Argument #3: Mutations

[Cato]

If you have not done the research to find out who the biologists are who would be suitable for quoting, and what work they did to lead them to modern basis of biology, then you have not done the basic research needed to qualify you to partake in a discussion about the topic of your own.

My mentioning this might disuade him, but I can easily imagine Rev mistakenly throwing up Michael Behe as an answer to your challenge.

[Mister Agenda]

The so called new information that many evolutionists claim that takes place is a result of a corruption of already existing information.

It is a change of already existing information.

The examples you cite fail to achieve a "gain in functioning" mutation.

I can give an equally supported refutation to this: no, they don't fail to achieve a 'gain in functioning' mutation.

In fact if there were an evolution from molecule to man we should readily see an abundance of this occurrence, we don't.

In fact, we do.

[Revelation777]

The so called new information that many evolutionists claim that takes place is a result of a corruption of already existing information.

It is a change of already existing information.

The examples you cite fail to achieve a "gain in functioning" mutation.

I can give an equally supported refutation to this: no, they don't fail to achieve a 'gain in functioning' mutation.

In fact if there were an evolution from molecule to man we should readily see an abundance of this occurrence, we don't.

In fact, we do.

Dear Atheist Friends,

Consider the following:
- Even among evolutionary apologists who search for examples of mutations that are beneficial, the best they can do is to cite damaging mutations that have beneficial side effects (e.g. sickle-cell trait)

Carroll, S.B., The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution, Norton, New York, pp. 174–179, 2006.

- Within neo-Darwinian theory, natural selection is supposed to be the guardian of our genomes because it weeds out unwanted deleterious mutations and favours beneficial ones. Not so, according to genetics expert Professor John Sanford. Sanford, J.C., Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, Elim Publishing, New York, 2005

Natural selection can only weed out mutations that have a significant negative effect upon fitness (number of offspring produced). But such ‘fitness’ is affected by a huge variety of factors, and the vast majority of mutations have too small an effect for natural selection to be able to detect and remove them.

Furthermore, if the average mutation rate per person per generation is around 1 or more, then everyone is a mutant and no amount of selection can stop degeneration of the whole population. As it turns out, the mutation rate in the human population is very much greater than 1. Sanford estimates at least 100, probably about 300, and possibly more.

- Mutations are not uniquely biological events that provide an engine of natural variation for natural selection to work upon and produce all the variety of life. Mutation is the purely physical result of the all-pervading mechanical damage that accompanies all molecular machinery. As a consequence, all multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay because the deleterious mutation rates are so high, the effects of the individual mutations are so small, there are no compensatory beneficial mutations and natural selection is ineffective in removing the damage.

So much damage occurs that it is clearly evident within a single human lifetime. Our reproductive cells are not immune, as previously thought, but are just as prone to mechanical damage as our body cells. Somewhere between a few thousand and a few million mutations are enough to drive a human lineage to extinction, and this is likely to occur over a time scale of only tens to hundreds of thousands of years. This is far short of the supposed evolutionary time scales. Like rust eating away the steel in a bridge, mutations are eating away our genomes and there is nothing we can do to stop them.

Evolution’s engine, when properly understood, becomes evolution’s end.


http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end

[Jackalope]

Way to address the rebuttals, Rev.

[GrandizerII]

It is a change of already existing information.


I can give an equally supported refutation to this: no, they don't fail to achieve a 'gain in functioning' mutation.


In fact, we do.

Dear Atheist Friends,

Consider the following:
- Even among evolutionary apologists who search for examples of mutations that are beneficial, the best they can do is to cite damaging mutations that have beneficial side effects (e.g. sickle-cell trait)

Carroll, S.B., The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution, Norton, New York, pp. 174–179, 2006.

- Within neo-Darwinian theory, natural selection is supposed to be the guardian of our genomes because it weeds out unwanted deleterious mutations and favours beneficial ones. Not so, according to genetics expert Professor John Sanford. Sanford, J.C., Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, Elim Publishing, New York, 2005

Natural selection can only weed out mutations that have a significant negative effect upon fitness (number of offspring produced). But such ‘fitness’ is affected by a huge variety of factors, and the vast majority of mutations have too small an effect for natural selection to be able to detect and remove them.

Furthermore, if the average mutation rate per person per generation is around 1 or more, then everyone is a mutant and no amount of selection can stop degeneration of the whole population. As it turns out, the mutation rate in the human population is very much greater than 1. Sanford estimates at least 100, probably about 300, and possibly more.

- Mutations are not uniquely biological events that provide an engine of natural variation for natural selection to work upon and produce all the variety of life. Mutation is the purely physical result of the all-pervading mechanical damage that accompanies all molecular machinery. As a consequence, all multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay because the deleterious mutation rates are so high, the effects of the individual mutations are so small, there are no compensatory beneficial mutations and natural selection is ineffective in removing the damage.

So much damage occurs that it is clearly evident within a single human lifetime. Our reproductive cells are not immune, as previously thought, but are just as prone to mechanical damage as our body cells. Somewhere between a few thousand and a few million mutations are enough to drive a human lineage to extinction, and this is likely to occur over a time scale of only tens to hundreds of thousands of years. This is far short of the supposed evolutionary time scales. Like rust eating away the steel in a bridge, mutations are eating away our genomes and there is nothing we can do to stop them.

