Problems for evolution — squid recodes its own RNA

[1God4all]

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

That was in response to UserName's long post, which you chose to shorten/twist to

Correct

And that word wasn't even at the start of a sentence. You're either trolling or a petty, phony Christian that refuses to educate himself on what he's arguing about. Whichever it is, the Hall of Fame threads show you've been doing it for at least 7 years. I'm very sorry that you truly have nothing better to do

 

[1God4all]

Mutagenesis invariably weakens the organism.

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."

This is not hard. I know you're smarter than this.

You seem confused about mutations. It is extremely rare in nature to find animals or plants with multiple 'bad' mutations. Any such case is almost exclusively limited to inbreeding, which is a common procedure in artificial selection.
Look at the history of royal families across the globe. They practiced cousin marriage and sometimes even sibling marriage to maintain "purity" of the bloodline. Close relatives have very similar DNA, meaning there's a MUCH higher chance of sharing a mutant gene. When children are born from two relatives you see significantly higher rates of deformities. The greater chance of sharing mutant alleles (genes) is why you see the hyper mutations you speak of. Another example of unfit products of artificial selection are Dalmations.

Now that you know why mutations in artificial selection don't mimic natural selection........

In the wild, animals rendered weaker by a mutation WILL NEVER outlive and out-reproduce their more fit rivals. Even if a wild hen can produce the greatest eggs ever seen, if it can't keep up with other fitter hens then natural selection will remove its genes from the gene pool.

In order for the super egg mutation to be passed along to the entire population, then hens with this trait MUST BE AS FIT OR MORE FIT IN ALL OTHER AREAS.

If and only if the mutated gene that codes for super eggs enhances OVERALL fitness will the gene be selected for and, after many generations, be found in most of the hen population.

"Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create."

As you see, that just isn't true.

Do mutations mostly decrease or have no effect on fitness? Overwhelmingly, yes. But ONLY in artificial selection does an organism's harmful mutation NOT result in extinction of the mutated gene.

Mutations that increase an organism's fitness, though rare, are passed on to the entire population eventually. Those with it live longer and have more offspring, each of which may inherit the 'good' mutated gene and be more fit, have more babies, and so on.

 

[6days]

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.

"This is not hard. I know you're smarter than this.

Carl Sagan married a dummy?

You seem confused about mutations. It is extremely rare in nature to find animals or plants with multiple 'bad' mutations. Any such case is almost exclusively limited to inbreeding, which is a common procedure in artificial selection.

Margulis (deceased a couple years back) was a evolutionary biologist...NOT a creationist. She understood mutations. You don't.

In the wild, animals rendered weaker by a mutation WILL NEVER outlive and out-reproduce their more fit rivals. Even if a wild hen can produce the greatest eggs ever seen, if it can't keep up with other fitter hens then natural selection will remove its genes from the gene pool.

You are partially correct, but slightly deleterious mutations DO accumulate in the genome and are passed to subsequent generations. Selection sometimes is incapable of 'handling'the loss of info leading to "error catastrophe"...then extinction.

Lyyn Margulis an evolutionary biologist (Once married to Carl Sagan) explained "Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create."

As you see, that just isn't true.

Why do I suspect Margulois understood natural selection better than Dennyg?

Speaking of Lynn Margulis... Her husband, Carl Sagan used to say that a single cell contains more information than the US Library of Congress. Where did all that information come from? God's Word explains... "In the beginning, God created...."

 

[The Barbarian]

Originally Posted by 6days

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.

If you don't include natural selection. On the other hand, if there's a selective advantage to larger eggs, then it will happen as random mutations enable this, so long as the change doesn't degrade fitness in other ways. Does that mean that not everything is possible for evolution? Yep. We surely could use another set of hands, but unless there's a way to get them without degrading fitness in other ways, it's not going to happen.

Carl Sagan married a dummy?

I find it hard to believe that Margulis didn't realize that. I suspect she did know that, and this bit of quote-mining has been removed from the context which makes it clear that she did.

She understood mutations. You don't.

You are partially correct, but slightly deleterious mutations DO accumulate in the genome and are passed to subsequent generations.

You and I almost certainly have dozens of them. Why aren't they harming anyone? Because such mutations are almost always recessive, which means no harm, unless you marry your sister.

