Posted on 08/07/2006 10:54:34 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
WTF is a "Darwinian"? His book is outdated, and people only read it for an historical reference (or just to say that they read it).
No, he's not. What he is saying is that all mutations, beneficial or otherwise, degenerate the DNA, and if evolution were true then it would eventually kill everything. Read the whole article.
He said nothing of the sort. Search for the word "sickle" in the article. He said nothing of the sort.
It can never move to fixation because there would be no 'normal' alleles to confer the advantage in the heterozygous state and all members of the population would have a genetic disease that would kill them.
He didn't say that either. Why do you think that I can't look up the article? It's linked, for crying out loud.
What he did say is this:
"All of the beneficial mutations located in my search of the literature involving almost 20 million references..."
Brief interjection: Does this guy really expect anybody to believe that he checked 20 million references? Do you believe that?! He certainly isn't quoting any of them!
Heck, I'll say it up front: THERE AREN'T 20 MILLION REFERENCES. THIS MAN IS LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH!
And now, back to the qoute...
"were loss mutations and mutations such as sickle cell anemia that have a beneficial effect only in very special circumstances. In most situations they have a decidedly negative effect on the organism’s health. Not a single clear example of an information-gaining mutation was located. It was concluded that molecular biology research shows that information-gaining mutations have not yet been documented.
When scientists make bold statements like this referencing other people's research, especially when he is referencing 20 MILLION WORKS, i.e. "in most situations", "not a single clear example", "it was concluded", they note where the research originated. There is nothing like that here. It is pure nonsense. If there were a source (let alone 20 million of them), it/they would have been cited. Now on to this little gem:
While such negative findings do not in and of themselves prove creation, they support the conclusion that an Intelligent Designer formed the original genomes of each created kind.
This statement is called, technically, "Anal Extraction". It has absolutely no basis in reality, no foundation in fact, and could only come from that one place.
Try to understand what he is saying.
He uses so many logical fallacies, and presents so many premises and conclusions without any supporting evidence that it is impossible to "understand what he is saying". That you do is, quite frankly, disturbing.
[regarding anemia] The gene is a naturally-occurring point mutation and the allele is found in areas that do not have high levels of malarian mosquitos.
Do what the author of this article has failed to do. Document that. Seriously. Document it.
Your assumed 'primitive cell' populations would have failed to survive because 'reproductive error catastrophe' would have resulted in extinction before the repair mechanisms could have 'evolved'.
I asked you if you had even a basic understanding of the cell cycle. Clearly, you do not. Congratulations: You have answered one of my questions.
Seriously (well, maybe not so seriously), if somebody told me when I was 12 years old that I could have all the food I wanted, a dozen women a day, different women each day, rotating at a rate that there is no way that I would ever recognize them, and the only bad thing was that I would be shot in the head at the age of 25 and served up in a stew... I'd have signed that paper in a heartbeat. As long as there was beer. A man has to have his priorities, after all. ;-)
1) The evolution of a genes and a protein synthesis mechanism followed by correction and repair mechanisms ?
2) The reverse of number 1 ?
False dichotomy. What makes you think that they (#1) didn't evolve simultaneously? What makes you think that they couldn't have evolved simultaneously? What makes you think that they could have evolved separately? Think about this one. It goes back to the cell cycle question that I asked you earlier.
That was a really excellent question (poorly worded, but I fixed it for you). I honestly hope that you do look it up. It is truly fascinating stuff.
Or, horror of horrors, that Africans discovered the Americas.
(I am not for one second suggesting that you - or I - think like that, just that sometimes people tend to blind themselves to things that they don't like, and that this tends to result in BS research)
And yet, most of our DNA is nonfunctional "junk DNA". How does he account for that?
The The Jurassic period was from 206 to 144 Million Years Ago (and that's when you find the big dinosaurs.)
Etc.
Reading through http://dml.cmnh.org/2005Sep/msg00524.html those guys 'splain that oxygen concentrations were 10% just 'afore the coming of the dinosaurs, and rose to as much as 19%, but had periods of 13%, etc.
They attribute the development of the dinosaurs (and their group) as well as that of mammals to higher oxygen levels, not lower, since we'all gotta' have about 6 times as much as mere reptiles.
I read through your references, but I think you need to work on your personal timeline.
These guys point to references claiming as high as a 35% oxygen level in the Carboniferous period ~ http://dml.cmnh.org/2002Aug/msg00111.html
Once they found what genes were all about the Darwinians thought they had a mechanism to support the entire thesis in every detail ~ to wit: mutations in genes, occuring for a variety of reasons, with "beneficial" genes assisting in adaptation.
Subsequent research has demonstrated that virtually all "mutations" at the base-pair level do nothing ~ this is because (according to some sources) because every protein produced in a gene is readily assembled by at least three different ways ~ so most variations don't create changes in the intended product.
Genetic change other than mutation, e.g. duplication, (deletion), and reordering have far greater impact, and do so at far faster rates.
DNA methylation has recently come under indepth study and that process might well account for far more change than we can yet imagine.
I see it as a 'loss of function' mutation that
cripples an existing process. It is Hard to "see how" that is 'building up a genome informationally' as you describe it. I don't see how copying mistakes can be seen as building up genetic information.
Evolution follows few of the possible paths to antibiotic resistance
Mutations may not be as helpful for neo-Darwinian evolution as expected.
The writer is still discussing what seems to be a standard immune response found in vast numbers of bacteria as a "mutation".
On the other hand, he's reporting that researchers have worked out all the possible pathways and found only immediately workable or useful pathways are used ~ which, intriguingly, suggests the "mutation" is under somebody's control somewhere ~ maybe the bacteria's "mind" has some sort of input.
Time to start checking to see if these critters have micro-miniature supercomputers buried in their innards.
Regarding the question of simultaneous evolution vs. sequence, the question is :
What is the selection criteria for simultaneous
evolution? The functional value of a correction
mechanism is nil until there exists something to
correct. Selection value correlates to function.
Logic dictates the sequence of events.
Actually, what they have are plasmids, F-plasmids, and episomes, and they like to share them. If they come across a critter that doesn't have something that they have, they "reach out and touch someone", sending it across a mating bridge. They routinely share DNA/RNA, oftentimes across species. Randy little buggers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.