What's new
By:

Science vs. Creationism

PearlWatson said:
Darwinistic mechanisms of "branching and diversifying" requires "spontaneous generation" of new genetic material...it is a belief in a succession of poo jar scenarios.
Click to expand...

Might be pretty worthwhile going to Heyhey's link to the the UofU prof/research team that did the 10000-generation E. coli study. . . .
 
babe said:
No doubt by dawn there will be some kind of a smear laid down here discrediting the Prof quoted above.

Let's hope we get more specific information that "He's a crackpot" and "Reputable Scientists have exposed him" as a fraud, a dupe, or a schemer hell-bent on re-writing high school textbooks
Click to expand...

Do a bit of research on him. He's pretty unabashedly anti-Semitic, for one. I would give him the same consideration I would toward E.O. Wilson on his thoughts on sociobiology.

EDIT: What little I read seems to purport that he argues any new genetic advantage is the result of dormant alleles and not via mutation. A really odd stance.

EDIT:

Found this.

from Brian Charlesworth and 34 others (names available on request from B.C.), Institute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh

Sir:

We are astonished that Nature would publish a Correspondence as full of errors as that by Maciej Giertych (Nature 444, 265; 2006). For someone with degrees from the universities of Oxford and Toronto, Giertych displays a breathtaking ignorance.

There is no “new scientific evidence against the theory of evolution” as he asserts, but fails to document. This can be verified by consulting any of the recent standard textbooks on the subject. The claim that “microevolution…is a step towards a reduction of genetic information” is nonsense. On the contrary, there is ample evidence for the frequent use of duplications of genes in evolution, many of which have acquired new functions. By any criterion, this represents an increase in the amount of genetic information.

Contrary to Giertych’s statements, the temporal ordering of rock layers by stratigraphy, and the extinction of dinosaurs some 65 million years before the existence of humans, are overwhelmingly established facts of geology and palaeontology. His claim that “No positive mutations have ever been demonstrated” is simply false. Disregarding the fact that it is illogical to rule out resistance to antibiotics and herbicides as examples of adaptations, as was done by Giertych, there are literally thousands of cases in which natural selection has been demonstrated in wild populations of animals and plants.

Further, the contemporary literature on molecular evolution is filled with studies that provide evidence for a positive role of natural selection. Physicists do not spend their time debating the correctness of the atomic theory of matter; it is intolerable that biologists should constantly be forced to defend their unifying theory against ill-informed attacks.
Click to expand...

Seems like there is absolutely zero science actually done to back up his opinion and the scientific institutes he is associated with back away from him.
 
Last edited:
heyhey said:
no need

here are a bunch of observed beneficial mutations
https://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

one from our very own U of U
Click to expand...

well, the point of the "guy on the right" is sustained even here, on two very important counts you seem to have missed.

You have sorta "extrapolated" from the actual findings of this study, stating as a conclusion what is reported as a possibility. You say "here are a bunch of beneficial mutations" when the abstract only asserts that a certain class of observations might be

Certain pivotal mutations were shared by all descendants in a population, and these are candidates for beneficial mutations, which are rare and difficult to find. More generally, these data show that the genome is highly dynamic even over a time scale that is, from an evolutionary perspective, very brief.
Click to expand...

candidates for beneficial mutations. Clearly the researchers are staying on solid ground and are not asserting anything not yet demonstrated.

And clearly, these researchers are validating "the guy on the right" in the assertion that beneficial mutations are rare. More to the point, you should listen to his comments another time and notice that he is further "right" on the issue of alleles, not just "mutations".

while the physicist, "the guy on the left", doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
 
heyhey said:
no need

here are a bunch of observed beneficial mutations
https://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

one from our very own U of U
Click to expand...

Examples of designed algorithmic variation...not spontaneous generation.

The bacteria remain bacteria.

This information, that contains that UofU experiment has some pretty interesting stuff on inheritance:

The current view of inheritance taught in our schools and colleges is Mendelian. Darwin imagined inheritance to occur by a blending of the characters of each parent, but Mendel showed that inheritance was particulate—it was carried by discrete particles in discrete states. These particles became known as genes, and genes were eventually found to be coded segments on the DNA molecules that make up chromosomes in the nucleus of cells. Darwinists today view all of inheritance as genetic, and because genes can change more or less indefinitely, they identify this as the obvious means to explain how everything has evolved from something else during the supposed millions of years of life on Earth.

But Mendel’s work only explained the things that changed during inheritance, not the things that remained the same. For example, he used varieties of pea plants that had round or wrinkled, green or yellow seeds. He simply took for granted, and thus overlooked, the fact that the peas produced peas. Darwinists today still remain blind to this fact and insist that peas will eventually produce something other than peas, given enough time. There is certainly enormous variability in all forms of life, yet all our experiments in plant and animal breeding still show the same result—peas produce peas, dogs produce dogs and humans produce humans. This result is not consistent with Darwinian expectations....

Cellular inheritance

Genes can no longer be seen as the cause of biological inheritance because we now know that control over their expression (i.e. their being switched on and off when needed or not needed, respectively, and the timing of these events) comes from epigenetic mechanisms operating in the cell.6 This suggests that the DNA simply provides a ‘library’ of information and the use of that information is controlled not by the genes themselves but by the cell.

