming more inefficient in dealing with common infections. Most of us will never be infected by AIDS, but we could certainly be infected by tetanus, which the body may be hindered in addressing if it is subjected to the CCR5-delta-32 mutation.

Not to mention, its function is redundant in the first place and may not be that big an advantage.

As for the sickle cell mutation, how many people are going to be contracting malaria in the first place? And given the results of sickle-cell anemia, how "advantageous" can the mutation truly be? Lactose-intolerance? There are no direct benefits to it.

Just because something is narrowly beneficial is no indication it is an overall advantage, as your examples actually prove.

 

[Barbarian]

Most everyone who has a passing knowledge of evolutionary theory understands that requires billions upon billions of mutations.

There aren't even millions of genes in most organisms. A few thousand mutations would be more than sufficient to account for the differences in humans and apes, for example.

Interesting thing about mutations:

However, scientists have questioned this explanation for the variety of organisms on earth. Professor E. W. Bride wrote in Nature:

'Natural Selection' affords no explanation…of any…form of evolution. It means nothing more than 'the survivors survive.' Why do certain individuals survive? Because they are the fittest. How do we know they are the fittest? Because they survive.

I notice you chose to delete a lot of words from the statement. Do us a favor and show us his statement with your deletions restored. I suspect you won't. And I think I know why.

Neither natural selection nor mutations introduce any new genetic data into the organism's DNA.

Here's a way to test that. Suppose a population has two alleles for a given trait, each with 0.5 frequency in the population. Then suppose a mutation appears and eventually increases so that each of three alleles will have 0.333 frequency in the population. What was the information content of this gene before and after the mutation? If you don't know how to do that, I can show you.

Natural selection only selects out the disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a population. It cannot produce new species,

That's been directly observed to happen, although neutral mutations can do it as well. Would you like to see an example?

Mutations have never been observed to have any useful effect despite thousands of experiments.

We have quite a few useful mutations. Would you like me to show you some of those?

Just as earthquakes bring destruction to a city, so do mutations bring harm to an organism.

That's a common misconception. Most mutations do nothing at all. Those don't result in a change in phenotype, so no harm or good. A few are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection sorts it out.

Evolutionary theorist Warren Weaver wrote in Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation:

Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect - evolution to higher forms of life - result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?

Warren is a few years out of date. Since we've been able to detect mutations by other means than observing the harmful effects, we've discovered that his belief is wrong:

In E. coli, for example, about one in 150 mutations is useful. Of mutations that actually change a phenotype, about one in ten is useful.
Perfeito, Lilia, Lisete Fernandes, Catarina Mota and Isabel Gordo. 2007. Adaptive mutations in bacteria: High rate and small effects. Science 317: 813-815.

Since you didn't give us a link or a cite for Warren's article, we don't even know if it's real, much less when it was published. How about giving us a checkable source so we can see?

In addition, mutations add no new data to the organism's DNA.

See above. Maybe you don't know what "data" means.

They only cause data to be torn from their places and destroyed or moved to new places. They cannot make an organism acquire a new organ.

That's been directly observed, also. A population of lizards, moved to a new environment, was observed to evolve a new organ, a cecal valve, that aided them in digesting a new food source. Happened in several decades. Want to learn about that?

Even if a mutation occurs in an organism, it has to occur in the reproductive cells of the organism.

Happens a lot. We all have a few that were not present in either parent.

 

[lordkalvan]

Assuming the reality of the bat "evolving" from a rat, the development of a skin membrane between the body and legs was undoubtedly thought to be beneficial also. But until the animal learned how to fly with that skin membrane, the accompanying elongated toes used for gripping tree branches or barn beams or cave walls served as a massive detriment to the animal's ability to run, and with the inability to escape, predators would have no trouble catching the animal and the good mutation would perish along with the bad. Highly unlikely the bat "evolved" but was created as-is.

Insofar as I never raised the question of bat evolution at all, your point is moot at best. However, you seem to imagine that the only stages in bat evolution are restricted to 'able to fly' and 'not able to fly'. Elongated toes could help the animal to climb to escape less arboreally-inclined predators; skin flaps would enable them to jump further between trees by gliding, thus helping them to escape predators that could climb, but not jump so well.

