Essentially every word was false.
Evolution is a change process of small steps. With simple math, I pointed out that two completely different types of evolutionary change exist: variation and innovation. As a consequence the question: “What is the evidence for evolution?” can only be answered after distinguishing these two types of evolutionary change and their corresponding empirical evidence. In current evolutionary theory both types of evolutionary change and their empirical evidence are confused. Notice that the articulation of a theory belongs to the core business of science. Bashing the articulation of evolutionary theory is unscientific.
Saying that mutations only cause cancer and hereditary disease is like saying that because some humans kill each other, humans can’t love.
I encourage you to read the scientific literature to see if your ideas fit in any way into scientific discourse.
There are three categories of Easy proof of Evoluton… if you choose to ignore them, the onus is on you:
the multiple lines of evidence showing whales and hippos share common descent.
the multiple lines of evidence which shows Australia’s life forms are completely incompatible with a Young Earth.
and the present reality of Ring Species… which demonstrate that as various sub-populations differentiate from a common ancestral group that reproductive compatibility is significantly impaired to the point where there is virtually a new “kind” of life form living at one end of the population gradient that is basically incompatible with the genetically distinct group living at the other end of the population gradient.
If you don’t get it … you never will.
Youtube’s Potholer54 has a great video were he explains how even Kent Hovind had come to agree with the idea of evolution—as long the word is avoided:
I sometimes use that video as an example of directly observing macroevolution today, because a North American rabbit species has diversified to where Florida rabbits of that species can’t/won’t breed with Canadian rabbits (I think it was) but rabbits living in the Midwest can breed with both.
Of course, the science-denialists will say, “But that’s not evolution. They are still rabbits. No rabbit turned into an elephant.”
And that explains why it is virtually impossible to find anyone to actually debate the evidence for evolution: The denialists never know what evolution is. It almost always comes down to straw man arguments.
Not any scientist will put his/her genitals under an X-ray machine to improve and expand the DNA of his/her offspring with new functionalities. This empirical fact disproves the theory that mutations of the DNA can improve and expand the DNA. According to the playing rules of empirical science, this theory must be rejected.
In the peer reviewed Open Evolution Journal, DeJong and Degens have made a distinction between two completely different mechanisms of evolutionary change; see: “The evolutionary dynamics of digital and nucleotide codes: a mutation protection perspective” at http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOEVOLJ/TOEVOLJ-5-1.pdf
(1) The mechanism of: gene regulation and the recombination of gene variants and selection. By these mechanisms the length of the DNA does not increase and the mutation repair mechanisms that are present in every cell do not need to come in action.
(2) The mechanism of: the accumulation of non-repairable, heritable, instantly advantageous, code-expanding mutations. By this mechanism the length of the DNA increases. The mechanism is antagonized by the mutation repair mechanisms that are present in every cell.
The mechanism ad.1 can be denoted as ‘the variation motor’; the mechanism ad.2 as ‘the innovation motor’ of evolution.
By the variation motor, living nature constantly adapts to changing circumstances. An example of the results of variation motor is the change of the beaks of finches, or the change of the tails of whales.
By the innovation motor, it is thought that a bacterium can transform into a human being, over billions of years. Cancer research however proves unambiguously that mutations of the DNA cause genetic diseases and severe disadvantage in the struggle for life. Therefore, the innovation motor can only function in theory; not in reality.
The consequence of the scientific fact that two completely different mechanisms play a role in evolutionary theory, is that the empirical evidence for the existence of the variation motor cannot be used as evidence for the existence of the innovation motor. For example, the change of the beaks of finches or the tails of whales, cannot be used as proof that a bacterium can change into a human being if you wait long enough.
Note that the articulation of theories is core business for scientists.
Evolution exists. Don’t worry. Populations continuously adapt to changing circumstances by the mechanism of gene regulation and recombination of gene variants and selection (the variation motor).
Evolution exists! But science teaches us that there are two completely different types of evolutionary change:
Variation = the change of a (biological) system in its parameters, mathematically represented as (a1, a2) → (b1, b2).
Innovation = the change of a (biological) system in its dimensions, mathematically represented as: (a1, a2) → (b1, b2, b3).
The question: “What is the evidence for evolution?” can only be answered after distinguishing these two types of evolutionary change and their corresponding empirical evidence. In current evolutionary theory both types of evolutionary change and their empirical evidence are confused. Articulation of the theory of evolution is a scientific necessity.
I think it would help if you provided a case or example for each kind of evolutionary change. What have you to share
The mechanism in living nature for the realization of variations (= the ‘variation motor’) consists of: gene regulation and recombination of gene variants and selection; see: http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOEVOLJ/TOEVOLJ-5-1.pdf . By these mechanisms the length of the DNA does not increase, and the mutation repair mechanisms that are present in every cell do not need to come in action. By the variation motor living nature constantly adapts to changing circumstances.
