Barbarian said:
6days said:
Geneticists are concerned about the impact of mutations on our genome. The reason geneticists are concerned is because mutations destroy.
In fact, you have a fair number of mutations that your parents did not have. It is very unlikely that any of them will cause you problems.
Moving the goalposts..... Mutations may not cause YOU or ME problems, but the point was that mutations destroy. That is why geneticists are concerned. The mutations that don't cause YOU or ME problems, has still corrupted a small part of genome. That corruption is passed on to future generations.
Barbarian said:
And occasionally, one will turn out to be favorable. The Milano mutation, for example, provides excellent resistance to arteriosclerosis. We have been able to trace the mutation back to the original person who had it.
The Milano mutation is a great example of a mutation with a beneficial outcome... but resulting from pre-existing info that was destroyed. A protein had a loss of specificity for manufacturing lipoproteins, allowing it to function with less specificity as an antioxidant.
Barbarian said:
6days said:
If you wish, I can refer you to articles from evolutionary geneticists discussing our "high mutational burden".
I don't think you really want to go there.
I don't think you want to go there..... The point was that geneticists are concerned about our high mutational burden because mutations are overwhelmingly deleterious.
For example geneticist Crow in PNAS says "The typical mutation is very mild. It usually has no overt effect but shows up as a small decrease in viability..."
Barbarian said:
6days said:
Barbarian said:
almost all of us have several of them that didn't exist in either of our parents.
Or, did you mean that we have several hundred more mutations than our parents?
"Several" doesn't mean "several hundred." (Barbarian checks)
When parents pass their genes down to their children, an average of 60 errors are introduced to the genetic code in the process''''
http://www.livescience.com/33347-mut...mutations.html
"Several" doesn't mean "several dozen" (6days checks)
OK...lets go with 60 additional mutations added to our genome each generation...Geneticists are still concerned because mutations destroy.
Geneticist Neel in PNAS 1986 talking about gamete rate for point mutations being at just 30 per generation in humans said "The implication of mutations of this magnitude for population genetics and evolutionary theory are profound"
So... using the new number of 60 additional mutations per generation..... geneticists are concerned because mutations destroy.
Barbarian said:
If even a tenth of those sixty mutations were deadly, most of us would be dead. Maybe it's time to go back and learn about the way it actually works?
Strawman fallacy...you are fabricating a argument I didn't make. I didn't say deadly. What I said was that mutations destroy. Mutations alter and corrupt pre existing information. The consequences of these mutations manifest themselves in future generations.
Barbarian said:
So scientists earlier though mutations were more harmful than most of them actually are, and science has shown that (as I told you earlier) most of them don't do much of anything.
You have that backwards. That's the hope and belief of evolutionists which science is proving wrong. If a mutation is severe...Natural selection looks after it. But most mutations are mildly deleterious.
Geneticists Higgins and Lynch in PNAS 98 said "mildly deleterious mutations are more damaging than highly deleterious mutations...the mild mutational effects are the most damaging"
Barbarian said:
6days said:
Mutations are overwhelmingly deleterious...even though most have no noticeable effect..IE they are slightly deleterious or near neutral.
That's closer to the truth, but the scientists who espouse that idea, don't really understand neutralist theories. The most outstanding neutralist geneticist, Motoo Kimura makes it clear that this phenomenon is not a bar to Darwinian evolution.
And Kimura was clearly wrong. He thought that most mutations were below the bar of selection (true)and that most genetic info was irrelevant. (false)
Barbarian said:
6days said:
Mutations destroy.... Once in awhile....very rarely there is a "useful" mutation, but it almost always is a result of information being destroyed.
Show me your numbers. Anytime there's a new allele in a population, the information rises. Assume whatever frequencies you like, and show us the math.
You are confused. Shannon information doesn't apply to biological info.
Barbarian said:
6days said:
In the pipe dreams of evolutionists natural selection sorts it out. But reality and science tell us something different.
Nope. For example, Barry Hall demonstrated the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system in bacteria, via a series of useful mutations. Would you like to see how that happened?
Moving the goalpost fallacy again... That has nothing to do with your claim that 'Natural selection sorts it out'.
What Halls work did is show that mutations and natural selection can help bacteria adapt to an envioronment. Adaptaive mutations may simply be a design feature.
Barbarian said:
6days said:
Sure, lets see what you have! From the hundreds of thousands of mutations that have been studied, I would be interested in the best example of unambiguous gain of a specified complexity type of information.
The Milano mutation .....
So from the hundreds of thousands of mutations that have been studied you can't find even one single unambiguous example of a gain of specified complexity? Your example is a mutation that had a beneficial outcome, but caused by a net loss of specified complexity. Even your wiki link admits it caused a reduction in HDL levels
Barbarian said:
The nylon bug mutation, via a frameshift in a plasmid, gave bacteria the ability to digest nylon oligomer.
Negoro, S., Biodegradation of nylon oligomers (2000), Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 54, 461-466.
I asked for your best example...you don't get a 2nd shot...ha
Ok... Going from memory on this one there was two mutations I think. First there was a duplication error. The second mutation caused a loss of specificity to an enzyme. There was a beneficial outcome...the bacteria could now 'eat' nylon, but it was still caused by a loss of pre existing genetic information.
So, for the millions of hours evolutionists have spent looking for evidence to support their beliefs that mutations created us... they have failed. Your top two examples are ambiguous examples at best. There is no mechanism that can cause a gain of specified complexity info to our genome.
Barbarian said:
6days said:
Survival of the fittest doesn't create, does not create the fit, but it eliminates some of the weak...sometimes.
No, that's wrong, too. You see, natural selection not only tends to remove the unfit, it also changes the available alleles in the next generation.
Natural selection is not an omnipotent power as some evolutionists think. Natural selection removes the worst mutations, or we would be extinct. It can even change or shape gene frequencies in the next generation as you say. But natural selection can not even maintain our genome... and it certainly can't create.
Even Carl Sagans ex wife who was an evolutionary biologist (Lynn Margulis) said 'Natural selection eliminates...maybe maintains, but it does not create'.
Barbarian said:
6days said:
Science and Gods Word tell us that everything reproduces after their own kind.
No. Genesis does not say that everything reproduces after their own kind. That is another addition that creationists insert into scripture.
This is what God's Word tells us....
Genesis1:11 "Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it,
according to their various kinds.” And it was so.
12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kindsand trees bearing fruit with seed in it
according to their kinds
21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it
according to their kinds, and every winged bird
according to its kind.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures
according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals,
each according to its kind.” And it was so.
25God made the wild animals
according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground
according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
31God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Gods Word, and science tell us evolutionism is not possible.