BTW, populations of animals that are strongly inbred, often become extinct, and in those cases where they don't, harmful recessives are quickly eliminated by natural selection.

Selection sometimes is incapable of 'handling'the loss of info leading to "error catastrophe"...then extinction.

Sometimes. The vast majority of species that have lived on Earth are extinct. However, most species go extinct for other reasons, since (as Kimura demonstrated) genetic load is most often not sufficient to cause extinction.

Lyyn Margulis an evolutionary biologist (Once married to Carl Sagan) explained "Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create."

Demonstrably wrong, although Margulis may have been unaware of evidence showing that she was wrong. Hall's bacteria evolved a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system through natural selection.

A species of Italian lizards was observed to evolve a new digestive organ in a few decades. So in this, she was just wrong.

Why do I suspect Margulois understood natural selection better than Dennyg?

Because you have no clue about what natural selection is, or what it does.

Speaking of Lynn Margulis... Her husband, Carl Sagan used to say that a single cell contains more information than the US Library of Congress.

Hmm... a human cell has about 30,000 genes. Genes average about 27,000 base pairs each.
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/whats_a_genome/Chp1_4_2.shtml

So about 27,000 "letters" if you want to compare it to a library. So, about 810 billion letters in a human genome.

The Library of Congress has about 16 million book along, not counting all sorts of other non-book information. Very conservatively, if we assume 1000 letters per page and 200 pages in a book, that would be 200, 000 letters per book. That would be about 32 quadrillion letters, or about two million times the information in a human cell.

Where did all that information come from?

So far, every time we see it happening, it's mutation and natural selection.

God's Word explains... "In the beginning, God created...."

Yep. But you don't approve of the way He does it.

 

[Stripe]

The Hall of Fame threads show you've been doing it for at least 7 years. I'm very sorry that you truly have nothing better to do

Well, don't feel bad. You just arrived. But you're young and have your whole life ahead of you to waste researching the posting history of people you don't like. :chuckle:

 

[1God4all]

Margulis (deceased a couple years back) was a evolutionary biologist...NOT a creationist. She understood mutations. You don't. .

Why do I suspect Margulois understood natural selection better than Dennyg?

Because you have no understanding of it, either. If you'd bothered to read about Margulis, you would have found that she held a view of natural selection that is completely inaccurate and was considered to be "on the fringe" by her colleagues.

She rejected natural selection on a wholly philosophical basis. It didn't sit well with her that competition drove evolution. She wanted everyone to work together. This led to her fancifully expanding her brilliant endosymbiotic theory (how prokaryotes became eukaryotes; and history of organelles) to include all of life. She wanted to promote a theory of evolution through partnership instead of competition.

This is why scientists must leave their emotions, religion, and anything else at home when doing their work. Margulis let her distaste with the idea of 'competing to survive' and her desire for "teamwork" between organisms, ultimately cloud her judgement.

She was the only well-known scientist who has ever supported the symbiogenesis method as the force behind evolution. That doesn't take away from her endosymbiosis theory, which has been supported over the decades since its creation and explains a major evolutionary step from prokaryotes to eukaryotes.

No evidence has been found to support that anything other than competition, aka natural selection, is responsible for change in wild species. I challenge you to find anything saying otherwise from any other scientist.

You are partially correct, but slightly deleterious mutations DO accumulate in the genome and are passed to subsequent generations. Selection sometimes is incapable of 'handling'the loss of info leading to "error catastrophe"...then extinction

Humans are the one wild species where several deleterious mutations have accumulated. And the reason is pretty simple: we've reached a level of consciousness and intelligence that no other organism has. To demonstrate this I'll use the harmful mutation of blue eye color.

Blue eyes are indicative of weakness of the cells responsible for focusing our vision. People with blue eyes are by several degrees more likely to need glasses. This mutation had survived because of sexual selection. Blue eyes are commonly seen as more attractive than brown, and when they had first begun to show up in human history the rarity would add to that. Unlike any other animal before [and this is even more true in modern society] we felt safe enough as a species that sexual preference took precedence over all but the most devastating mutations. Sexual preference is observed in other animals, but not if fitness is at stake. Thanks to our intricate social constructs and abstract thought capability, slightly harmful mutations don't affect us like they do other species.

 

[6days]

If you'd bothered to read about Margulis, you would have found that she held a view of natural selection that is completely inaccurate and was considered to be "on the fringe" by her colleagues.

