Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome

True.Origin ^ | 8/7/06 | Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

An evaluation of DNA/RNA mutations indicates that they cannot provide significant new levels of information. Instead, mutations will produce degradation of the information in the genome. This is the opposite of the predictions of the neoDarwinian origins model. Such genome degradation is counteracted by natural selection that helps maintain the status quo. Degradation results for many reasons, two of which are reviewed here. 1) there is a tendency for mutations to produce a highly disproportionate number of certain nucleotide bases such as thymine and 2) many mutations occur in only a relatively few places within the gene called “hot spots,” and rarely occur in others, known as “cold spots.” An intensive review of the literature fails to reveal a single clear example of a beneficial information-gaining mutation. Conversely, thousands of deleterious mutations exist, supporting the hypothesis that very few mutations are beneficial. These findings support the creation origins model.

[A. Pole]

I did provide enough information to put on the right path, but I cannot spoon feed you.

[gondramB]

>>I did provide enough information to put on the right path, but I cannot spoon feed you.<<


I did not see documentation or references in your posts.

It looked to me like when a couple of posters suggested Greeks who were scientists that you went the attack route.

[A. Pole]

There is a Polish proverb: "Madrej glowie dosc dwie slowie" - "A word is enough to the wise."

[muawiyah]

Well, how does it? Maybe you could find out.

So far, you have not gotten speciation out of this minor change.

[SirLinksalot]

In the first place, Random Mutation is called "random" because it is the result of copying errors, radiation, etc. none of which are deterministic as to time or place or effect.

Natural Selection is dependent on selective pressures which are all random processes; weather, climate, predation, natural causes, catatrophic events, cosmic events, geography arrangements.

The combination of Random mutation and Natural selection being totally random somehow generates a biased
result defined as survival of the fittest, meaning producing more offspring as an affected subpopulation of a species is a very nice hunch, but where is the evidence for it ?

Just what percentage of the 3 billion base pairs in the genome do you think affect the anemia ? You seem to call that building up a genome informationally....I can't see how.

If you think the DNA repair machinery and its coordination systematically with the cell replication process was a part of a primitive cell, I suggest you rethink this paradigm because I don't think it makes sense at all.

[muawiyah]

The point is that it doesn't seem to be mutations at all that result in serious changes in the genome ~ rather, it's reshuffling of existing genes, or replications of existing genes, that bring about the greatest degree of change.

Viable mutations are, to say the least, rare!

[muawiyah]

BTW, the pre-Christian Greeks, and their knowledge, perished. A Dark Age prevailed throughout Western and Northern Europe from about 538 AD to the mid-1300s. It didn't get much better than that until later in fact.

All the knowledge of the Greeks was either "preserved" in books owned maintained by the Moslems, or it was dug out by Christian researchers.

Even China had a multi-century Dark Age in that period. The Mayans disappeared. Etc., etc.

Why do we keep forgetting the Dark Ages ~

[muawiyah]

Uh, the "argumentum ad dinosaurum" doesn't work. It wasn't the failure of their genome that did them in ~ rather, it was a failure of the environment to provide breathable atmosphere, decent temperatures, and edible food sources ~ they got cooked by a large comet or asteroid impact with the Earth.

We can demonstrate this phenomenon quite readily even today. Take your average chicken ~ this is a very successful species that numbers in the billions. These critters have even managed to enslave humanity to their purposes ~ we feed them, breed them, house them, etc.

However, as successful as their genome might be in bringing them all the benefits of an easy life, if you take but one chicken and cook him, he's dead Jim!

Successful adaptation to one's environment does not guarantee long life!

[muawiyah]

The modern scientific method was not worked out in the Middle Ages ~ in fact, there's very little evidence of a "system" existing prior to the fall of Toledo and with it the main library filled with a vast number of Greek science, engineering and mathematics texts.

The Dark Ages were "dark" ~ the Middle Ages occur later! They are not the same thing although some psycho-historians do tend to confound them.

During the Dark Ages the big deal in Western Europe was finding something to eat and how to keep warm.

[gondramB]

>>Why do we keep forgetting the Dark Ages ~<<

I'm not forgetting that nor minimizing the contribution of the church.

It's not unike Columbus - you can say he was a great explorer but you can't reasonably claim he was the first person to discover America nor the first to find that the world was round.

[muawiyah]

I think it's called h. radiens, something like that ~ a single celled archeobacter with a genome repair mechanism that can overcome damage done to genes by hard radiation.

Some have proposed this is the progenitor of all life on Earth and just drifted in out of space one day.

So, yeah, life here starts off with a genome repair kit.

[muawiyah]

Look, until the Irish re-established Christianity throughout Western and Northern Europe, the Roman Catholic Church had only the most tenous of existence.

