Problems for evolution — squid recodes its own RNA

[1God4all]

I notice you're willing to take on the evolutionary worldview without question, but are unwilling to consider the consequences of being wrong.

Why is that?

If you had any inkling of what evolution was or how it worked you'd see that his post fit into the worldview perfectly.

 

[noguru]

IF you get bored of talking genetics with Stripe, get him started on the speed of light. Equally entertaining.

Stripe is oblivious to reality, and a hero to all those who prefer deception over an accurate view of reality. In the end they only hurt themselves, as reasonable people sift through their non-sense and throw out much of what Stripe and his crew of jokers claim. When people keep themselves stuck in the dark ages, they are simply left in the dust in the contemporary world. Hence their claim that "tradition should trump reason", and all they can do is kick and scream like babies, perhaps banning a few of their opponents from time to time, in a futile attempt to fight the tide of reality.

I do not fear them at all. In fact I pity them and the people they come in contact with in real life. Because their lives are most likely a mess. Though they probably remain oblivious to that as well.

 

[noguru]

That's hilarious.

User Name describes a paper he read and how it shows Stripe's arguments are wrong. Stripe's response? "Why do you believe evolutionists without question?"

:rotfl:

You should believe Stripe without question, simply because he claims to be a Christian.

:rotfl:

 

[6days]

Many individual plants are going to have reduced fitness, the few that have increased fitness are selectively bred.
Crop seed mutation breeding increasing

Wow... that article almost says the opposite of what I said, doesn't it?

Although the journalist is doing some fear mongering, it essentially backs what I said. (Other than he says there is an increase of this method ...of which some of that is irradiation is for other purposes). Plant geneticists have found it far more effective to do plant breeding using techniques such as the gene gun. Plant geneticists who failed using mutagenesis later found success by using the pre-existing information in the genome. *There are some success stories using 'beneficial mutations' ... but the success stories back the creationist model...loss of oversll fitness. *For example, Monsanta has developed canola with very high yields, but the seeds produced are sterile. (You need buy more next year from Monsanto). This type of breeding provides a benefit to humans...not to the plant or animal.*

 

[6days]

IF you get bored of talking genetics with Stripe, get him started on the speed of light. Equally entertaining.

Entertain us then by explaining how you measure the one way only speed if light

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Most geneticists no longer use this method of 'evolution on steroids' since it doesn't work.

Crop seed mutation breeding increasing

... it essentially backs what I said. (Other than he says there is an increase of this method...)

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

I should start a whole thread dedicated to all the times 6days made a claim, information was presented showing precisely the opposite, and then he proceeds to claim that it (too) is evidence of his position.

 

[6days]

I should start a whole thread dedicated to all the times 6days made a claim, information was presented showing precisely the opposite, and then he proceeds to claim that it (too) is evidence of his position.

Evolution on steroids basically doesn't work. Wait..... Backtrack..
There have been mutations to seeds that caused a beneficial outcome to humans, but invariably a genetically weaker plant, such as the canola I mentioned.
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.

 

[noguru]

I should start a whole thread dedicated to all the times 6days made a claim, information was presented showing precisely the opposite, and then he proceeds to claim that it (too) is evidence of his position.

It is obvious that 6days has a few screws loose, but he thinks that reciting his memorized "Christian" dogma louder will just miraculously cover up the apparent defective thinking he exhibits consistently. He is a quack and that foolish grimace in his pic is quite indicative of his mental disturbance.

 

[Stripe]

It is also true that for upwards of the past century, mutation breeding has been used successfully in a wide variety of crops, for example:

[R]adiation breeding has produced thousands of useful mutants and a sizable fraction of the world’s crops...including varieties of rice, wheat, barley, pears, peas, cotton, peppermint, sunflowers, peanuts, grapefruit, sesame, bananas, cassava and sorghum...The mutations can improve yield, quality, taste, size and resistance to disease and can help plants adapt to diverse climates and conditions...Peanuts got tougher hulls. Barley, oats and wheat got better yields...In 1929, farmers stumbled on the Ruby Red grapefruit, a natural mutant. Its flesh eventually faded to pink, however, and scientists fired radiation to produce mutants of deeper color — Star Ruby, released in 1971, and Rio Red, released in 1985. The mutant offspring now account for about 75 percent of all grapefruit grown in Texas.​

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/science/28crop.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So I think we should be cautious in our use of these techniques, but optimistically so in light of the successes that have been demonstrated.

