Evolution: The ramfications of mutations And the necessity for Information

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[SX23]

This guy doesn't and he was the first response. *shrug*


The "swiss watch" argument is reasonably persuasive, but ultimately not really relevant to evolution.

I'm afraid it's not the case. As I just wrote, If a congress with mathematical heads will be attended by evolutionists to ask this very precise question: Could mutations serve as the basis—with natural selection—as a mechanism for evolutionary change?

And if the answer of this congress would be that due to sole mathematics and probabilities it's impossible, would it changes anyone mind on the subject?

I'll be happy to instruct you that such a congress has been made and the answer has been a plain no. Having faith in evolution (Yes faith!) is more illogic as for now then not to believe anything, as a team of expert has analyzed the thing, with a demand from a scientific board supporting the evolution, and their answer has been no.

If I may cite something arising from the report: The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: one in 107 x 107, or 1014. That’s a one followed by 14 zeroes, a hundred trillion! Any two mutations might produce no more than a fly with a wavy edge on a bent wing. That’s a long way from producing a truly new structure, and certainly a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organism. You need more mutations for that. So, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? That’s one in a billion trillion (1021). Suddenly, the ocean isn’t big enough to hold enough bacteria to make it likely for you to find a bacterium with three simultaneous or sequential related mutations.

What about trying for four related mutations? One in 1028. Suddenly, the earth isn’t big enough to hold enough organisms to make that very likely. And we’re talking about only four mutations. It would take many more than that to change a fish into a philosopher, or even a fish into a frog. Four mutations don’t even make a start toward any real evolution. But already at this point some evolutionists have given up the classic idea of evolution, because it just plainly doesn’t work.

[AmPM]

What you are failing to take into consideration is the number of generations involved.

Something that reproduces quickly mutates as a species much faster. Also, a mutation not being useful does not mean it detracts from an organism either. As such any mutation that does not inhibit the organisms chance of reproduction gets passed on. Over a few million years and billions of generations this tends to add up.

I think what the problem is is this. That things evolve is fact, things do change over time and we have witnessed this with bacteria. They adapt over generations to resist antibacterials. The THEORY part of evolution is the mechanism, the how. That is where the questions lie, not whether things change for better or for worse, but the how of it. Natural Selection for instance does not rule out inefficient species, it only rules out species that cannot survive in their environment. A species does not have to be dominant, or even very successful to continue on and pass its traits. It just has to survive. The same goes for the individual, survive, reproduce, done.

[SX23]

What you are failing to take into consideration is the number of generations involved.

Something that reproduces quickly mutates as a species much faster. Also, a mutation not being useful does not mean it detracts from an organism either. As such any mutation that does not inhibit the organisms chance of reproduction gets passed on. Over a few million years and billions of generations this tends to add up.

I think what the problem is is this. That things evolve is fact, things do change over time and we have witnessed this with bacteria. They adapt over generations to resist antibacterials. The THEORY part of evolution is the mechanism, the how. That is where the questions lie, not whether things change for better or for worse, but the how of it. Natural Selection for instance does not rule out inefficient species, it only rules out species that cannot survive in their environment. A species does not have to be dominant, or even very successful to continue on and pass its traits. It just has to survive. The same goes for the individual, survive, reproduce, done.

The congress has been made by non-biased head mathematicians in this world, taking into account the facts given by evolutionists. So the facts you are talking about were taken into consideration. Unless you think a bunch of head scientists would not think about it?

[SX23]

Bacteria is not, and should not be employed as an example:
Quoting:

The odds against the mutation explanation were simply too great, so they began to look for another mechanism—and they found it. First of all, using cultures that are routinely kept for long periods of time, they found out that bacteria were resistant to antibiotics, even before commercial antibiotics were “invented.” Genetic variability was “built right into” the bacteria. Did the nonresistant varieties get resistant by mutation? No. Resistant forms were already present. Furthermore, certain bacteria have little rings of DNA, called plasmids, that they trade around among themselves, and they passed on their resistance to antibiotics in that way. It wasn’t mutation and asexual reproduction at all, just ordinary recombination and variation within kind.

Bacteria can be made antibiotic resistant by mutation, but biologist Novick calls such forms “evolutionary cripples.” The mutation typically damages a growth factor, so that the mutationally crippled bacteria can scarcely survive outside the lab. The antibiotic resistance carried by plasmids results from enzymes produced to break down the antibiotic. Such bacteria do not have their growth crippled by mutation. Their resistance is by design.

End of quote.
This text was published by an old evolutionist.