Actually, if you read a wee bit, she had a very realistic view of what selection is capable of. She still believed in evolutionism, but knew natural selection can't create.

She was the only well-known scientist who has ever supported the symbiogenesis method as the force behind evolution.

She is one of thousands of scientists ((both evolutionist and creationist) who realize natural selection eliminates...not creates.

No evidence has been found to support that anything other than competition, aka natural selection, is responsible for change in wild species. I challenge you to find anything saying otherwise from any other scientist.

Haha... Where you taking the goal posts? No scientist denies that species change and selection sometimes eliminates.

Humans are the one wild species where several deleterious mutations have accumulated.

You likely have several thousand deleterious mutations...perhaps tens of thousands... maybe more. Most would be considered near neutral / slightly deleterious. You pass ALL of those on to the next generation and they have more some new ones.

Thanks to our intricate social constructs and abstract thought capability, slightly harmful mutations don't affect us like they do other species.

They certainly DO affect us. It's silly to suggests geneticists are unconcerned by increasing genetic problems.

 

[1God4all]

Actually, if you read a wee bit, she had a very realistic view of what selection is capable of. She still believed in evolutionism, but knew natural selection can't create.


She is one of thousands of scientists ((both evolutionist and creationist) who realize natural selection eliminates...not creates.


Haha... Where you taking the goal posts? No scientist denies that species change and selection sometimes eliminates.


You likely have several thousand deleterious mutations...perhaps tens of thousands... maybe more. Most would be considered near neutral / slightly deleterious. You pass ALL of those on to the next generation and they have more some new ones.


They certainly DO affect us. It's silly to suggests geneticists are unconcerned by increasing genetic problems.

Nothing I said was incorrect.

If there are thousands of scientists with this view, go find a few who are not from AiG or some other YEC promoting organization. Time to put your money where your mouth is

 

[Stripe]

Nothing I said was incorrect.

If there are thousands of scientists with this view, go find a few who are not from AiG or some other YEC promoting organization. Time to put your money where your mouth is

Evolutionists love it when the conversation involves counting how many people believe something.

 

[6days]

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.

I find it hard to believe that Margulis didn't realize that. I suspect she did know that, and this bit of quote-mining has been removed from the context which makes it clear that she did.

I have the magazine and should dig it out for you. She said that observable science does not support the belief that mutations and selection lead to more fitness.
She understood mutations. You don't.

You are partially correct, but slightly deleterious mutations DO accumulate in the genome and are passed to subsequent generations.

You and I almost certainly have dozens of them. Why aren't they harming anyone? Because such mutations are almost always recessive, which means no harm

You don't understand genetics well.

Funny that you and Dennyg claim only "several" or "several dozen" deleterious mutations. Perhaps that's what they taught in the 60's? You have thousands of deleterious mutations. Kondrashov in 2002 (Human Mutation 21) drastically underestimated the number of new deleterious mutations at about 10 new per generation. He said "at least 100 new mutations" per generation and at least"10%" of these are deleterious". With the Encode results, he has now said there could be 300 additional mutations per generation with as much as 30% deleterious.

Also "recessive" does not mean no harm. It means no apparent harm at the moment...Some geneticists have referred to this as "the population bomb".

Lyyn Margulis an evolutionary biologist (Once married to Carl Sagan) explained "Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create."

Demonstrably wrong,

Says the one who doesn't understand natural selection. Natural selection can ONLY eliminate sometimes. Natural selection is not a mechanism that can create.

Speaking of Lynn Margulis... Her husband, Carl Sagan used to say that a single cell contains more information than the US Library of Congress.

So, about 810 billion letters in a human genome.... That would be about 32 quadrillion letters, or about two million times the information in a human cell.

You obviously don't understand the genome as well as Sagan. Carl Sagan perhaps realized our genome is like a sophisticated data compression system with overlapping layers of complexity.....with instruction manuals for self correction, basically changing the code sometimes as needed. Perhaps Sagan even had an inkling that DNA can fold into 2 or 3 dimensional structures like proteins providing even higher levels of information.

You obviously have not kept up to speed in genetics since you compare a letter in our genome as if it is in a straight linear fashion like a letter in a book.

Psalm 139:14
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

Where did all that information come from?

So far, every time we see it happening, it's mutation and natural selection.