Evolution’s engine, when properly understood, becomes evolution’s end.


http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end

I argue that any mutation has the potential to be both beneficial and unfavorable. Beneficial or unfavorable: both relative descriptors depending on the circumstances. Like you mentioned, sickle-cell allele is a clear example.

[SteelCurtain]

Our genome is a literal record of beneficial mutations, Rev. Is it not at all alarming to you that you cannot find a single scientific reference for your claims? That you always find backup to your claims from people who quote mine scientists, and alter the meaning of what they wrote because they cannot find any scientific research that backs up their claim?

[Ravenshire]

Dear Atheist Friends,

Consider the following:
- Even among evolutionary apologists who search for examples of mutations that are beneficial, the best they can do is to cite damaging mutations that have beneficial side effects (e.g. sickle-cell trait)

Carroll, S.B., The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution, Norton, New York, pp. 174–179, 2006.

- Within neo-Darwinian theory, natural selection is supposed to be the guardian of our genomes because it weeds out unwanted deleterious mutations and favours beneficial ones. Not so, according to genetics expert Professor John Sanford. Sanford, J.C., Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, Elim Publishing, New York, 2005

Natural selection can only weed out mutations that have a significant negative effect upon fitness (number of offspring produced). But such ‘fitness’ is affected by a huge variety of factors, and the vast majority of mutations have too small an effect for natural selection to be able to detect and remove them.

Furthermore, if the average mutation rate per person per generation is around 1 or more, then everyone is a mutant and no amount of selection can stop degeneration of the whole population. As it turns out, the mutation rate in the human population is very much greater than 1. Sanford estimates at least 100, probably about 300, and possibly more.

- Mutations are not uniquely biological events that provide an engine of natural variation for natural selection to work upon and produce all the variety of life. Mutation is the purely physical result of the all-pervading mechanical damage that accompanies all molecular machinery. As a consequence, all multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay because the deleterious mutation rates are so high, the effects of the individual mutations are so small, there are no compensatory beneficial mutations and natural selection is ineffective in removing the damage.

So much damage occurs that it is clearly evident within a single human lifetime. Our reproductive cells are not immune, as previously thought, but are just as prone to mechanical damage as our body cells. Somewhere between a few thousand and a few million mutations are enough to drive a human lineage to extinction, and this is likely to occur over a time scale of only tens to hundreds of thousands of years. This is far short of the supposed evolutionary time scales. Like rust eating away the steel in a bridge, mutations are eating away our genomes and there is nothing we can do to stop them.

Evolution’s engine, when properly understood, becomes evolution’s end.


http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end

Did you seriously pull this shit from creation.com?!? Do you even know what a reputable source is? How 'bout you try to find a source that isn't starting with an answer and flailing about trying to find evidence for it.

Gawd would be very disappointed in you for making it look so stupid.

[Esquilax]

Dear Atheist Friends,

Consider the following:

Why? You won't consider any of what we're saying.

- Even among evolutionary apologists who search for examples of mutations that are beneficial, the best they can do is to cite damaging mutations that have beneficial side effects (e.g. sickle-cell trait)

That's funny, because I supplied an example just yesterday that was beneficial alone; flavobacteria that are now able to digest nylon as a food source. There's no downside to that, it doesn't otherwise affect the organism, and it has been induced in a lab.

Oh, additionally? Here's one in humans: a mutation that grants resistance to HIV, and nigh immunity if one inherits it from both parents. No downside. You're just factually wrong, here, which means you either didn't bother to research, or you got sold a dishonest bill of goods from creation.com.

I think you were lied to, Rev.

Carroll, S.B., The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution, Norton, New York, pp. 174–179, 2006.

Sean B Carroll, the evolutionary biologist?

It's funny how you keep citing sources that evidently see something very different in the evidence than you're attempting to construct. Could it be that the people who agree with you don't have degrees in relevant fields? If this says what you think it says, why would Carroll still accept evolution?

- Within neo-Darwinian theory, natural selection is supposed to be the guardian of our genomes because it weeds out unwanted deleterious mutations and favours beneficial ones. Not so, according to genetics expert Professor John Sanford. Sanford, J.C., Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, Elim Publishing, New York, 2005

This isn't news; if the negative mutation isn't enough to kill the organism then that organism will persist, that's just common sense. Nobody here is saying otherwise, and that claim also doesn't say anything about the regularity of negative mutations like you're talking about anyway, so I don't know why you brought it up. Are you just slinging mud wildly now in the hopes some of it will stick?

Natural selection can only weed out mutations that have a significant negative effect upon fitness (number of offspring produced). But such ‘fitness’ is affected by a huge variety of factors, and the vast majority of mutations have too small an effect for natural selection to be able to detect and remove them.

Yes, neutral mutations happen too. So what?

Furthermore, if the average mutation rate per person per generation is around 1 or more, then everyone is a mutant and no amount of selection can stop degeneration of the whole population. As it turns out, the mutation rate in the human population is very much greater than 1. Sanford estimates at least 100, probably about 300, and possibly more.