They could very well have lost the battle with the Irish ~

I don't think you really want to credit the RCs with the redevelopment more attributable solely to Irish monks.

[gondramB]

>>Look, until the Irish re-established Christianity throughout Western and Northern Europe, the Roman Catholic Church had only the most tenous of existence.

They could very well have lost the battle with the Irish ~

I don't think you really want to credit the RCs with the redevelopment more attributable solely to Irish monks.<<

Oh, Lord... I'm not even happy with the false choice between whether the Greeks had science or whether the Church promoted science....

I darn sure am not gonna do church vs. church. :)

[gondramB]

>Uh, the "argumentum ad dinosaurum" doesn't work.<<

Very cool phrase... making mental note.

[muawiyah]

Sure you are ~ it's the Iris vs. RCs.

I know no one likes to talk about this one, but it explains European history in the Middle Ages.

[wyattearp]

You are making the same mistakes as the author regarding the use of the word "random". If a bird that has a long beak can reach the bugs, while a bird with a short beak cannot, the short beaked birds die out. This is not random. Selection pressures, while unpredictable, are not random. The bugs that could bore deep survived, which caused the birds with the short beaks to die out. Those are natural selective pressures, and they are not random.

Just what percentage of the 3 billion base pairs in the genome do you think affect the anemia ? You seem to call that building up a genome informationally....I can't see how.

I don't personally know, but it has been identified in the area that has to do with hemoglobin production. A single transcription error can affect that, and produce sickle-cell anemia. I have different alleles for hemoglobin production than somebody from sub-saharan Africa. I do not understand how anybody could not "see how" that is building up a genome informationally. We have different information in our genomes.

If you think the DNA repair machinery and its coordination systematically with the cell replication process was a part of a primitive cell, I suggest you rethink this paradigm because I don't think it makes sense at all.

What are you calling a primitive cell? Do you have a basic understanding of how the "DNA repair machinery" works? If you did, it would make sense. If you don't, then why are you telling me to rethink it?

[wyattearp]

It wasn't the failure of their genome that did them in ~ rather, it was a failure of the environment to provide breathable atmosphere,

It was a reproductive failure due to the fact that they could not adapt to changing 02 levels. Mammals were able to breathe just fine.

decent temperatures,

They didn't adapt to the changing temperatures. Mammals did; we have fur. Birds did; they have feathers. Extremely large reptiles did not.

and edible food sources

Which also couldn't adapt, and died.

~ they got cooked by a large comet or asteroid impact with the Earth.

Not unless the oven was on for a very long time. And why didn't everything else get cooked? And where is the evidence of cooked dino?

Take your average chicken ~ this is a very successful species that numbers in the billions.

Due to the fact that we like to eat chickens, and bred them specifically for that purpose. Chickens are an excellent example of natural selection. Man is a part of nature, and we selected chickens as a domesticated food source. We continue to select them for attributes that would get them killed in the wild. They have evolved to survive in the barnyard, protected by us - until we eat them (by which time they have reproduced).

Successful adaptation to one's environment does not guarantee long life!

No, but if a population adapts to their environment, they have a better chance of reproducing than a population that does not. Wild hogs have very small litters, whereas domestic hogs have litters of 15 or more. If a wild hog had a litter that big, most of them would die, probably including the sow. Domestic hogs that have very small litters don't live long either. (We call unproductive sows "sausage").

[muawiyah]

Naw, the dinosaurs got roasted ~ mammals and birds who burrowed "survived". Oxygen levels remained pretty much the same.

Interestingly enough, not all the birds with features survived ~ only "wading birds" with breast bones. The other types died out.

BTW, you can think it's humanity controling the chicken, but you'd be wrong.

[A. Pole]

The point is that it doesn't seem to be mutations at all that result in serious changes in the genome ~ rather, it's reshuffling of existing genes, or replications of existing genes, that bring about the greatest degree of change.

I think that this information has a structure analogical to the object oriented languages with encapsulation, polymorphism and inheritance. That is why the evolution can go so fast and that is why it goes in mysterious bursts.

Also there is some degree of ecosystem interspecies cooperation - the new genes can be shared and distributed.

At least part of the evolutionary process is not controlled by the DNA, DNA can be used as the common library from which different processes can pick needed functions. The state of the switches can be passed from one generation to another.

The acquired traits might be inherited. Imported genes or new solutions can be written back into DNA.

I could go on. My main point is that we know very little and that crude dice throwing model is not sufficient. If science is not murdered by free market commercialization, by political correctness and conformism or by erosion of the Christian principles on which the science rests we will see more amazing and surprising discoveries.

[muawiyah]

Yes, one such discovery is going to be that "Life" is a great and highly complex machine with a fascinating mind working in dimensions we cannot as yet examine.

Darwinian evolutionary theory will be seen to be irrelevant to the functioning of the great machine.