Nope... Mutations work on existing info. Selection does not create.

God's Word explains... "In the beginning, God created...."

Yep. But you don't approve of the way He does it.

You have trouble with science... and with honesty.

I have posted Genesis 1 for you previous.... That's how He did it.

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

 

[User Name]

I find it hard to believe that Margulis didn't realize that. I suspect she did know that, and this bit of quote-mining has been removed from the context which makes it clear that she did.

Here's a link: http://discovermagazine.com/2011/apr/16-interview-lynn-margulis-not-controversial-right

 

[Stripe]



You have attacked population genetics—the foundation of much current evolutionary research—as “numerology.” What do you mean by that term?

When evolutionary biologists use computer modeling to find out how many mutations you need to get from one species to another, it’s not mathematics—it’s numerology. They are limiting the field of study to something that’s manageable and ignoring what’s most important. They tend to know nothing about atmospheric chemistry and the influence it has on the organisms or the influence that the organisms have on the chemistry. They know nothing about biological systems like physiology, ecology, and biochemistry. Darwin was saying that changes accumulate through time, but population geneticists are describing mixtures that are temporary. Whatever is brought together by sex is broken up in the next generation by the same process. Evolutionary biology has been taken over by population geneticists. They are reductionists ad absurdum. 
Population geneticist Richard Lewontin gave a talk here at UMass Amherst about six years ago, and he mathematized all of it—changes in the population, random mutation, sexual selection, cost and benefit. At the end of his talk he said, “You know, we’ve tried to test these ideas in the field and the lab, and there are really no measurements that match the quantities I’ve told you about.” This just appalled me. So I said, “Richard Lewontin, you are a great lecturer to have the courage to say it’s gotten you nowhere. But then why do you continue to do this work?” And he looked around and said, “It’s the only thing I know how to do, and if I don’t do it I won’t get my grant money.” So he’s an honest man, and that’s an honest answer.

Do you ever get tired of being called controversial?

I don’t consider my ideas controversial. I consider them right.

:chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

I have the magazine and should dig it out for you.

Oh, a magazine. How impressive. Can you show me something from the literature where she wrote this?

She said that observable science does not support the belief that mutations and selection lead to more fitness.

Hall's bacteria did exactly what you say she said was impossible. A new, irreducibly complex enzyme system evolved.

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4615-6968-8_2

How could this be? How could these cells have reconstructed the information from the missing gene in such a short time, using only the random, undirected processes of mutation and natural selection? The answer, of course, is that these bacteria didn't make the new galactosidase enzyme from scratch. They made it by tinkering with another gene, in which a simple mutation changed an existing enzyme just enough to make it also capable of cleaving the bond that holds the two parts of lactose together. Now, you might think that this wouldn't be enough, and you'd be right. Simply re-engineering an existing protein to replace galactosidase would make no difference unless the control region of that gene was also changed to ensure that the gene was expressed when lactose was present. Significantly, when Hall looked at the control regions of the mutant replacement gene, he found that they had been mutated as well - some of them were now switched on all the time, but a few of them responded directly to lactose, switching the gene on and off as needed.

That would have been impressive enough, but Hall's clever germs didn't stop there. When he selected them further to grow on another sugar (lactulose), he obtained a second series of mutants with a new enzyme that accidentally (in a sense) produced allolactose, the very same chemical signal that is normally used to switch on all of the lac genes. This important development meant that now the cells could switch on synthesis of a cell membrane protein, the lac permease, that speeds the entry of lactose into the cell.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/Parts-is-Parts.html

You see, reality trumps anyone's new theory. 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)

Reality is good with mutations producing new functions. All geneticists know this. You don't.

You are partially correct, but slightly deleterious mutations DO accumulate in the genome and are passed to subsequent generations.

You and I almost certainly have dozens of them. Why aren't they harming anyone? Because such mutations are almost always recessive, which means no harm

You don't understand genetics well.

Well, let's take a look at that. You wrote:

Funny that you and Dennyg claim only "several" or "several dozen" deleterious mutations. Perhaps that's what they taught in the 60's? You have thousands of deleterious mutations. Kondrashov in 2002 (Human Mutation 21) drastically underestimated the number of new deleterious mutations at about 10 new per generation. He said "at least 100 new mutations" per generation and at least"10%" of these are deleterious". With the Encode results, he has now said there could be 300 additional mutations per generation with as much as 30% deleterious.

