Posted on 08/07/2006 10:54:34 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at trueorigin.org ...
Um. No. Wrong on the Oxygen levels:
Where is the evidence of roasted dinosaurs? (Hint: there isn't any).
It is a mutually beneficial relationship. The productive ones can breed (and we encourage this), and we eat most of them. We give them all of the reproductive success that they need to produce more chickens, and then we eat most of them. They reproduce more in captivity, and have a much larger population, than they ever would in the wild - even though we eat most of them.
Are there wild chickens? Not being facetious, just curious. I don't mean chicken-like birds, I mean wild chickens.
Very cool phrase... making mental note.
I liked it, too. ;-)
Look at the part of my post that you quoted. The adjective I used preceding the word "information" is the kind I meant.
In retrospect I see that I didn't quite address his argument. I unfortunately assumed he was putting forth the tired old creationist claim that random events cannot add information. Instead he's merely claiming that mutations of the kind we observe to happen are insufficient to account for the tremendous diversity we now observe. There may even be something to that.
I just read something very interesting over the weekend. As you probably know, as a result of the Human Genome Project, we now think there are some 30K genes in the human genome. I just read that, so far, 20K pseudogenes have been identified. Probably there are many, many more since the software is much better at locating genes. My conclusion is that duplication event are very common. That does not square with the Bergman's claim.
Now, does Bergman anywhere point to specific sequences that are, according to him, very unlikely to have been produced by the kinds of mutations we observe? The genome is available for all. Given his claim that mutations can only "degrade" the genome, he ought to be able to find them easily. Surely it's not too much to ask him to be specific, now is it?
The oxygen level materials that you reference are highly speculative. We know they were far higher in earlier periods, but so was carbon dioxide.
However, from what I've learned about chickens over the years (breeding them in fact) there's really only one species ~ but the wild progenitor lives in South America. The "wild chickens" in Africa are simply domesticated chickens that have "reverted to the wild", kind of like Arkansas razorbacks.
I think the reason "they" decided there were two species of chickens is that otherwise, if there were only one, and it originated in the Americas, that would mean there had to have been pre-Columbian contact, but with the Indians discovering Africa.
I suspect in the long run this question will be resolved to the satisfaction of everybody, as well as the chickens.
Neither did the Darwinians, although I have seen some evidence they are backing away from their earlier belief in "mutations" as the sole source of genetic change.
They are still, unfortunately, holding fast to their little statues of "St. Natural Selection" ~
Here's my point...
Deleterious mutations do accumulate. Bergman is not talking about that in his article, he is talking about BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS. DO THEY REALLY OCCUR AND IF SO, TO WHAT EXTENT ? DO THEY DO SO TO PRODUCE HUMAN LIFE ?
Sickle-cell introduces genetic disease into a population and
occurs at a natural 'background rate' and is called a
'balanced polymorphism'.
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.
So, I don't think Sickle-cell can even be used to explain 'beneficial' mutations arising and moving to fixation in a population.
THIS IS THE WRONG TYPE OF MUTATION AND THAT I THINK , WAS Dr. BERGMAN's POINT.
Regarding your statement to the effect that ...
More questions for you ....
What do you think is the more logical sequence of events-
1) The evolution of a genes and a protein synthesis mechanism
followed by correction and repair mechanisms ?
2) The reverse of number 1 ?
Was this before or after they wanted to kill Gallilao?
Interesting.
If you're saying evos don't consider duplications and reordering kinds of mutation then you're very wrong as is evident here.
If you're going to post to me, please have something worthwhile to say.
If magic beams from the mother ship were found to be a "cause" you'd find evolutionists claiming that this, too, was mere "mutation".
Right up to the time the lady got the Nobel for her discovery of "jumping genes" the word "mutation" meant something very specific ~ namely, the transformation of an existing gene with specific coding into a different gene.
I'm sticking to the old definition. That way words will continue to have meanings that facilitate communication.
Well, you go right ahead, whatever floats your boat. I hope you don't mind if the rest of us try to keep up-to-date on the science.
The oxygen level materials that you reference are highly speculative.
No, they are not. Nice try. It is very well documented, by a number of sources. I'll post them, if you will actually read them. (I've gotten a bit skeptical on these type of threads).
We know they were far higher in earlier periods, but so was carbon dioxide.
Not at the same time. First one, then the other. Doesn't matter much anyways. If the oxygen wasn't there, the carbon dioxide level wouldn't matter.
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.