| Message: |
|
Brian:
You accuse me of spreading misconceptions and misinformation, but on the contrary, it is you who demonstrate that you neither read nor think very carefully. You say:
>Wrong. Mutations are also caused by replication errors, DNA chemical instability, and byproducts of metabolism: “[Mutations] can be the result of endogenous processes such as errors in replication of DNA, the intrinsic chemical instability of certain DNA bases or from attack by free radicals generated during metabolism.” Bertram, Molecular Aspects of Medicine, 2000, 21 (6), 167.
Brian, where did I say that there were no other causes of genetic mutations? Nowhere. All I said was that DNA mutations were caused primarily by background radiation in the atmosphere, which includes cosmic rays and rays emanating from soil and rocks.
The causes of spontaneous mutations are multifactorial, but there are three main causes:
"1) The gene-copying process...may go wrong and produce a molecular structure different from that of the original gene; the original gene remains the same but it has produced a faulty copy of itself....
2) The natural 'background' radiation from cosmic rays or from soil and rocks (higher in granite than sandstone areas) or from chemical compounds in food may cause a change in a gene that is not dividing. Once it does start to produce copies of itself the error will be perpetuated until, by further mutation, the normal gene is restored.
Most natural mutations seem to be due to a chemical or physical shock which shakes up and causes a slight alteration, or rearrangement, of the molecular pattern in the gene.
3) The chromosome breakages...are grosser types of mutation...knowledge of how these breakages are caused is scant, but predisposing factors are EXPOSURE TO RADIATION and increasing maternal age."
-From "Biology and the Social Crisis: A Social Biology for Everyman," by John Keith Brierley (caps mine).
And now we come to your "jumping genes":
You quote me below but fail to define what the writer in your answer means by "some good." And your writer fails to define it, I suspect, because actual beneficial changes are virtually always very limited, not resulting in new organs or appendages of any kind. Thus not only is Darwinian gradualism not seen in fossils (by Gould's own admission), it is not seen in any living creature. An animal, such as a bat for instance, appears and is what it is, with no finely graduated changes that would be expected if Macro-evolution were true. That is why we see no half-bats. And that is also why we don't see people being born smarter due to genetic mutations (except on the Sci-Fi channel). Most mutations result in diseases and/or inferior copies of the original. And ALL CANCER is genetic, caused by abnormal gene activity.
>Very few are beneficial, and those that are positive are caused by destroying part of the delicate DNA structure.”
Wrong. Some “beneficial” mutations come from transposition of whole sections of DNA; see transposon, jumping gene, etc.: “Genomes are full of DNA that doesn't belong there. Called transposons, these small bits of sequence jump between chromosomes, often disrupting genes in the process. But sometimes, these interlopers do some good.” Pennisi, Science, 2005 (309), 764.
Brian, are you seriously suggesting that the brain of Australopithecus grew not only in size from 380-450cc to 1400cc, but also vastly morphed in complexity, all by "jumping genes?"
Oh, OK. Now we have the even more altered version of Darwinian evolution:
"The General Theory of Evolution by Jumping Genes."
I think what we really have on display here is a classic demonstration of the truth that facts are stubborn things, but stories mutate endlessly.
I am getting a good laugh at your preposterous "Just So" story about the fabulous jumping genes, but the fact remains that what Cohen calls "the purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides" in the DNA, CANNOT occur without intelligent intervention of some kind. You have no evidence of such a thing happening anywhere in nature at any time, and this does not even take into account the proveable fact of irreducable complexity and lack of any mechanism of assembly to bring all of the fortuitous "jumping genes" together to create a new species.
What you proponents of evolutionism are suggesting requires some type of creative design to alter DNA code enough to create new organs, appendages, and eventually new species. Nature cannot alter DNA code, nor can the organism itself according to your theory, and I reject the whole concept of Darwinian Intelligent Design in nature. Nature has no mind, nor can it alter DNA code, except in myth.
I repeat, alteration of the DNA code, whether by radiation, chemical, diet or other environmenmtal factors, CANNOT CREATIVELY ADD CODE. Yes, radiation can slightly alter DNA enough so that the color of a blossom changes from, say, red to orange, but that is a FAR CRY from changing a very small brain into a far larger, much more complex brain. This would require altering the code thousands if not millions of times IN JUST THE RIGHT WAY, and that is physically impossible.