In the human population. We each have only a few of them. No one has all of them.

Also "recessive" does not mean no harm. It means no apparent harm at the moment...

No. It means the gene isn't expressed unless you have two copies of it. The average middle school student has a better grasp of genetics than you do.

Some geneticists have referred to this as "the population bomb".

Recessives are "the population bomb?" Show us that.

Lyyn Margulis an evolutionary biologist (Once married to Carl Sagan) explained "Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create."

Barbarian observes:
Demonstrably wrong, although Margulis may have been unaware of evidence showing that she was wrong. Hall's bacteria evolved a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system through natural selection.

A species of Italian lizards was observed to evolve a new digestive organ in a few decades. So in this, she was just wrong.

Says the one who doesn't understand natural selection. Natural selection can ONLY eliminate sometimes. Natural selection is not a mechanism that can create.

See above. No point in denying the truth.

Speaking of Lynn Margulis... Her husband, Carl Sagan used to say that a single cell contains more information than the US Library of Congress.

Well, let's take a look...

A human cell has about 30,000 genes. Genes average about 27,000 base pairs each.
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/res...Chp1_4_2.shtml

So about 27,000 "letters" if you want to compare it to a library.
So, about 810 billion letters in a human genome.

The Library of Congress has about 16 million book along, not counting all sorts of other non-book information. Very conservatively, if we assume 1000 letters per page and 200 pages in a book, that would be 200, 000 letters per book. That would be about 32 quadrillion letters, or about two million times the information in a human cell.

You obviously don't understand the genome as well as Sagan.

I just showed you the numbers. Sagan was a planetary astronomer; I'm a biologist. If you want to play expert, you lose. But as you just learned, reality trumps anyone's opinion.

Carl Sagan perhaps realized our genome is like a sophisticated data compression system with overlapping layers of complexity.....with instruction manuals for self correction, basically changing the code sometimes as needed.

Even if you want to redefine "information" you lose. The Library of Congress has digital music and image/video files that contain vastly more information.

You obviously have not kept up to speed in genetics since you compare a letter in our genome as if it is in a straight linear fashion like a letter in a book.

You're just unaware that palimpests were known in literature long before we knew about them in genetics. Instead of making excuses, maybe it's time to go learn what genetics is about, instead of trying to dig up quotes you don't understand.

Where did all that information come from?

Barbarian observes:
So far, every time we see it happening, it's mutation and natural selection.

Nope...

Yep. The two examples I just gave you demonstrate that. Want to see some more?

Mutations work on existing info.

Evolution never makes anything de novo. It always produces new information by modifying the old information. In this way, that new digestive organ was produced.

If that's not "information" by your new definition, then evolution doesn't need information. You're between a rock and a hard place here.

God's Word explains... "In the beginning, God created...."

Barbarian observes:
Yep. But you don't approve of the way He does it.
You have trouble with science... and with honesty.

I have posted Genesis 1 for you previous.... That's how He did it.

He says He did it. But He doesn't say how He did it, except that He created things so that the Earth would bring forth life. You're not satisfied with His way, so you've made up a different way.

It won't send you to Hell; He doesn't care if you approve or not. But be careful about trying to put words in His mouth.

 

[6days]

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.

I find it hard to believe that Margulis didn't realize that. I suspect she did know that, and this bit of quote-mining has been removed from the context which makes it clear that she did.

I have the magazine and should dig it out for you. She said that observable science does not support the belief that mutations and selection lead to more fitness.
She understood mutations. You don't.

Oh, a magazine. How impressive. Can you show me something from the literature where she wrote this?

Funny how you flip flop around when you are wrong. Your argument was that it was out of context. Username, although disagreeing with my position, was kind enough to post the article.

She said that observable science does not support the belief that mutations and selection lead to more fitness.

Hall's bacteria did exactly what you say she said was impossible. A new, irreducibly complex enzyme system evolved.

We have discussed that point before and disagreed. Lynn Margulis... evolutionary biologist ...NOT a creationist also disagrees.

Margulis, if she actually believed this, was not only contrary to the findings of thousands of geneticists...

Evolutionists preach consensus. Yes, most did disagree with her. Science is not about majority opinion though as you believe.

Funny that you and Dennyg claim only "several" or "several dozen" deleterious mutations. Perhaps that's what they taught in the 60's? You have thousands of deleterious mutations. Kondrashov in 2002 (Human Mutation 21) drastically underestimated the number of new deleterious mutations at about 10 new per generation. He said "at least 100 new mutations" per generation and at least"10%" of these are deleterious". With the Encode results, he has now said there could be 300 additional mutations per generation with as much as 30% deleterious.

In the human population. We each have only a few of them. No one has all of them.

Nobody said anyone has all of them... You don't understand genetics. You DO have ALL the thousands of mutations from your parents...PLUS new ones.

Also "recessive" does not mean no harm. It means no apparent harm at the moment...

No. It means the gene isn't expressed unless you have two copies of it.

Very good A+

The recessive is no harm now. However, your great grandson inherits that recessive... and hopefully not the 2nd copy of it.

Some geneticists have referred to this as "the population bomb".

Recessives are "the population bomb?" Show us that.

Sure...
Crow in PNAS 94 (1997) said " I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem. It is something the the population bomb but with a much longer fuse.

Lyyn Margulis an evolutionary biologist (Once married to Carl Sagan) explained "Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create."

Demonstrably wrong, although Margulis may have been unaware of evidence showing that she was wrong. Hall's bacteria evolved a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system through natural selection.

A species of Italian lizards was observed to evolve a new digestive organ in a few decades. So in this, she was just wrong..

I suspect the professor was aware of the 'evidence' and that is why she made her statements.

Adaptation is evidence of our Creator and the intelligently designed genome. (We already disagreed about Halls conclusions.) And, if not mistaken the lizards you refer to already had that digestive organ in other populations.

Speaking of Lynn Margulis... Her husband, Carl Sagan used to say that a single cell contains more information than the US Library of Congress.

Well, let's take a look...

A human cell has about 30,000 genes. Genes average about 27,000 base pairs each.
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/res...Chp1_4_2.shtml

So about 27,000 "letters" if you want to compare it to a library.
So, about 810 billion letters in a human genome.

The Library of Congress has about 16 million book along, not counting all sorts of other non-book information. Very conservatively, if we assume 1000 letters per page and 200 pages in a book, that would be 200, 000 letters per book. That would be about 32 quadrillion letters, or about two million times the information in a human cell.

You obviously don't understand the genome as well as Sagan.

I just showed you the numbers. Sagan was a planetary astronomer; I'm a biologist. If you want to play expert, you lose. But as you just learned, reality trumps anyone's opinion

You may be a biologist but not a very good one since you imply you understand the genome. Geneticists are smart enough to admit they are just beginning to understand it.

Carl Sagan perhaps realized our genome is like a sophisticated data compression system with overlapping layers of complexity.....with instruction manuals for self correction, basically changing the code sometimes as needed.

I have posted Genesis 1 for you previous.... That's how He did it.

He says He did it. But He doesn't say how He did it,

Sure He does...

Genesis 1
The Beginning
1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.


3And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11Then 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. 12The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21So 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. And God saw that it was good. 22God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24And 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.

26Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,a and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”


27So God created mankind in his own image,

in the image of God he created them;

male and female he created them.

28God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

31God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day

And then... He made Eve from Adams rib in chapter 2.
That's how He did it.

 

[6days]



You have attacked population genetics—the foundation of much current evolutionary research—as “numerology.” What do you mean by that term?

When evolutionary biologists use computer modeling to find out how many mutations you need to get from one species to another, it’s not mathematics—it’s numerology. They are limiting the field of study to something that’s manageable and ignoring what’s most important. They tend to know nothing about atmospheric chemistry and the influence it has on the organisms or the influence that the organisms have on the chemistry. They know nothing about biological systems like physiology, ecology, and biochemistry. Darwin was saying that changes accumulate through time, but population geneticists are describing mixtures that are temporary. Whatever is brought together by sex is broken up in the next generation by the same process. Evolutionary biology has been taken over by population geneticists. They are reductionists ad absurdum. 
Population geneticist Richard Lewontin gave a talk here at UMass Amherst about six years ago, and he mathematized all of it—changes in the population, random mutation, sexual selection, cost and benefit. At the end of his talk he said, “You know, we’ve tried to test these ideas in the field and the lab, and there are really no measurements that match the quantities I’ve told you about.” This just appalled me. So I said, “Richard Lewontin, you are a great lecturer to have the courage to say it’s gotten you nowhere. But then why do you continue to do this work?” And he looked around and said, “It’s the only thing I know how to do, and if I don’t do it I won’t get my grant money.” So he’s an honest man, and that’s an honest answer.

