Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?

AiG ^ | February 13, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?

....

Are mutations really the “key to our evolution”? Do mutations provide the fuel for the engine of evolution? In this chapter, we take a close look at mutations to see what they are and what they are not. When we understand genetics and the limits of biological change, we will see how science confirms what the Bible says, “God made the beasts of the earth after their kind” (Genesis 1:25)...

[Buck W.]

Not at all—it is, in fact, my observation. I am a devout Christian who believes that the Bible is, in part, allegorical. Many (not all) of those who believe that it is literally true in full succumb to the need to cling to a silly set of constructions and coincidences called ID. That is a demonstration of lack of faith on their part. The fact that they demand “equal time” when real scientists call them on their folly just further distances them from their own faith.

[Toddsterpatriot]

the tiny fraction of mutations that are non-harmful/beneficial almost always result in a loss of information, which is precisely what Creation Science predicts

Where did Creation Science predict that? Anyone have a link? What about the cases where it doesn't result in a loss of info?

[allmendream]

This is going with the premise that any CHANGE in information is a LOSS of information.

For example a couple mutations in a gene on an esterase plasmid in a bacteria enabled the new enzyme to digest nylon. The ability to digest esters was not “lost” as it is present in multiple copies on a plasmid, but new information was definitely GAINED, as now the bacteria can digest both esters AND nylon.

Devolution is a sad sad joke played upon any creationists who wishes to embrace it.

The fact is that any expanding population has an INCREASE in genetic diversity; and some of that genetic diversity will lead to new and interesting “information”, such as the ability to digest citrate in e.coli.

[js1138]

Neither true, verifiable, or even relevant. The remainder of your statement betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of natural selection, a process that is wholly consistent with belief in the Christian faith.

You lose the argument automatically, because GGG has invoked UPPER CASE.

UPPER CASE always wins over mixed case.

[DallasMike]

That is a very insightful comment which reflects a position that I have held for some time. Adherents to creation science and ID seem to have a weaker Christian faith than those who believe that natural selection could be God’s way.

Make sure that you distinguish between young-earth creationists (YECs) and old-earth creationists (OECs). YECs deny the overwhelming preponderance of scientific observations in order to cling to an unwarranted interpretation of the Bible. They believe that God's revelation through his creation is wrong and cling to wacko theories of all sorts of scoundrels so as not to damage their faith.

OECs believe that God created the universe, the earth, and all life. We believe that God not only revealed himself through his word in the Bible, but also in his creation.

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.

Do I have problems with some of the claims of evolution? Yes, but they're scientific, not religious. If we had incontrovertible proof tomorrow that humans evolved from single-celled organisms, it would not affect my faith at all. Genesis tells us all about the Who, but next to nothing about the How.

I've seen God's work and God's miracles in my life and the lives of others. I've seen healings that happened literally while we were praying. I don't doubt God's existence any more than I doubt my own. Unlike the YECs, my faith in God does not depend upon a medieval -- and quite wrong -- interpretation of the Bible.

[GodGunsGuts]

The translation of the following book isn’t the best, but I think you will find it a fascinating read:

http://www.evolutionisdegeneration.com/index.asp?PaginaID=2577

All the best—GGG

[GodGunsGuts]

==The mere existance of creationists certainly confirms a belief that some men has not evolved from the apes

The mere existence of any life-form confirms that materialist evolution is a farce.

[DallasMike]

You lose the argument automatically, because GGG has invoked UPPER CASE.

Yes, and he doesn't like it when real scientists totally refute the work of his favorite, discredited YEC scientists. If you do that, you are a believer in ATHEIST SCIENCE and you WORSHIP AT THE TEMPLE OF DARWIN CULT. Logic and scientific observations have no place in his world.

I know that it's considered proper etiquette to ping someone that you're talking about, but HE-WHO-HATES-TO-BE-PINGED gets all whiny when you ping him. The Mods slapped him around about this, but it still doesn't stop the whining.

[Last Dakotan]

Humans grow mutated cells all the time - they are known as cancers.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Humans grow mutated cells all the time - they are known as cancers.

And thus harmful.

[Natural Law]

"Trillions upon Trillions of Years - - Not Enough Time"

Not sure about your word based model, but I have used this method in an number of significant design advancements. Think of evolution as representing a slope with the Y axis representing the relative success of an organism to compete within its environment, or to adapt to changes in its environment. Small changes will move the survival index minimally up or down the slope resulting in little evolutionary change. However major changes, as represented by mutations, will move an organism a greater distance up or down the survival index. Most often, mutations are unsuccessful, resulting in the death of the mutation. However, occasionally a mutation will represent a significant advancement and allow the offspring of the mutation to dominate and replace their competitors and predecessors.

