Login

Join for Free!
119264 members


The Implausible Engines of Evolution

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby biohazard » Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:23 am

Tomn wrote:Biohazard:
Also, a bad mutation turning out to be good is rare and hardly observed in the natural world, especially when it comes to multi-cellular organisms. Also, keep in mind that most mutations are lethal, and thus they do not continue. The probability of a mutation being positive is also extremely low and very close to impossible, and has not been shown or observed to increase at the passage of time. Also, the probability of positive mutations does not increase the more mutations occur in a population.


You seem to miss one important concept here: what makes a mutation positive or negative in the first place?

Most mutations are quite useless in their current environments, because the organisms are already pretty well adapted to living there. But since the environment tends to change all the time, new mutations have constantly chances to prove their worth. I will give you an example of a situation where the very same mutation can be either good or bad.

If a normal gut bacterium undergoes a mutation that affects the composition of its cell wall, the resulting cell wall can be a bit more costly to synthesize than it is for its non-mutant counterparts living in the same gut. The bacterium having the mutation does poorly in competition because it spends too much effort in building the mutated cell wall and that strain dies away soon.

However, if the person in whose gut the bacteria live has to take an antibiotic treatment for some reason, the bacteria with normal cell walls are in trouble, because the antibiotic makes holes in their cell wall and makes them die in numbers. But if the cell wall mutation mentioned above happens now, the new, more costly cell wall happens to be immune for the antibiotic and the mutant strain flourishes now - not because its cell wall was nice and good and cheap to build like the previous one, but because it keeps the bacterium alive. And thus, after the antibiotic treatment the main strain of bacteria in the gut is the mutant that makes costly but protective cell wall. In theory even one such well-timed mutation that happens to be protective by pure chance, can give rise to a new flourishing bacterial strain and since billions of bacteria live in our guts that very unlikely event can (and often will) happen.

Eventually the drug treatment ends. Now all the bacteria have the mutant, protective cell wall. But one of them undergoes another mutation (perhaps a back-mutation to the old form of the gene) and starts to synthesize the old cell wall, which is cheaper to make and thus saves resources for other things, such as quicker cell division. And now, the opposite happens: the bacteria with cheaper but non-protective cell wall increase in numbers and the mutant strain loses ground. If the antimicrobial pressure was constant (for example, a life-long antimicrobial treatment of a person who has undergone splenectomy), the mutant strain would be the dominant strain for the rest of the host organism's life - unless, of course, some new and even more beneficial mutation would emerge. And during this time, it could spread to other hosts that are on an antimicrobial treatment in, say, hospital environments.

This was of course a simplified example, but this happens all the time. The mutated gene can be anything, depending on the target of the antibiotic. The very same mutation can be good and bad, it is all up to the environment of the organism.

Naturally, the overall probability of a positive mutation increases if there are more mutations. The percentage of positive mutations in relation to total number of mutations remains unaffected, though.

P.S. Sorry for the double post, I tried to attach this to my previous one but was too slow.
User avatar
biohazard
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: The Implausible Engines of Evolution

Postby Tomn » Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:53 pm

I understand the example of the HIV mutations.

However, there is a problem. HIV is a single strand. We and most organisms have double helix. Also, HIV is RNA while we have DNA. The probability becomes much lower when you have a stronger structure like DNA.

I think I need to clarify something. You are referring to the event occurrence, which I think is zero. However, the case of the development of viruses in general, where viruses adapt quickly to antibiotics, is observed in nature. I should have mentioned this earlier, and asked for an example other that HIV, Swine Flu, SARS, E colli, etc.

Although this occurs in micro organisms, I have not seen this in multicellular organisms.

If this debate is over, I will be publishing a new thread: Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution. We could sit here and debate the conjectures over mutation and the lack of or presence of examples. In this next thread, I will be talking about generally excepted facts and one science which do not permit evolution to be viable. This has been the meat of most of my argument for the past few years, and I have not found a single evolutionist able to find a way around these facts. I began with mutations primarily because I have just began to look into it, and had some rebuttal.

Truly, we can be somewhat copacetic on all other topics expect for the examples of multicellular organisms who have had random, beneficial mutation.
-facts, observed events, plausible explanations, and solid evidence
User avatar
Tomn
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:13 am

Postby JackBean » Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:41 pm

1) E coli is not a virus ;)
2) you argue, that HIV is single stranded RNA virus, but you refuses even bacteria, which have double stranded DNA
3) observation of evolution in multicellular organisms is more complicated mainly because of their long life-span. Whereas bacteria are able to divide once in every 20 minutes, in multicellular organisms it takes usually at least days and if you were referring to something like mammals, then it takes even years.