If the cell, and not the genes, control inheritance, then certain observations that puzzle Darwinists become explicable. For example, Australian rock hopper wallabies display an incredible array of chromosomal aberrations, yet all within a group of species that are so similar to one another that most people cannot tell them apart.7 The chromosomes have been grossly scrambled, yet the cell is still able to extract the information it needs for survival. If the genes had been in control during such a scrambling process, Darwinists would expect it to take about a hundred million years, but the evidence suggests quite recent divergence of these species.

A similar pattern of cell stability in the face of genome change is constantly at work in bacteria. It has been found that new gene sequences are continually being brought into bacterial cells and spliced into the bacterial genome.8 The bacterial genome does not keep getting bigger, however, because it also has a complementary method of getting rid of unwanted or useless sequences. The result is that the bacterium is continually ‘sampling’ its genetic environment, looking for new gene sequences that might be useful in the ever-changing world around it. Throughout all this change, the bacterium maintains its integrity as a bacterium. For example, a study of the bacterium Escherichia coli over 10,000 generations found that at the end, ‘almost every individual had a different genetic fingerprint’, yet they were still Escherichia coli.9 Only if the cell is in control can we explain these observations.
Click to expand...

Alexander Williams, B.Sc., M.Sc.(Hons), Th.C., Dip.C.S., ThL.
 
babe said:
well, the point of the "guy on the right" is sustained even here, on two very important counts you seem to have missed.

You have sorta "extrapolated" from the actual findings of this study, stating as a conclusion what is reported as a possibility. You say "here are a bunch of beneficial mutations" when the abstract only asserts that a certain class of observations might be



candidates for beneficial mutations. Clearly the researchers are staying on solid ground and are not asserting anything not yet demonstrated.

And clearly, these researchers are validating "the guy on the right" in the assertion that beneficial mutations are rare. More to the point, you should listen to his comments another time and notice that he is further "right" on the issue of alleles, not just "mutations".

while the physicist, "the guy on the left", doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
Click to expand...

We also have this part of the explanation:

"Genetic literature on the subject often confuses mutations with alleles, or even mutations with recombinations. The finding of an allele that is useful for some purpose is not the equivalent of demonstrating a positive mutation — similarly when the find concerns a useful recombinant of alleles existing in the gene pool."
 
An trait that has never been seen in the history of the individual species and it's a newly found allele that's been there the entire time...

Certainly an eyebrow raiser, there.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
"there is ample evidence for the frequent use of duplications of genes in evolution, many of which have acquired new functions. By any criterion, this represents an increase in the amount of genetic information."
Click to expand...

Your source says this but duplication ain't new information...it is more information, like 2 copies of the same book would have more words, but not new words. (you can learn this from information theory).
 
Darkwing Duck said:
An trait that has never been seen in the history of the individual species and it's a newly found allele that's been there the entire time...

Certainly an eyebrow raiser, there.
Click to expand...

link?

So, to my own library research years ago, I found some strange things in the literature. . . . showing that humans have, comparatively recently, "borrowed" whole systems of functional genetic material from. . . . yeasts and snakes. . . . .

So you get the "family tree" you prefer by looking at cytochrome C, perhaps. Just don't look at some other protein-coding sequences. . . .

When something like E. coli can "borrow" an allele from another cell, we're talking processes in nature that are as competent as Mario Capecchi in his lab. Newly-found alleles merely reflect the fact that the borrowing occurs in large chunks sometimes. . . .
 
Darkwing Duck said:
An trait that has never been seen in the history of the individual species and it's a newly found allele that's been there the entire time...

Certainly an eyebrow raiser, there.
Click to expand...

How recombination works to produce new traits:

People have two sets of chromosomes. Let’s say a certain portion of one of Adam’s chromosome #1 reads ‘GGGGGGGGGG’ and codes for a green-colored something-or-other. The other copy of chromosome 1 reads ‘bbbbbbbbbb’ and codes for a blue something-or-other, but blue is recessive. Someone with one or two copies of the all-G chromosome will have a green something-or-other. Someone with two copies of the all-b chromosome will have a blue something-or-other. In the early population, about three quarters of the people will have the green version and about one quarter will have the blue version.

How, then, does this process produce new traits? Homologous chromosomes are recombined from one generation to the next through a process called ‘crossing over’. If a crossing over event occurred in the middle of this sequence, we might get one that reads ‘GGGGGbbbbb’ that causes the production of a purple something-or-other. This is a brand new thing, a new trait never seen before. This is the result of a change in the DNA sequence and we will not be able to tell the difference between this crossing over event and a ‘mutation’ until we can sequence the piece of DNA in question. Thus, new traits (sometimes incorrectly or colloquially referred to as ‘genes’) can arise through homologous recombination.27 But this is not mutation. Recombination is part of the intelligently-designed genome and usually only reveals information that was previously packed into the genome by the Master Designer (it can also reveal new combinations of mutations and designed diversity). Also, recombination is not random, so there is a limit to the amount of new traits that can come about in this way.
Click to expand...

Dr Robert W. Carter Ph.D. Marine biology
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top