Problems for evolution — squid recodes its own RNA

[Daedalean's_Sun]

The article mentions some geneticists still use that method (mutagenesis) because of countries that ban GMO's. But plant 'breeding'.....using the info that God has programmed into the genome is far more effective.

Except that wasn't the issue. I was not discussing which was 'more effective'. You had stated that 'mutagenesis invariably weakens the plant' and this is flatly refuted. I don't expect a concession of the point, but I will highlight it nonetheless.

 

[The Barbarian]

And the lizards that were moved developed the new organ far too quickly for it to be an example of evolution.

Creationist definition of "real evolution:"
"Change in a population that happens too slowly to be observed in a human lifetime."

For reasons we all understand.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Creationist definition of "real evolution:"
"Change in a population that happens too slowly to be observed in a human lifetime."

For reasons we all understand.

And when evolution occurs within human lifetime it is "just adaptation".

 

[Jose Fly]

What else do you expect from a group of people who have adopted the inherently dishonest framework of "Everything must conform to my religious beliefs"?

That's why it's impossible to advocate creationism honestly....it is a fundamentally dishonest construct from the outset.

 

[6days]

You had stated that 'mutagenesis invariably weakens the plant' and this is flatly refuted. I don't expect a concession of the point, but I will highlight it nonetheless.

Wow... you know me well!
So...just to be a contrarian on that point, I will concede...sort of. Mutagenesis is where an intelligent designer..in a lab...develops a plant through mutation and selection. ..to perform better in specific areas. The ultimate goal is usually a benefit to humans...not the plant. But, the process invariably weakens the genome of the plant. (Monsanto crops require constant care. They won't survive in a natural environment).

 

[The Barbarian]

Journal of Soils and Sediments
Adaptation, tolerance, and evolution of plant species in a pyrite mine in response to contamination level and properties of mine tailings: sustainable rehabilitation
April 2013, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 730-741

Genomes of these plants got stronger in a natural environment, just as the genomes of cultivated plants get stronger in their human-produced environment.

Fitness only counts in terms of environment.

 

[6days]

Genomes of these plants got stronger in a natural environment, just as the genomes of cultivated plants get stronger in their human-produced environment.

Fitness only counts in terms of environment.

We have an awesome Creator.*

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

So...just to be a contrarian on that point, I will concede...sort of.

But, the process invariably weakens the genome of the plant.

Certainly looks like a concession.

Incorrigible belief does not bend to anything, not even reality.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Wow... you know me well!
Mutagenesis is where an intelligent designer..in a lab...

Why go through the trouble of arguing that mutations are always harmful and/or that mutagenesis doesn't work if you are then just going to retreat to "But even when there are beneficial mutations it is evidence of an intelligent designer"?

lain:

The ultimate goal is usually a benefit to humans...not the plant.

I've already addressed this particular claim.

The 'successes' are a success to benefit humans, but not the plant. Well, it's both actually, since a plant that shrivels up and dies is hardly any use to humans. A Hardy crop is to the benefit of both. Being pest resistant is of benefit to both crops and humans. Being drought resistant is of benefit to both crops and humans, etc..

Have you nothing new to offer on the matter?

 

[noguru]

Why go through the trouble of arguing that mutations are always harmful and/or that mutagenesis doesn't work if you are then just going to retreat to "But even when there are beneficial mutations it is evidence of an intelligent designer"?

It's called "being desperate".

 

[Jose Fly]

It's more like, "I will reflexively reject everything you evolutionists say, even if I end up contradicting myself, because rejecting evolution is more important than self-consistency."

 

[noguru]

It's more like, "I will reflexively reject everything you evolutionists say, even if I end up contradicting myself, because rejecting evolution is more important than self-consistency."

Right, which is caused by "being desperate" to reject evolution. It seems these types of people have a certain level of contempt for naturalistic explanations for origins. I think in most cases it is "contempt prior to investigation".

 

[User Name]

Margulis, if she actually believed this, was not only contrary to the findings of thousands of geneticists, but also to reality. Apparently, she never read the research that confirmed that she was wrong (assuming the quote-mined snippet was accurate)

Here is a link to the interview:

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/apr/16-interview-lynn-margulis-not-controversial-right

What do you think of it?