Biohazard tried to show you, that mutation can be either bad or good, it just depends on the conditions and environment. But you're still refuting to understand that and states that probability of positive mutation occuring is near zero. And even when we show you, that even with such low probability the absolute numbers are not that low, you just ignore it.
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5692
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm


Postby Tomn » Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:51 pm

I understand that whether or not it is beneficial is predicated upon the environment.

Again, mutations occur separate from the environment. How can a random mistake in DAN end up being beneficial to survival? Recall that the probability of a positive mutation is low, and that most mutations are neutral or lethal. Out of every positive mutation that occurs from the many that are not, what is the probability of it being beneficial to that organism in its environment? Again, this is far stretched. So far stretched, that it is practically impossible.

By piling on another factor that determines positive or negative mutation, you just made it harder for animals to allow random genetic mistakes to be beneficial in its environment.
-facts, observed events, plausible explanations, and solid evidence
User avatar
Tomn
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:13 am

Postby JackBean » Mon Oct 10, 2011 10:37 pm

I give up, you're improbable.
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5692
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Postby Tomn » Mon Oct 10, 2011 10:40 pm

I will not press further debate on this topic.

Otherwise, will you be on the look out for the new thread "Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution"?
I will be presenting observed, proven facts and science that do not allow for evolution to be possible. For this thread, facts will be what I am mainly discussing. However, debate on the theory of evolution, and its mechanics, possibility, etc. will not be the main focus.
-facts, observed events, plausible explanations, and solid evidence
User avatar
Tomn
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:13 am

Re:

Postby biohazard » Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:07 am

Tomn wrote:I understand that whether or not it is beneficial is predicated upon the environment.

Again, mutations occur separate from the environment. How can a random mistake in DAN end up being beneficial to survival? Recall that the probability of a positive mutation is low, and that most mutations are neutral or lethal. Out of every positive mutation that occurs from the many that are not, what is the probability of it being beneficial to that organism in its environment? Again, this is far stretched. So far stretched, that it is practically impossible.

By piling on another factor that determines positive or negative mutation, you just made it harder for animals to allow random genetic mistakes to be beneficial in its environment.


I will give you one more, well-studied example of beneficial mutations in multicellular organisms. The example case is called "industrial melanism", and it is apparent for example in certain species of moths. The "normal" camouflage of the moth is light so that it can rest again trunks of birches and among lichen and remain unnoticed by predators. If there happens to be a mutation that turns the moth's colour darker, it is quickly spotted and eaten by birds.

However, in industrial areas there is so much soot and dirt on the surfaces of the trees that the moths are having a hard time hiding there. In these environments, the dark mutant suddenly has much better chances of survival and thus its genes start to spread, ultimately becoming the dominant type of moth in the area.

Again, the very same mutation can be practically lethal (in clean forests) or a life-saver (in industrial settings).

If this does not convince you about beneficial mutations in multicellular organisms, there are plenty of more to find. Just try googling something like insect pesticide resistance, for example.

Unfortunately, it seems you have already carved your own views into stone and no matter what evidence and examples we present to you, you ignore them. This, in turn, makes this debate quite useless once again. Curious how often all this happens when debating with men of faith...
User avatar
biohazard
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:45 pm

Postby Tomn » Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:20 pm

Here is my question: has the dark color of the wings been assumed to be a mutation or has it been proven to be a mutation?

Also, if darker wings is a mutation, a random mistake in DNA, then there would be evidence showing that at the time before the mutation, there were only white color moths, and then after, there were dark color moths. Has this been observed? Also, this must have been recent considering that industrial smog began being released into the air 250 years ago when England first began to use coal.
-facts, observed events, plausible explanations, and solid evidence
User avatar
Tomn
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:13 am

Postby Darby » Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:46 pm

Darby
Viper
Viper
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:29 pm
Location: New York, USA

Postby Tomn » Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:27 pm

Darby:
Why didnt you talk about the recentness of the mutation? There is no proof that this is a mutation, and that this genetic trait appeared when smog began to be produced 250 years ago. Since there is no proof of this (unless you can show), I conclude that this is not an example of the theory of evolution.

