The Problem with Christians

[AJW333]

If DNA mutations are the result of copying errors, then we should see very few large-scale changes to the DNA.

... We do, in comparison to the literally countless numbers of small-scale changes that we see in nature, every single time a population reproduces. It's not my fault that you're unfamiliar with this.

And actually, wait: are you now disputing the mechanism behind mutations? I mean, granted, there are other mechanisms, like gene duplication, gene damage and so on, but the majority of mutations come about via transcription errors during reproduction- humans get at least sixty mutations during that time, for example, and given how evolutionary changes mainly occur over generations, it plays a large role there as well. Are you seriously suggesting something else, or just desperately scrabbling for another hole to poke?

I'm not arguing against the mechanisms behind DNA mutations. I am wondering how you change from one species into another when you only have small changes to existing DNA to choose from. I understand that you believe you just need lots of generations, but to create new proteins you need new code, which is why higher order animals like humans have so many more genes than simple organisms that we are supposed to have evolved from.

Millions of years and a correspondingly large number of generations? You are aware that most organisms reproduce way faster than even humans do, and human reproduction begins occurring after less than two decades for any given human, yes? Millions of years can easily generate trillions of generations for transcription errors to occur in, expanding exponentially as populations grow and diversify. This is another one of those cases where you're unjustifiably incredulous, but an actual understanding of the scale of what we're talking about renders your reaction utterly nonsensical.

No real point arguing with you on this. The chances of creating new, usable protein from random changes to the AA sequences is still way way beyond the trillions, it is in another dimension of implausibility, beyond 1:10^500. You don't accept this, so I will quit repeating it.

My figures of 1:10^500 to make a single human protein look even more remote given that the DNA is actively fighting against the formation of anything different to what is already extant. Add to this the problem that the majority of uncorrected mutations take information out of the DNA,

"By examining the homologous protein sequences, de Jong and Rydén (1981) observed that deletions of amino acids occurred about four times more frequently than insertions [5]. Deletion events also outnumbered insertions for processed pseudogenes [6-9]. Deletions are about twice as frequent as insertions for nuclear DNA, and in mitochondrial DNA, deletions occur at a slightly higher frequency than insertions [10]. Deletion events are also found more common than insertions in both mouse and rat [11-13]." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671719/

Information is irrelevant to this, and the DNA isn't "fighting" against anything. Do your research before you make statements.

Of course the DNA is fighting! It deliberately and intelligently corrects errors in AA sequencing.

And now we're going to play a nice game of "things you conveniently omitted from your citation," which I'm sure will be fun for everyone:

The paper is nine years old. It specifically refers to Mammalian genomes and, obviously, modern Mammals alone, and is thus not something you can extrapolate back into a truism for all of history. The sample size of 18 is not high, and thus further reason not to take this as true for all of biological history, let alone to make the absurdly overreaching claim that you did with it.  Actually reading the discussion of the results, instead of cherry picking a single paragraph of the introduction and going no further shows that the report's authors peg insertions and deletions both as sources of genomic divergence in evolution, meaning that they don't take their own results as evidence against evolution, but rather for it, which takes the wind completely out of your sails.

No dishonesty or slight of hand here. I took their stats on insertion and deletion and interpreted them as harmful to the cause of evolution. I ignored their claims that it was good for evolution because it makes no sense. Evolution requires that information is added to the DNA library and this isn't going to happen if the majority of mutations delete base pairs and AAs.

If you demand that a thing be directly observed before it can be considered a fact, and yet hold to a belief that you have never observed yourself and call it factual, then you are being unreasonable.

The complex interactions in nature and the human body are observed and are "factual." Because the chances of these advanced living systems evolving from non-life is ludicrous, I can consider their existence as proof of the existence of God.

What I asked was how the application of heat and cosmic rays, plus the occasional space rock add to the pool of information within the DNA. Any answers?

Yes: information is irrelevant. It is derived from DNA after examination, not during its origins and construction.

A very convenient answer. So I presume you believe that the earliest DNA didn't have any of the necessary proteins and enzymes to repair itself until some random mutations created them? That they are completely there as a result of pot luck and no design is present?