The optimism is spawned from the assumption of the truth of evolution. The "successes" are colors, flavors and bug "resistance," but the changes are certain to come with a cost. That cost will be discovered in the adaptablility of the crops to more changes.

However, with evolutionary blinkers on, these costs will never be searched for.

The NAS further states that "there do not appear to be outstanding examples of mutant varieties with documented unexpected effects beyond what the mutant was selected for, despite the expectation that mutant varieties may possess and generate more unexpected outcomes than ordinary crosses because of the unpredictable and uncontrollable nature of nontargeted mutations. Furthermore, there do not appear to be any examples in which mutant varieties were removed from the market due to unintended or unexpected adverse incidents." (Source: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10977&page=45 )

I do not think the bad effects will crop up in downstream systems. People will probably not get sick eating GM food (though there might be cases where the protections foods can provide might be eroded by mutations). The bad effects will be found in the robustness of the crops' genomes.

 

[Stripe]

If you had any inkling of what evolution was or how it worked you'd see that his post fit into the worldview perfectly.

Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutation and natural selection.

And you're a troll. :troll:

 

[Stripe]

Entertain us then by explaining how you measure the one way only speed if light

Talking to cabinethead is never entertaining. :nono:

 

[1God4all]

Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutation and natural selection.

And you're a troll. :troll:

Evolution doesn't designate a single ancestor or number of common ancestors. It only claims to explain how the huge variety of species today came about.
It also explains why some animals are unique to only one part of the world.

Tell me, if all animals were on the ark, and all spread out from wherever the ark came to rest, why are kangaroos and platypus found only on Australia?

 

[Stripe]

Tell me, if all animals were on the ark, and all spread out from wherever the ark came to rest, why are kangaroos and platypus found only on Australia?

Because they died out everywhere else. :duh:

That's the same explanation that must be true no matter where they came from. One wonders why you could not have thought that through.

 

[6days]

However, with evolutionary blinkers on, these costs will never be searched for.

The costs generally are known though. Mutagenesis invariably weakens the organism. We don't hear about the thousands of experiments that end in failure (dwarfed, sickly, sterile etc). The 'successes' are a success to benefit humans, but not the plant.

Its not so different from breeding animals. Lyyn Margulis an evolutionary biologist (Once married to Carl Sagan) explained "This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the hens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create."

 

[Stripe]

The costs generally are known though. Mutagenesis invariably weakens the organism. We don't hear about the thousands of experiments that end in failure (dwarfed, sickly, sterile etc). The 'successes' are a success to benefit humans, but not the plant.

I think that is a separate issue, though certainly relevant. What I am speaking of is the necessary degradation of the genome — the combined genetic material of the entire population — not just cases of individuals being harmed.

The evolutionary view is that the few individuals that are selected for their new traits represent an advance to the overall population. They will not search among the population's genome for evidence that shows it has not been improved.

It would be a pretty simple thing to test if a genome degrades after what evolutionists would call a "successful" selection process.

 

[Mocking You]

IF you get bored of talking genetics with Stripe, get him started on the speed of light. Equally entertaining.

Let me guess--the speed of light was orders of magnitude faster at creation and then dramatically slowed down. A Barry Settergren (?) acolyte.

 

[User Name]

Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutation and natural selection.

I think it would be more correct to say that evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a last universal ancestor by means of variation and selection. There are numerous causes of variation, mutation being only one of them. There are also several processes of selection.

Selection acts on variation, and variation has a number of causes, including mutations, gene flow, gene duplication and recombination.

Types of selection include natural selection, sexual selection, and artificial selection.

 

[Stripe]

Correct.

So much for the troll's assertion then. :chuckle:

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Mutagenesis invariably weakens the organism.

Incorrect.

We don't hear about the thousands of experiments that end in failure (dwarfed, sickly, sterile etc).

There are supposed to be failures. This is what selection means. How is this still escaping you?

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..

Its not so different from breeding animals. Lyyn Margulis an evolutionary biologist (Once married to Carl Sagan) explained "This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the hens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create."

If you are only selecting for bigger eggs and ignoring other traits that may be harmful, then sure, of course nature doesn't do that. Lynn Margulis, certainly believes evolution though she believes that biosymbiosis, rather than mutation, is the primary force driving the formation of new traits.