[GodGunsGuts]

==For example a couple mutations in a gene on an esterase plasmid in a bacteria enabled the new enzyme to digest nylon.

There is no gain of information. The bacteria are merely drawing upon was already frontloaded by the Creator. As Dr. Sanford points out in his book Genetic Entropy, virtually all beneficial mutations are the result of information loss, not information gain—just as predicted by the creation model.

[allmendream]

The ability to change was “front loaded” into EVERY bit of DNA. That was all that was needed, was the ability to change into something else that was also useful, that is a gain of information.

You are attempting a ‘there are no changes that are beneficial, and any changes that are beneficial were “front-loaded’ defense.

It is either...

a) no gain of information is possible

or

b) gain of information is possible

The fact that you want to tack onto b) ‘but only if the information was “front-loaded’ is inconsequential.

It is either a) or b).

Obviously you just admitted to b) which makes your a) statement no longer “operable” as the Clinton White House used to say.

[muawiyah]

Turns out your kids aren't "a blend". Genes are expressed in a sort of quantum fashion ~ all by their lonesomes. So your grandkids have a set of genes from each parent (only half of what they had), and they are either turned off or they get expressed.

In fact, if you had something like 4 children, you'd find each of them ending up quite different because of the differences within your own existing genome. You could have a red-head, platinum blond, ordinary blond or brunette, with as many or more differences in skin-tone ~ and every bit of it would be YOUR FAULT ` and with no blends at all.

Obviously our own children do not recapitulate "their/our" kind ~ more like they recapitulate "somebody else's" kinds, if at all.

Sometimes folks get surprised when one of those stray kinky hairs pops up (unless, of course, you already know your relatives have such hairs, and then it shouldn't be a surprise).

When you have a system like ours, change happens whether we want it to or not ~ and then there's the reshuffeling trick. Sometimes the genes in a chromosome get resorted, or even duplicated, and then all H' breaks out.

You could go thousands of generations with absolutely no mutations, random or otherwise, and still have kids who ended up looking like the neighbors rather than anyone in your own family.

Not saying that happens all the time, but as soon as you have several different genes in your grandparents' generation, your own turns into a kind of crapshoot of quantum resolution ~ not a "blend". The math behind it is quite probabilistic.

[GodGunsGuts]

There is no gain of information. It is just a matter of taking advantage of the information that is already there. And as Dr. Sanford points out in his book Genetic Entropy, when we do see actual beneficial mutations that change the total amount of available information, they invariably result from information loss, not information gain.

[allmendream]

Before the mutations. Bacteria could not digest nylon.

After the mutations. Bacteria could digest nylon.

Obviously that information was GAINED, even if you insist that the nylonase enzyme was simply ‘hidden’ within the esterase enzyme; it took MUTATION to UNLOCK that NEW INFORMATION.

[Toddsterpatriot]

It’s difficult to have an intelligent conversation with people who don’t even understand thermodynamics and entropy.

[muawiyah]

Not quite ~ once you get a chunk of genes together that gives you a relatively stable platform, you can build all sorts of things pretty quickly.

HOX genes give us walking/flying/swimming critters with front ends, back ends, tops, bottoms and sides. Probably only a handful of ways you can structure control genes like that ~ and they are incredibly stable platforms.

In fact, let me go further, there's probably only a very small number of possible AND useful HOX genes in the Earth environment.

Now, a quick return to the news ~ listening to Nancy Pelosi tell me a lie about "middle class tax cut". The woman is mentally ill ~ too much botox. It's changing her genome as well ~ she's growing a tail ~ look at her dress in the back when she turns to leave ~ there's something in there and that's not good.

[allmendream]

Apparently the “information” on how to make a human being was also “front-loaded” into our hominid ancestors, all that it took to ‘unlock’ that ‘front-loaded’ information was about a 3% genomic change.

As far as nylonase bacteria, the “total amount of available information” before the mutation didn't include the ability to digest nylon. The “total amount of available information” after the mutation included EVERYTHING the premutation bacteria could do, but with ADDITIONAL INFORMATION on how to digest nylon.

Obviously the total amount of information went up.

[allmendream]

Or much of anything else.

I have long maintained that if you look at the belief set of creationists they will almost invariably also believe in many other equally unsupportable beliefs (UFO’s, Geocentricism, HIV-AIDS denial, Jesus rode on a dinosaur, etc, etc).