Dear reader, don't let yourself be intimidated or bamboozified by "scientific" gobble****ok. These people will try to browbeat you with fanciful stories and actual facts that are misapplied, all to appeal to your emotions. They want to turn off your thinking and turn on your emotions. And that is not science, that is religion. But evolution is a scientific concept, it is NOT a religion, and it is not heresy to question it. In fact it is good to try and falsify EVERY theory, INCLUDING evolution. If you look carefully, you will see that these people defy the laws of logic, and you are perfectly able to judge that for yourselves.
I would add this PS, flowering plants can increase the number of chromosomes, called "polyploidy." But "According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy 'does not confer major new morphological characteristics...[and] does not cause the evolution of a new genera' or higher levels in the biological hierarchy." -Darwinism and Intelligent Design, by J.Wells, page 51.--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Replying to: I’m glad you wrote this post, John, I could not possibly have put something up that more clearly demonstrates the misconceptions and misinformation that creationists are spreading. Each sentence in your Cohen quote is simply wrong (with the exception of the one about saltation – that is true), and I’ve addressed his and your assertions below.
“The only change possible under Darwinian theory, is by DNA mutations caused primarily by background radiation in the atmosphere”
Wrong. Mutations are also caused by replication errors, DNA chemical instability, and byproducts of metabolism: “[Mutations] can be the result of endogenous processes such as errors in replication of DNA, the intrinsic chemical instability of certain DNA bases or from attack by free radicals generated during metabolism.” Bertram, Molecular Aspects of Medicine, 2000, 21 (6), 167.
“Very few are beneficial, and those that are positive are caused by destroying part of the delicate DNA structure.”
Wrong. Some “beneficial” mutations come from transposition of whole sections of DNA; see transposon, jumping gene, etc.: “Genomes are full of DNA that doesn't belong there. Called transposons, these small bits of sequence jump between chromosomes, often disrupting genes in the process. But sometimes, these interlopers do some good.” Pennisi, Science, 2005 (309), 764.
There is an entire subset of mutations called “Insertion mutations”, which are exactly what the name suggests: one or more base pairs are inserted into the DNA. For example, “Both germline and somatic mutations have been documented resulting from the insertion of the various types of mammalian repetitive transposable genetic elements. As foreseen by Barbara McClintock, such genetic events can cause either the activation or the inactivation of specific genes, resulting in their identification via an altered phenotype.” Amariglio and Rechavi, Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, 1993, 21(3), 212.
“There is no possibility of a new DNA code being creatively produced.”
Wrong. I’ve just outlined several mechanisms by which new DNA is inserted into an existing genome.
“And since adaptions require creative changes in the gene code, how then could a positive, new, creative adaptation occur?”
Adaptations do not require “creative” changes, they just require changes. These changes are then selected for by natural selection.
“In a nutshell, mutations alter DNA by destruction ONLY”
Wrong. There are a host of mechanisms, some of which I’ve outlined above, by which either single base pairs are changed (point mutations), or whole sections of DNA are added or removed (insertions and deletions). Example: “genetic errors may be introduced by nonreplicative mechanisms. Resulting variability is manifested by point mutations and genomic rearrangements (e.g., deletions, insertions and recombination).” Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology, 2006 (299), 211-259.
“But creative adaptations require new, creative gene codes. So how is it even possible to create something new by destruction, and where does the original code come from in the first place, with no mechanism to build anything new?”
This entire line of reasoning is clearly flawed. There are a host of mechanisms for creating new genetic material. Therefore, adaptations do not need to come only “by destruction”.
“It makes no sense, dear reader, and if you think about it, you will see that this truth alone means that a Darwinian body plan does not exist anywhere in nature, and that Darwinian evolution could not possibly be true.”
What is clear is that you have no background in genetics or basic biology, therefore you must rely on second- or third-hand sources, such as Cohen’s or Azar’s books, which are designed specifically to mislead people such as yourself. I challenge you, John, to back up your statements with references from the primary literature (i.e. peer reviewed scientific journals), as I’ve done here. Nevertheless, I now understand why you don’t accept the theory of evolution: you do not understand the basics from which the theory derives. |
Reply
Forum
bravenet.com