The CCR5-delta-32 mutation has an advantage in that it apparently makes some people immune to the HIV virus, may hamper the advancement of multiple sclerosis and perhaps arrests of the development of cerebral malaria. But it is also a mutation that hinders cellular response to inflammation, both for immune responses and for homeostatic processes involving cellular migration for tissue development and maintenance. Therefore, it may have advantages but these could potentially be offset due to the body becoming more inefficient in dealing with common infections. Most of us will never be infected by AIDS, but we could certainly be infected by tetanus, which the body may be hindered in addressing if it is subjected to the CCR5-delta-32 mutation.

So, contrary to your previous assertion that 'Mutations have never been observed to have any useful effect', this mutation does have some useful effect, after all?

Not to mention, its function is redundant in the first place and may not be that big an advantage.

But, nevertheless, it is 'useful' to some extent?

As for the sickle cell mutation, how many people are going to be contracting malaria in the first place? And given the results of sickle-cell anemia, how "advantageous" can the mutation truly be?

I suggest you consider the devastating effects of malaria in regions where it is endemic and then argue that the sickle cell mutation has no 'useful' effect.

Lactose-intolerance? There are no direct benefits to it.

That would be lactose-tolerance, not intolerance. And you mean apart from providing a renewable, alternative source of nutrition to pastoral folk and helping them survive winters without having to slaughter their precious animals for meat?

Just because something is narrowly beneficial is no indication it is an overall advantage, as your examples actually prove.

So 'narrowly beneficial' (a restriction I would contest and suggest you have done little to establish the validity of) means the same as 'never been observed to have any useful effect'? See those goalposts shift.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Insofar as I never raised the question of bat evolution at all, your point is moot at best.

Your point was obvious. Your post proves that. You really don't know as much as you think you do about the subject, either, so I will let you ramble on. God bless.

 

[lordkalvan]

Your point was obvious. Your post proves that. You really don't know as much as you think you do about the subject, either, so I will let you ramble on. God bless.

Ah well, on the other hand perhaps neither do you and the best thing is to disguise this uncomfortable fact by adopting an air of condescending superiority and so avoid having to deal with certain painful and obvious contradictions in your arguments.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Assuming the reality of the bat "evolving" from a rat,

Bats aren't rodents. The are actually more related to primates then any rodent.

the development of a skin membrane between the body and legs was undoubtedly thought to be beneficial also. But until the animal learned how to fly with that skin membrane, the accompanying elongated toes used for gripping tree branches or barn beams or cave walls served as a massive detriment to the animal's ability to run, and with the inability to escape, predators would have no trouble catching the animal and the good mutation would perish along with the bad. Highly unlikely the bat "evolved" but was created as-is.

Considering this is not the origin of bats, bats aren't rodents, and that there are hundreds of species of bat with different adaptations, mutations, and diets. I don't think you can claim that the "bat" was simply created because there isn't just one species of "bat".

The CCR5-delta-32 mutation has an advantage in that it apparently makes some people immune to the HIV virus, may hamper the advancement of multiple sclerosis and perhaps arrests of the development of cerebral malaria. But it is also a mutation that hinders cellular response to inflammation, both for immune responses and for homeostatic processes involving cellular migration for tissue development and maintenance. Therefore, it may have advantages but these could potentially be offset due to the body becoming more inefficient in dealing with common infections. Most of us will never be infected by AIDS, but we could certainly be infected by tetanus, which the body may be hindered in addressing if it is subjected to the CCR5-delta-32 mutation.

Mutations aren't intelligent beings and are weeded out by natural selection if they do cause significant amounts of harm. If HIV is more prevalent than Tetanus in the area, the mutation will probably be selected for. If people start dieing off from tetnus, the mutation will probably be buried as a recessive trait.

Just like how sickle cell anemia is very common in African Americans based on there being a very high malaria rate in Africa. In recent generations sickle cell anemia is starting to become a recessive trait because Sickle cell anemia is a bigger threat in US society since we don't have a Malaria problem.

Not to mention, its function is redundant in the first place and may not be that big an advantage.

As stated, mutations aren't intelligent. They happen, and if positive remain, if negative they get weeded out.

As for the sickle cell mutation, how many people are going to be contracting malaria in the first place?

In Africa? Very high, just like the probability to contract HIV.