Actually, though it shouldn't be surprising, that information is out of date. The number now is closer to sixty mutations on average, rising to two hundred in particularly strong cases. But that doesn't matter anyway, since "degeneration," isn't a term that makes sense here to begin with; there's no "pure" human genome that we're all straying away from. It's just changes happening.

- Mutations are not uniquely biological events that provide an engine of natural variation for natural selection to work upon and produce all the variety of life. Mutation is the purely physical result of the all-pervading mechanical damage that accompanies all molecular machinery. As a consequence, all multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay because the deleterious mutation rates are so high, the effects of the individual mutations are so small, there are no compensatory beneficial mutations and natural selection is ineffective in removing the damage.

Did you just make that up? Citation, please. Real citations, not creationist drivel.

So much damage occurs that it is clearly evident within a single human lifetime. Our reproductive cells are not immune, as previously thought, but are just as prone to mechanical damage as our body cells. Somewhere between a few thousand and a few million mutations are enough to drive a human lineage to extinction, and this is likely to occur over a time scale of only tens to hundreds of thousands of years. This is far short of the supposed evolutionary time scales. Like rust eating away the steel in a bridge, mutations are eating away our genomes and there is nothing we can do to stop them.

Seriously, your pretend evolution doesn't represent a problem for the real thing. Either demonstrate your claims, or stop making them. But this is just nonsense.

Evolution’s engine, when properly understood, becomes evolution’s end.

http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end

Except that all of that, the entire thing, was made up.

[Rampant.A.I.]

It is a change of already existing information.


I can give an equally supported refutation to this: no, they don't fail to achieve a 'gain in functioning' mutation.


In fact, we do.

Dear Atheist Friends,

Consider the following:
- Even among evolutionary apologists who search for examples of mutations that are beneficial, the best they can do is to cite damaging mutations that have beneficial side effects (e.g. sickle-cell trait)

Carroll, S.B., The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution, Norton, New York, pp. 174–179, 2006.

---

- Within neo-Darwinian theory, natural selection is supposed to be the guardian of our genomes because it weeds out unwanted deleterious mutations and favours beneficial ones. Not so, according to genetics expert Professor John Sanford. Sanford, J.C., Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, Elim Publishing, New York, 2005

Natural selection can only weed out mutations that have a significant negative effect upon fitness (number of offspring produced). But such ‘fitness’ is affected by a huge variety of factors, and the vast majority of mutations have too small an effect for natural selection to be able to detect and remove them.

Furthermore, if the average mutation rate per person per generation is around 1 or more, then everyone is a mutant and no amount of selection can stop degeneration of the whole population. As it turns out, the mutation rate in the human population is very much greater than 1. Sanford estimates at least 100, probably about 300, and possibly more.

- Mutations are not uniquely biological events that provide an engine of natural variation for natural selection to work upon and produce all the variety of life. Mutation is the purely physical result of the all-pervading mechanical damage that accompanies all molecular machinery. As a consequence, all multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay because the deleterious mutation rates are so high, the effects of the individual mutations are so small, there are no compensatory beneficial mutations and natural selection is ineffective in removing the damage.

So much damage occurs that it is clearly evident within a single human lifetime. Our reproductive cells are not immune, as previously thought, but are just as prone to mechanical damage as our body cells. Somewhere between a few thousand and a few million mutations are enough to drive a human lineage to extinction, and this is likely to occur over a time scale of only tens to hundreds of thousands of years. This is far short of the supposed evolutionary time scales. Like rust eating away the steel in a bridge, mutations are eating away our genomes and there is nothing we can do to stop them.

Evolution’s engine, when properly understood, becomes evolution’s end.

---

http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end

Rev.

Part of the reason we can trace our heredity with great accuracy and by cross-referencing data, is our mitochondrial DNA contains many failed mutations and other bits of genetic anomalies, that line up exactly with our ape cousins.

http://www.dnalc.org/view/15974-Chimp-an...tDNA-.html

[naturestubbs1]

Carl Sagan, stated that evolution was caused by "the slow accumulations of favorable mutations." However, mutations which apparently result in new traits in an organism are due to the corruption of existing information rather than the formation of mutations gaining new information. This reality conflicts against what would be expected for the advancement of evolution.

A mutation cannot "gain new information." A mutation is just a random error and errors cannot gain information. Now if that "error" results in a positive response of an organism to its environment then there is a better chance of that error being passed on. Its a bit more feasable than the notion that a bearded leprechaun sprinkled pre-formed humans (sorry, forgot about the whole rib thing) into a garden like parmesan cheese onto spaghetti.

---

Wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

/thread

The so called new information that many evolutionists claim that takes place is a result of a corruption of already existing information. The examples you cite fail to achieve a "gain in functioning" mutation. In fact if there were an evolution from molecule to man we should readily see an abundance of this occurrence, we don't.

Honestly??? Have you ever taken biology? You are positing your argument as if it was a new "chicken" that just popped out of an egg with some magical superpower. It is simply the REACTION or lack thereof as a result of a MISTAKE!!! Try some of your wordsmithing on your good book.