[AmPM]

That is still evolution, even if it does not fit into a theme of genetic changes passed from one generation to another.

The organism changes and becomes more resistant, hence it evolves.

Your fault is thinking that evolution is the same as natural selection. It's not.

Another source would be to look at a virus, but as they are not truly a living thing it makes it more complicated.

You can also look at fast breeding insects. Or if you would prefer, the selective breeding programs of many of our domestic animals, such as dogs. Those are all forms of evolution, though not driven by natural selection.

[SX23]

Read about evolution.

Mutation is the very basis. If you need exterior facts to make it stable, then it is not the same theory.

And the change you cited do not even come near from being to achieve species creation or macro evolution. There is some changes, but only in the same specie.

[AmPM]

Please separate evolution, and natural selection.

Natural selection is a natural process by which genetically heritable traits become more or less common in a population over successive generations. This selection in interaction with the production of variation determines the evolution of the species.

Evolution (also known as biological evolution, genetic evolution and organic evolution)[1][2] is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.

[SX23]

Let's make a quick resume:

You argue with bacterias that do mutate. I clearly demonstrate that this idea is false. Then you pretend to say I can't make the distinction between Evolution and natural selection. Now, let's give a few insights on the theory of evolution: It needs, as a basis, mutations.
Second, the question was clearly: Could mutations serve as the basis—with natural selection—as a mechanism for evolutionary change?
Suggested by evolutionists and resolved by mathematicians, the answer, as I already stated, was quite clear.

[Masacree]

Wait, what? You're arguing that organisms don't mutate? That's ridiculous. Are you familiar with a branch of science called 'genetics'?

[SX23]

I should rephrase it: That bacterias do mutate of an USEFUL way. It has been demonstrated, quite clearly, that this is not the case.

Oh, and Massacree, if you could read a little before posting, it would be appreciated.

[Smokaz]

Well re-reading the thread I think sx23's argument strongly shows the possibility of  a creator, and its easy to portray the generic creator his theory doesn't discredit as representative for one of the established religions and thus get a lot of negative associations to it, but so far the mutation thing doesn't have evidence that points in the direction of a specific creator, it suggests a engineer behind the way life has developed on earth.

[AmPM]

Which means your argument, is not against evolution, but against natural selection.

Now we can discuss the actual problem, proof of natural selection. Hard to do since humanity has existed for such a short time, and our records of events are rather...lacking.

Now, natural selection states that mutations would have to be carried from generation to generation, with more mutations eventually adding on over thousands of generations. This does not preclude useless mutations, merely ones that result in the individuals not surviving. Humans have a number of useless features, the appendix, people born with webbed toes or extra digits, people born with more severe birth defects. These are all mutations. Some would kill in a natural environment, some are useless but not a hindrance. Those that are not a hindrance can and will be passed on. Eventually, you could end up with an entire community of people with 6 toes.

Smokaz, we aren't arguing about where things came from, just that their current form isn't the one they always had.

[SX23]

No, as the sixths toe would be identical to the 5th, with the exact same nerve patterns, doing the exact same movements and such, don't argue with me over it, I had a relative with the problem. He eventually had it removed due to complications. As for the chances to have enough useful mutation to get to life as we actually know it, well, refer to the 1974's congress. Due to multiple mutations required to be useful, our planet did not had a sufficient gene pool to sustain it. It is, due to probabilities very law's, impossible.

 And also, thanks for the precisions Smokaz. As I already wrote:
""And a last comment: I am not trying to enforce Creationist or even a god's existence. I'm only stating that the current theory of life's apparition, the evolution, is mistaken in some parts.""

And mutation is one of those parts, and is quite a huge one.

[SX23]

Oh, and the appendix has a role in immunity system. Related to white globulas or something like it, I'm not expert on the subject.

[Masacree]

I should rephrase it: That bacterias do mutate of an USEFUL way. It has been demonstrated, quite clearly, that this is not the case.

Oh, and Massacree, if you could read a little before posting, it would be appreciated.

I don't know if you read any of my posts, but as I explained earlier, its not really a question of your little "analytical" logic that proves this can't happen because it has been Empirically proven.

The evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria is a clear example - within twenty years of the mass production of antibiotics bacteria began appearing that had evolved to withstand antibiotics. How would your "theory" explain that?

Oh, and SX, if you could read some science before posting, it would be appreciated.

If you haven't investigated the issue, you really shouldn't have a right to speak on it...

By the way, what the fuck are you talking about "1974 congress"?