 

[The Barbarian]

Pretty much what we've seen before. I've read Margulis, but she's apparently hardened her stand since she made the major discovery that mitochondria and chloroplasts are endosymbionts. From that, she concluded that most or all organelles are such, but that didn't work out to be true.

From one observed case of endosymbiosis, the evidence shows that mutation and natural selection was the mechanism by which it happened:

Bacterial endosymbiosis in amoebae
Trends Cell Biol. 1995 Mar;5(3):137-40.
Jeon KW
Abstract

The large, free-living amoebae are inherently phagocytic. They capture, ingest and digest microbes within their phagolysosomes, including those that survive in other cells. One exception is an unidentified strain of Gram-negative, rod-shaped bacteria that spontaneously infected the D strain of Amoeba proteus and came to survive inside them. These bacteria established a stable symbiotic relationship with amoebae that has resulted in phenotypic modulation of the host and mutual dependence for survival.

 

[6days]

I've read Margulis, but she's apparently hardened her stand since she made the major discovery ....

She passed away a few years ago.

From one observed case of endosymbiosis, the evidence shows that mutation and natural selection was the mechanism by which it happened:

Margulis was an evolutionist, but now knows God created. But while an evolutionary biologist, she certainly looked at many examples of mutations that had a beneficial outcome. Her conclusion was almost the same as Biblical creationists.....mutations are not a mechanism that can change bacteria into biologists.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

It's more like, "I will reflexively reject everything you evolutionists say, even if I end up contradicting myself, because rejecting evolution is more important than self-consistency."

Quite.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
From one observed case of endosymbiosis, the evidence shows that mutation and natural selection was the mechanism by which it happened:

But while an evolutionary biologist, she certainly looked at many examples of mutations that had a beneficial outcome.

So kind of a blind spot? Maybe. Clearly, mutation and natural selection can produce new features, new structures, and even irreducibly complex systems. And it observably produced endosysmbiosis, which is how she thought evolution works.

So there's a good reason her views aren't well accepted by people who know about those things.

Her conclusion was almost the same as Biblical creationists.

I don't think so...

Michod’s talk was the perfect lead-in for the penultimate lecture of the conference by the acknowledged star of the weekend, Lynn Margulis, famous for her pioneering research on symbiogenesis. Margulis began graciously by acknowledging the conference hosts and saying, “This is the most wonderful conference I’ve ever been to, and I’ve been to a lot of conferences.” She then got to work, pronouncing the death of neo-Darwinism. Echoing Darwin, she said “It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist.” But, she quickly added, “I am definitely a Darwinist though.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/lynn-margulis-d.html

....mutations are not a mechanism that can change bacteria into biologists.

All the biologists I know of, admit that it also required natural selection and a bit of endosymbiosis.

 

[6days]

Her conclusion was almost the same as Biblical creationists...mutations are not a mechanism that can change bacteria into biologists.

I don't think so...

You don't think so because you don't bother to read things that might challenge your belief system. Margulis was an evolutionist / anti-creationist / rejected the Creator but said "The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism." (natural selection does not create). *

 

[Dionysus]

You don't think so because you don't bother to read things that might challenge your belief system. Margulis was an evolutionist / anti-creationist / rejected the Creator but said "The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism." (natural selection does not create). *

I know much of Margulis. She never thought gods changed life. Her opinion involved viral DNA being injected into a cell and being accepted into the cell DNA. This is how she thought change occurred.

 

[Dionysus]

She passed away a few years ago.

Margulis was an evolutionist, but now knows God created. But while an evolutionary biologist, she certainly looked at many examples of mutations that had a beneficial outcome. Her conclusion was almost the same as Biblical creationists.....mutations are not a mechanism that can change bacteria into biologists.

"She emphasized that she had no problem with the basic premise of Darwinism. “Evolution no doubts occurs, and it’s been seen to occur, and it’s occurring now. Everyone who’s scientific-minded agrees with that. The question is, how does it occur?

Did that mean that she did not believe science can achieve absolute truth? Margulis pondered the question a moment. She noted that science derives its power and persuasiveness from the fact that its assertions can be checked against the real world – unlike the assertions of religion, art and other modes of knowledge. “But I don’t think the same as saying there’s absolute truth. I don’t think there’s absolute truth, and if there is, I don’t think any person has it.”

Sorry VIdeos, Margulis says differently