Also, in reference to the article,
1)apes and humans are easily located, and existed in a large area at the time when evolution was supposed to be taking place. Show me the intermediate fossil for apes and humans.

The answer to this is simply, there is no intermediate or fossil of a common ancestor. Therefore, how can evolution claim something existed when there is no such evidence? Obviously, the theory of evolution is false for lack of evidence.

2)So basically, every human got malaria, survived it, and maintained the mutation?

If this animals's sialic acid lethal, then I wonder how animals survive today with this still present in their gene. If animals can live with this gene, then I wonder the gene became prevalent. Humans with this could have survived just the same as animals do. In other words, what else besides malaria could have eliminated humans that had not undergone the change? Obviously, all humans did not get malaria.

3)"Then, for reasons possibly linked to a malarial parasite that bound Neu5Gc, a gene mutation three million or so years ago inactivated the human enzyme involved in making the molecule."

This is conjecture. This is hypothesis, and yet they state it as fact towards the end of the article.

4)"The researchers tested the idea by exposing chimpanzee sperm"

The scientists had leeway to try which ever testing method. They chose to genetically alter mice, which I would disagree with. However, even in mice, it showed that infertility rate would be 100%. However, they were not able to replicate the mutation of genes that would cause a change in the immune system. They, instead of provoking the mutation, genetically altered the mice.

If they truly want to prove this, they would have to replicate the mutation. All they did was prove that female eggs with anti-Neu5Gc antibodies would kill all sperm with the Neu5Gc. This evolution is only possible if the mutation occurs as a result of malaria. They've shown that the unchanged sperm with Neu5Gc would die. Now replicate the mutation that would change the genetic code a result of the mutation.

5)There is no differential reproduction

As the article mentions, the infertility rate with males that are unaltered is 100%. A male and female who have both been infected with malaria, and then survived with the mutation, would have to mate. But again, there is no evidence showing that malaria provokes a mutation, which is what is necessary for the evolutionary process.

6)The production of Neu5Gc anti-bodies was not replicated. If anti-bodies would be produced, it would be to eliminate malaria, not Neu5Gc. The experiment does not replicate this production. So basically, what this article is saying, is that our body made an antibody for Neu5Gc instead of malaria? Antibodies are made for foreign substances. If Neu6Gc was produced by the body, and malaria attaches to it, then why werent malaria anibodies made rather than a antibody for a substance the body makes? This makes no scientific sense.



The "speciation by infection"is conjecture, not observed, replicated, proven science. When there is solid evidence, please give me a private message or alert me in some sort of way.
-facts, observed events, plausible explanations, and solid evidence
User avatar
Tomn
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:13 am

Postby Crucible » Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:14 am

I still believe the most telling example to reply to Tomn with, is the one of multiple genetic pathways to get a cancer tumor-affected phenotype.

The more genetic ways the animal could get the same cancer, the higher the payoff must be wrt to passing on the genetics that do it [ and also pass on the other thing ( whatever it is) , which happens to be so beneficial under the extant circumstances ].

this is so universally applicable a hypothesis, that one could say "Even lab rats line-bred to be a tumor producing strain, are being selected for, by the breeder of those lab rats". That's a direct payoff for having those genetics, but the indirect payoff in nature would be in a highly beneficial trait ( under circumstances) which must go along with the tumor producing genetics...such as enhancement of some brain activity, or increased reproductive drive..."
Crucible
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:46 am

Re:

Postby biohazard » Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:48 pm

Tomn wrote:Here is my question: has the dark color of the wings been assumed to be a mutation or has it been proven to be a mutation?

Also, if darker wings is a mutation, a random mistake in DNA, then there would be evidence showing that at the time before the mutation, there were only white color moths, and then after, there were dark color moths. Has this been observed? Also, this must have been recent considering that industrial smog began being released into the air 250 years ago when England first began to use coal.


Yes, e.g. in England virtually all peppered moths used to be white before the start of the industrial era, because the moths bearing a mutated black pigment allele were quickly eaten by birds. And the moths remained white even during the industrial era in places where there were no factories. But they turned black in the industrial areas, and this was noticed around halfway to the 19th century in England. It was well-documented already during that time, and it has been experimentally studied in many ways since then and is considered as one of the hallmark phenomenons demonstrating the mechanisms of evolution.
User avatar
biohazard
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:45 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests