Progressive evolution is mathematically and chemically impossible?

Question

I am referring to speciation through natural mechanisms. The probability of acquiring more beneficial mutations than deleterious ones. What is more common? You know the answer. Mutations are beneficial 1 in some large number. Statistics tells us that given a million years a single cell organism would have no chance of survival. It would be a mutant sack shyt. Why do we purposefully choose to ignore the fallacies within this theory?

Answer 1

Most mutations are fatal. Consider a healthy colony of single celled organisms with an unlimited food supply. Their numbers could double every generation (which could be on the order of minutes). If one individual suffers a mutation, say a random cosmic ray of ionizing radiation strikes just the right protein molecule, that mutation may be fatal to that cell. Or... the mutation may be to a section of "junk" DNA that has no effect at all. Or... the mutation may change something that will screw up reproduction so the individual reproduces but the daughter cells die. Very occasionally, the mutation will have an effect and will be coped (so inherited by the daughters). Now consider an environmental stress. This mutation will do one of 3 things: be beneficial because it improves the daughter's chances of successful reproduction, it will be detrimental reducing chances of success, or it will have no effect. Evolution only occurs when there is coincidence of 2 things: a potentially beneficial mutation and an environmental stress that makes the mutation actually beneficial.



An extreme example for illustration... Say a grazing herbivore is born with an unusually long neck. This mutation is not going to lead to a giraffe unless the environmental conditions happen to make plants with leaves close to the ground scarce. If there are plenty of leaves close to the ground, the long necked individual is not any more likely to have reproductive success than a "normal" individual. If the long neck does mate, most likely to mate with a normal neck. Their offspring may have normal necks or long necks depending on dominant vs recessive genes and random chance. The result after generations is simply more genetic variability within this species. However, if the environment suddenly and drastically changes such that there are NO leaves close to the ground, the only individuals who avoid starvation (and, therefore, can possibly reproduce) are long necks. So... viola, giraffes.

Answer 2

Speciation is an observed fact. It happens through natural mechanisms which means that whatever maths and chemistry you are "using" is completely wrong.



Natural Selection results in deleterious mutations being removed from the gene pool while beneficial ones are preserved. As a simple thought experiment lets assume that your next offspring has a seriously deleterious mutation that prevents the proper production of ATP. How many offspring would they be likely to have (apart from the fact that they would almost certainly never develop in the womb).

Answer 3

Nobody says the rate at which beneficial mutations occurs is more than the harmful ones. So you're making up your own theory, then arguing against it.



A thought experiment: Suppose you have a box filled with 1 million fly eggs and some poisonous environment. You randomly mutate all the eggs. One mutation in a million allows the fly to survive the poison. The eggs hatch. All but that one die.



Would you agree that 1 in a million beneficial mutations is less than 999,999 harmful ones?

What percentage of the next generation, the survivors, has the beneficial mutation?

Answer 4

Speciation can occur through natural selection because it does not necessarily require the acquisition of new genes. Even so it is much rarer than Talk Origins claims. One example is the London Underground Mosquito and even that is incipient speciation rather than complete reproductive isolation; and it's still a mosquito.



However as you note beneficial information adding mutations are extremely rare. We might have mechanisms for how NEW GENES ARISE, but how many actual examples do we have? When asked Richard Dawkins couldn't provide even one example.



p.s. I was able to make sense of your English sentences so I don't know why others had a problem.



@Lighting the way. I have previously read that reply by Dawkins but I revisited it. I find his description of "a truculent challenge" not borne out by viewing the video. In both the video and the article he skirted around the question and didn't answer it. http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again

Can YOU provide an example of a beneficial information adding mutation? DrJ's posting provides a proposed mechanism for the formation of new genes; I'm asking for an example.



The technical definition of “information” introduced by the American engineer Claude Shannon in 1948 was suited for his purpose but even he acknowledged that it didn't address the question of meaning within the message. Thus duplication for example does not produce new information, it just produces a second copy of existing information; much like my owning two copies of "Origin of Species".

Answer 5

If mutations were as harmful as you make them out to be, life would have died out long ago.



In fact, most mutations are neutral, being neither beneficial nor harmful. Most of the mutations that are harmful get weeded out by being selected against by natural processes. Beneficial mutations would help the organism to survive and pass on the mutation.



You need to stop visiting LSoS creationist web sites.





Added



Some time after I posted the above I went back to look at the other responses and noted that @CRR presented a bogus statement about Richard Dawkins that had its source in (as usual) creationist deceit.



He was interviewed by a film crew who did not reveal that they were creationists. During the course of the interview he was asked how new genetic information could arise. Because of the way the question was asked, he realized that he had been duped, and, since he normally refuses to be interviewed by creationists because of their dishonesty, he stopped the interview. They begged him to please reconsider because of the distance they had traveled, so he relented and let the interview continue.



Sure enough, he was rewarded with an edited version of the interview that made him appear to not know how new genetic information could arise. So much for creationist trustworthiness.



There ARE ways for new genetic information to appear, such as gene duplication followed by subsequent mutations, as Dawkins explains in his response to that example of creationist dishonesty.



http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/





Added



I subsequently saw this link about how new genes are formed in DrJ's posting. Another creationist lie shot down.



http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/origins-of-new-genes-and-pseudogenes-835

Answer 6

Where to begin. HOW ABOUT SOME ACTUAL REFERENCES FROM THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE. First, do you know you have about 60 MUTATIONS THAT YOUR PARENTS DIDN'T HAVE? By your reasoning, we should all be dead, right? http://www.livescience.com/33347-mutants-average-human-60-genetic-mutations.html

http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/estimating-human-human-mutatin-rate.html

So there goes quite a bit of your argument, doesn't it.



And we have mechanisms for how NEW GENES ARISE. http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/origins-of-new-genes-and-pseudogenes-835



And we have evidence for descent through common ancestors: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/



And we have evidence for those ancestors through the fossil record, DNA, behavior, etc. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence For example, it was recently discovered that chickens have repressed genes for teeth that resemble alligator teeth reinforcing that birds originated from reptiles: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mutant-chicken-grows-alli/



And what do you have? a lack of information but that doesn't stop you from making comments out of ignorance.

Answer 7

Please enlighten us with a description of the biological mechanism that prevents any change in the frequency of alleles in a population of organisms over several generations. Please describe the interactions of proteins, polynucleotides, fats, sugars or whatever that achieves this effect. Since you have already demonstrated that you don't know the difference between amino and nucleic acids I don't think you can manage this.



Once you have done that, please tell us what you mean by "progressive".

Answer 8

BECAUSE......Evolution.....is....



..a.......myth!!!



It's all made up. Even the sun decreases 5-6 feet every 60 years, in saying that the world would have been too dry for millions of years of life on this planet.

Answer 9

There is within the DNA of animals large amounts of un-used information. ====> Mutation is not the only driving force in evolution. Natural Selection can select for un-used genes converting them to used genes and changing a species.



Good example of this is the Artificial Selection of canine genes by humans to make all the varieties of dogs.



There is within the genome of Gray Wolves (Canus lupus lupus) genes for: small, long, silky fur =====> Yorkshire Terriers are not the result of mutation, but Artificial Selection of genes that are not used by wolves.



There is diversity within a population. if the environment changes to make one trait (say fur color) better for survival, that trait with become more common. No mutation required.



Also facts are facts. Please explain the following facts without invoking evolution:



1) The DNA of humans and chimpanzees matches up at the 99% level. That is sufficient proof for a court of law that we are related.



2) Humans have 23 chromosome pairs and the rest of the Great Apes have 24 pairs. If we look at human chromosome #2 we find that it is a fused pair that matches chimpanzee chromosome #2 + #13 AND ALL THE MARKERS LINE UP, INCLUDING TELOMERES IN THE WRONG POSITION (Basically, the “end of file” markers normally on the end of chromosomes. In humans there is a set in the middle of chromosome #2).



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs



3) Both humans and chimps have identical sets of damaged DNA in identical locations caused by extremely rare chance encounters with viruses who became endogenized into our own DNA and rendered harmless. These endogenized retroviruses (ERV) not only proved our ancestry with chimps, but are revealing our connection to other more distant cousins like the gorillas, gibbons and lemurs.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1779541/



EDIT



"

Anonymous 1 hour

This isn't proof of evolution. We expect that similar organisms would have similar genomes. This is logical reflection of intelligence."



Yes, it proves 1 of 2 things:



When you add the random EVR DNA at the identical locations in human and chimp genomes. 40 of around 45 identical markers in identical locations. You are stuck with:



A) God placed those markers and the fused chromosome to confuse us (God is deceptive) or



B) Those markers and the fused chromosome are the result of evolution.



Do you really want to believe in a deceptive god?





The YouTube clip above is by Kenneth R. Miller, PhD, Professor of Biology, Brown University, and co-author of the most widely used high school Biology text in the USA. Dr. Miller testified in support of teaching evolution at the Dover, PA trial. The clip is a re-cap of part of his testimony.





The interesting thing is: The trial was run under the Rules of Civil Procedure. That means that the Dr Miller's testimony and the above evidence he planned to offer was known to the Intelligent Design/Creationist side through his depositions and interrogatories in preparation for the case. They knew what was coming and yet their experts provided no counter argument to his evidence; he was not cross-examined on that testimony. If they had a rebuttal, they would have offered it. They did not. In addition, the Federal Judge (a conservative, strict constructionist) that had sent people to prison on the basis of DNA evidence would have laughed the ID/Creationists out of his court if they had tried to argue that DNA did not prove relationship.





http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

Answer 10

Your incredibly feeble "arguments" would be slightly less laughable if you were capable of stringing together a meaningful English sentence.