Do you ever get tired of being called controversial?

I don’t consider my ideas controversial. I consider them right.
:chuckle:

Ha... I enjoyed that little chat between two committed evolutionists

 

[Stripe]

The lizards you refer to already had that digestive organ in other populations.

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

 

[The Barbarian]

Funny how you flip flop around when you are wrong. Your argument was that it was out of context.

It was, out of context. And given your habit of quote-mining misleading bits of text, I was suspicious of it. Rightly so.

She said that observable science does not support the belief that mutations and selection lead to more fitness.

Barbarian chuckles:
Hall's bacteria did exactly what you say she said was impossible. A new, irreducibly complex enzyme system evolved.

We have discussed that point before and disagreed.

Doesn't matter. It was directly observed. No point in denying reality.

Lynn Margulis... evolutionary biologist ...NOT a creationist also disagrees.

I think you're making things up again. But show me where Margulis claims that Hall's bacteria did not evolve a new enzyme system.

Barbarian observes:
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)

Evolutionists preach consensus.

I restored the part of my comment that you deleted to make it appear so. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. If you'll do that to other people, you'll do it to me. Not so smart doing it in the same thread, though.

Yes, most did disagree with her. Science is not about majority opinion though as you believe.

Nice try. But next time be a bit more careful, to avoid being embarrassed again.

6Days misunderstands mutations:

Funny that you and Dennyg claim only "several" or "several dozen" deleterious mutations. Perhaps that's what they taught in the 60's? You have thousands of deleterious mutations. Kondrashov in 2002 (Human Mutation 21) drastically underestimated the number of new deleterious mutations at about 10 new per generation. He said "at least 100 new mutations" per generation and at least"10%" of these are deleterious". With the Encode results, he has now said there could be 300 additional mutations per generation with as much as 30% deleterious.

Barbarian chuckles:
In the human population. We each have only a few of them. No one has all of them.

Nobody said anyone has all of them...

I just said that you had maybe a dozen harmful recessives, and you disagreed, citing 300 new ones per generation. That's per population, not per person. You see, because fixation doesn't happen immediately (not possible for reasons that should be obvious), the harmful ones tend to be removed before they can be fixed.

You don't understand genetics.

Guess how we know you've never studied genetics.

You DO have ALL the thousands of mutations from your parents...PLUS new ones.

What happened to your story about 300 per generation? If all of us have a few new ones, and there are billions of people in the world, what is your estimate of the number of new mutations per generation? Why not just admit that you don't know what you're talking about?

Also "recessive" does not mean no harm. It means no apparent harm at the moment...

Barbarian corrects 6Days.
No. It means the gene isn't expressed unless you have two copies of it.

Very good.

No. Very fundamental. You don't know what a middle school student knows about genetics.

The recessive is no harm now.

That's wrong, too. It means no more and no less than "not expressed unless you have two of them."

Some geneticists have referred to this as "the population bomb".

Recessives are "the population bomb?" Show us that.

Crow in PNAS 94 (1997) said " I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem. It is something the the population bomb but with a much longer fuse.

Mutation accumulation is not recessive mutation.

Lyyn Margulis an evolutionary biologist (Once married to Carl Sagan) explained "Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create."

Barbarian observes:
Demonstrably wrong, although Margulis may have been unaware of evidence showing that she was wrong. Hall's bacteria evolved a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system through natural selection.

A species of Italian lizards was observed to evolve a new digestive organ in a few decades. So in this, she was just wrong..

Adaptation is evidence of our Creator and the intelligently designed genome.

For a creationist, everything that he can no longer deny, becomes evidence for his new religion.

(We already disagreed about Halls conclusions.)

Doesn't matter. The evidence is well-documented, and impossible to deny.

And, if not mistaken the lizards you refer to already had that digestive organ in other populations.

Sounds interesting. Show us another population of Podarcis sicula with a spiral valve.

Speaking of Lynn Margulis... Her husband, Carl Sagan used to say that a single cell contains more information than the US Library of Congress.