And given the results of sickle-cell anemia, how "advantageous" can the mutation truly be? Lactose-intolerance? There are no direct benefits to it.

Malaria kills chilldren before they are old enough to have children of their own. What is considered beneficial by nature's standards, is simply being able to live long enough to have offspring. Sickle Cell anemia will kill you slowly. Malaria will kill children immediately. In Modernized countries, sickle cell anemia is starting to go down, because the trait is no longer beneficial. Nature is slow to adjust.

Just because something is narrowly beneficial is no indication it is an overall advantage, as your examples actually prove.

Unless you know what you are talking about and understand that nature doesn't way beneficial the same way we humans do.

 

[Barbarian]

thisnumbersdisconnected writes:

However, scientists have questioned this explanation for the variety of organisms on earth. Professor E. W. Bride wrote in Nature:

'Natural Selection' affords no explanation…of any…form of evolution. It means nothing more than 'the survivors survive.' Why do certain individuals survive? Because they are the fittest. How do we know they are the fittest? Because they survive.

Barbarian asks:
I notice you chose to delete a lot of words from the statement. Do us a favor and show us his statement with your deletions restored. I suspect you won't. And I think I know why.


Apparently, no chance of finding out what was in the deleted material. No link, no cite, and who knows how much deleted from that statement. Classic creationism.

 

[abrown9]

Barb/LK, have you guys read "Survival of the Sickest" by Sharon Moalem? I remember reading it in early undergrad and being stunned by the fact that I had never even considered why deleterious mutations (that affect prior to reproductive age) even hung around in our populations.

One thing I think a lot of people forget (or don't consider) when discussing evolution is that the boundaries of species are really arbitrary lines drawn by man. In fact, the boundary between life and nonlife could even be argued as an arbitrary split decided by man. All of life isn't separated into species - it's actually a big tapestry.

I like the analogy of a colour palette (you know those little things in paint where you can change your colour). By slowly adjusting the hue (or Sat/Lum...whatever those mean!) or the content of red/green/blue, we can slowly move across the palette. That's what mutations are. They are small changes, and one on it's own won't really change a red from a red, but we can see how many changes will eventually turn a red into a green. The kicker is, what really divides red from green? We can draw an arbitrary line somewhere, but the things on either side of the line aren't really red and they aren't really green.

 

[lordkalvan]

Barb/LK, have you guys read "Survival of the Sickest" by Sharon Moalem? I remember reading it in early undergrad and being stunned by the fact that I had never even considered why deleterious mutations (that affect prior to reproductive age) even hung around in our populations.

One thing I think a lot of people forget (or don't consider) when discussing evolution is that the boundaries of species are really arbitrary lines drawn by man. In fact, the boundary between life and nonlife could even be argued as an arbitrary split decided by man. All of life isn't separated into species - it's actually a big tapestry.

I like the analogy of a colour palette (you know those little things in paint where you can change your colour). By slowly adjusting the hue (or Sat/Lum...whatever those mean!) or the content of red/green/blue, we can slowly move across the palette. That's what mutations are. They are small changes, and one on it's own won't really change a red from a red, but we can see how many changes will eventually turn a red into a green. The kicker is, what really divides red from green? We can draw an arbitrary line somewhere, but the things on either side of the line aren't really red and they aren't really green.

No, I haven't read Moalem, but I must look out for it. I agree with pretty much all you say. On a molecular level, the distinction between life and not-life seems to be almost arbitrary. Whether viruses are alive or not is still discussed with some vigour, after all.

 

[cupid dave]

[/I][/INDENT]Most everyone who has a passing knowledge of evolutionary theory understands that requires billions upon billions of mutations. Interesting thing about mutations:

In the process of evolution, a change, called a mutation, in the genetic code of an organism occurs because of radiation, chemicals, or a chance event. This change is then either kept or removed by natural selection. If the organism survives, it passes its traits on to its offspring. Over time, these changes accumulate in the population and another species evolves, which is totally different from its ancestors.


Mutations have never been observed to have any useful effect despite thousands of experiments.

The one mutation that reduced the 24 Ape chromosomes to only 23 had the effect of branching out into the humanoid species which afterwards produced man with just 23 thereafter:




Gen 5:2says god called them, the manand his wife, the "Adamites,"... i.e.; a species:

Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created.







http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id31.html