[SX23]

The odds against the mutation explanation were simply too great, so they began to look for another mechanism—and they found it. First of all, using cultures that are routinely kept for long periods of time, they found out that bacteria were resistant to antibiotics, even before commercial antibiotics were “invented.” Genetic variability was “built right into” the bacteria. Did the nonresistant varieties get resistant by mutation? No. Resistant forms were already present. Furthermore, certain bacteria have little rings of DNA, called plasmids, that they trade around among themselves, and they passed on their resistance to antibiotics in that way. It wasn’t mutation and asexual reproduction at all, just ordinary recombination and variation within kind.

Bacteria can be made antibiotic resistant by mutation, but biologist Novick calls such forms “evolutionary cripples.” The mutation typically damages a growth factor, so that the mutationally crippled bacteria can scarcely survive outside the lab. The antibiotic resistance carried by plasmids results from enzymes produced to break down the antibiotic. Such bacteria do not have their growth crippled by mutation. Their resistance is by design.


A prestigious group of internationally known biologists and mathematicians gathered at the Wistar Institute to consider Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution. 1967 actually, sorry if I messed up the year 

[Masacree]

Okay, first of all, recombination is just another way organisms change their DNA ('mutate'), so GG right there. Also, variation within kind is EXACTLY what mutation is talking about.


FUCKING SEMANTICS.


Now, as the saying goes "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." So, please provide any sort of evidence for your view.

Further, your explanation doesn't even explain the data - why was antibiotic resistance only observed twenty years after antibiotics were put into effect?

[SX23]

Okay, first of all, recombination is just another way organisms change their DNA ('mutate'), so GG right there.

Now, as the saying goes "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." So, please provide any sort of evidence for your view.

Further, your explanation doesn't even explain the data - why was antibiotic resistance only observed twenty years after antibiotics were put into effect?

The changes that were pointed were either there due to breeding with other bacteria or it was a characteristic that the bacteria already had. 
To have an evolving mutation, you need new DNA through mutation, which did not happen in the case you stated.

As for the second: Paul S. Moorehead and Martin M. Kaplan, eds., Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution. Read through it, the end point is: The only question was, could mutations serve as the basis—with natural selection—as a mechanism for evolutionary change? The answer of the mathematicians: no. Just plain no!

And some facts that came out from it: The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: one in 107 x 107, or 1014. That’s a one followed by 14 zeroes, a hundred trillion! Any two mutations might produce no more than a fly with a wavy edge on a bent wing. That’s a long way from producing a truly new structure, and certainly a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organism. You need more mutations for that. So, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? That’s one in a billion trillion (1021). Suddenly, the ocean isn’t big enough to hold enough bacteria to make it likely for you to find a bacterium with three simultaneous or sequential related mutations.

What about trying for four related mutations? One in 1028. Suddenly, the earth isn’t big enough to hold enough organisms to make that very likely. And we’re talking about only four mutations. It would take many more than that to change a fish into a philosopher, or even a fish into a frog. Four mutations don’t even make a start toward any real evolution. But already at this point some evolutionists have given up the classic idea of evolution, because it just plainly doesn’t work.

[Masacree]

Okay, that book isn't available online.

But, mutations don't have to happen completely at once. Oftentimes a partial mutation will provide exactly that - partial functionality. The development of an eye can follow a process like that; it begins as an area of skin particularly sensitive to light and develops to be more and more sensitive. As such, an individual organism doesn't need a very unlikely mutation to be more successful, but as its descendants develop they may mutate in another useful way.

Here's a link to several interesting examples of this sort of development.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html

[Mysthalin]

Now, I know for a fact there's a certain research institute that deals entirely with bacteria evolving. There was an article from this institute on how a certain type of bacteria would consistently eventually evolve the ability for photo-synthesis after the 40.000 generation, if I am not mistaken - but bacteria taken from generations previous to that would not necessarilly develop the same kind of ability.
So, if a strand of bacteria is capable of evolving something as complex as photo-synthesis in quite frankly less than a year - it puts a huge stick in the wheels of the claims by your "mathemathicians" that evolution by mutation isn't possible.
Another point here is that even bacteria take numerous generations before they eventually develop a new trait : how can you thus, assume, that even more complex entities than that evolve massive changes to their organisms within just 1 generation? They don't : you keep ignoring the fact evolution is GRADUAL.

Furthermore, if they were true mathemathicians, they would NOT have claimed "It is impossible". What they would have claimed is "Statistically improbable" - two completely different terms.

On an ending point : statements such as "They are smart, how dare you even put forward the idea that they did not take into account multiple generations" are logical fallacies known as arguments of authority.