Well, let's take a look...

A human cell has about 30,000 genes. Genes average about 27,000 base pairs each.
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/res...Chp1_4_2.shtml

So about 27,000 "letters" if you want to compare it to a library.
So, about 810 billion letters in a human genome.

The Library of Congress has about 16 million book along, not counting all sorts of other non-book information. Very conservatively, if we assume 1000 letters per page and 200 pages in a book, that would be 200, 000 letters per book. That would be about 32 quadrillion letters, or about two million times the information in a human cell.

You obviously don't understand the genome as well as Sagan.

I just showed you the numbers. Sagan was a planetary astronomer; I'm a biologist. If you want to play expert, you lose. But as you just learned, reality trumps anyone's opinion

You may be a biologist but not a very good one since you imply you understand the genome.

No one completely understands it. It's just that an intelligent 7th grader knows more about it than you do.

And I as you now realize, God says in Genesis what He did, but did not tell us how it all got done. Unless you count His telling us that He created life naturally. Even then, He didn't say how He did that.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

I have posted Genesis 1 for you previous.... That's how He did it.

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Genesis doesn't say how it was created, simply that it was, and by whom...but never how.

Creationists have taken this to mean, that life was 'poofed' into existence ex nihilo fully complex lifeforms, more or less in present form. It is essentially impossible to explain how this happened without being reduced to magic/miracle or 'I don't know', which if we are being honest mean exactly the same thing.

 

[6days]

Funny how you flip flop around when you are wrong. Your argument was that it was out of context.

It was, out of context...

Heehee
Now you are back to arguing context? Here is the interviewers question and her complete answer.

INTERVIEWER: And you don’t believe that natural selection is the answer?

MARGULIS: "This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that 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."
http://discovermagazine.com/2011/apr/16-interview-lynn-margulis-not-controversial-right

I just said that you had maybe a dozen harmful recessives, and you disagreed, citing 300 new ones per generation. That's per population, not per person.

Wrong - It is per person and you have thousands. This is what I said...
6DAYS:
"You have thousands of deleterious mutations. Kondrashov in 2002 (Human Mutation 21) drastically underestimated the number of new deleterious mutations at about 10 new per generation. He said "at least 100 new mutations" per generation and at least"10%" of these are deleterious". With the Encode results, he has now said there could be 300 additional mutations per generation with as much as 30% deleterious."

Here is part of Kondrashovs quote from the article I cited.
KONDRASHOV: "The total number of new mutations per diploid human genome per generation is about 100.....analysis of human variability suggests that a normal person carries THOUSANDS OF DELETERIOUS MUTATIONS"

what is your estimate of the number of new mutations per generation?

Geneticists keep adjusting the numbers upwards as science advances. They admit its difficult to say what an accurate number is.
All knowing Wiki lowballs the number saying "New findings show that each human has on average 60 new mutations compared to their parents. "

Nachman and Crowell in the journal 'Genetics' placed the numbet at 175.... That was in the year 2000, using the assumption that 97% of our DNA is silent. The number may be many times higher.

Crow in PNAS 94 (1997) said " I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem. It is something the the population bomb but with a much longer fuse.

Mutation accumulation is not recessive mutation.

"F" Fail.

And I as you now realize, God says in Genesis what He did, but did not tell us how it all got done.

I posted Genesis 1 for you. That's how He did it.

Unless you count His telling us that He crated life naturally.

As has been pointed out to you previous...This claim of yours is dishonest. Perhaps that is what Biologos has taught you.

 

[Stripe]

We now know that there is considerable variation in DNA sequences among tissues, and even among cells in the same tissue. It's called genomic mosaicism... I taught genomic equivalence for many years. A few years ago, however, everything changed. With the development of more sophisticated techniques and the sampling of more tissues and cells, it became clear that genetic mosaicism is common. Genetic variation between individuals has been extensively investigated, but differences between tissues within individuals are far less understood... However, a growing body of evidence shows that genomic variation exists between differentiated tissues... Analysis of ... genomic hybridization in diverse tissues from six unrelated subjects reveals a significant number of intra-individual genomic changes between tissues. Many of these events affect genes. Our results have important consequences for understanding normal genetic and phenotypic variation within individuals. From what I now know as an embryologist I would say that the truth is the opposite: Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It's the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism.

— source.​