_Example_s: the change of the beaks of finches observed by Darwin; or the change in the appearance of whales, dogs, horses, rabbits, chickens, beans, tomatoes, cabbages, wheat, tulips, orchids, daisies, ants, spiders, flies, worms, algae, bacteria, etc.
The presumed mechanism for the creation of innovations (= the ‘innovation motor’) consists of the accumulation of non-repairable, heritable, instantly advantageous, code-expanding mutations; see: http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOEVOLJ/TOEVOLJ-5-1.pdf . By this mechanism the length of the DNA increases, as well as its information and energy content.
The innovation motor, however, is antagonized by the mutation repair mechanisms that are present in every cell. Therefore the innovation motor can only function in a population with dysfunctional mutation repair, resulting in Syndrome of Down like deviations, which expand the length of the DNA, combined with a high presence of cancer and hereditary diseases, which are caused by unrepaired mutations. In such a population, the gene pool will accumulate the material with which, in theory, new functionalities may arise after about 1000 generations. According to Darwin, however, this population will get extinct within a few generations, because Syndrome of Down like deviations, cancer and hereditary diseases are a severe selective disadvantage. As a consequence the theoretical future innovations of the DNA will disappear within a few generations. Therefore, the innovation engine can transform a bacterium into a human being only in theory, not in reality. Reports of the discovery of new genes that were created by the innovation motor are based on computer simulations of the transformation of the DNA of a bacterium into the DNA of a human being by the innovation motor, not on empirical evidence.
Science teaches us:
1. The variation motor does not expand the length of the DNA. Therefore the variation motor cannot expand the DNA of a bacterium into the DNA of a human being. Waiting for trillions of years cannot do the trick.
2. Empirical evidence for the existence of the variation motor cannot be used as empirical evidence for the existence of the innovation motor.
I am pretty much a rank amateur when it comes to evolution, but based on the little that I do know this sure looks wrong to me.
Why on earth would a mutation have to be BOTH instantly advantageous AND code-expanding? There’s tons of examples of one or the other, I don’t understand why you would require them simultaneously???
Just by way of the first analogy off the top of my head, babies first grow a lot of random neurons and then pare them down so they’re useful. I’m sure you could think of many similar examples if you wanted.
I had exactly the same reaction.
And there are plenty of mutations which are not “instantly advantageous”----and whether or not they are “code-expanding” probably depends on what William means by that.
Seriously? I want to believe that you are making a joke----because that is incredibly illogical. If that is your “reasoning”, I really can’t justify reading any further.
So…please. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. Please clarify that that is not how you reason. (I really don’t care if you deny the Theory of Evolution. Lots of people deny it. But I do care if you make decisions in this manner.)
The innovation engine does not necessarily add to the length of DNA. The human DNA sequence is actually shorter than that of many plants and “lesser” animals.
Most mutations have no effect one way or the other, so they are neither selected for or against. An organism with a particular mutation may eventually acquire another mutation that when combined with the first one produces an advantage. A neutral mutation can, by chance, disappear in time, so the beneficial change will have to happen fairly soon after the neutral one. We of the EC mindset believe that God will insure that beneficial change will happen, even if the processes seem random to humans, and the chances for success seem to approach zero.
Maybe you can learn something new. Science teaches us that there is not one type of evolutionary change, but two types: variation and innovation. In living nature, each type is driven by a completely different mechanism. Please start reading from the beginning of this thread to get more scientific information.
There are tons of examples http://cancer.sanger.ac.uk/cosmic that mutations are the cause of cancer and hereditary diseases, which produce severe selective disadvantage. The nasty disease Cistic Fibrosis, for example, is caused by the mutation of only 1 nucleotide in the so-called CFTR-gene of 1480 nucleotides. It is a myth that the DNA can flexibly absorb non repairable mutations without detriment to the organism, and that after thousands of generations the accumulation of these non repairable mutations will result in beneficial expansions of the functionality of an organism. The change of a bacterium into a human being requires instantly advantageous code expanding mutations. Such mutations, however, are antagonized by the mutation repair systems in every cell and by sexual reproduction.
Long ago, people believed that the earth was flat and that the sun was spinning around the earth. Empirical science has erased that belief in about 150 years. Today, many people believe that mutations improve the DNA and expand it with new functionalities. Empirical science will erase that belief too, because cancer researchers have found that mutations are the cause of cancer and hereditary diseases http://cancer.sanger.ac.uk/cosmic . Fortunately, the hundreds of thousands mutations that occur every day in every cell are antagonized by mutation repair systems (Nobel Prize Chemistry 2015). Not any scientist in the world, nor you, will put his/her genitals under an X-ray machine to bless his future children with improved DNA. The theory that mutations produce improvement of the DNA is clearly contradicted by empirical evidence ( your refusal to mutate your own DNA, and the refusal of any scientist). Therefore, this theory must be rejected according to the playing rules of empirical science. Only in wonderland, mutations produce improvement in stead of cancer and hereditary diseases. Fortunately, living nature does not need mutations to adapt to changing circumstances, because empirical science teaches us that living nature adapts to changing circumstances by recombination of gene variants and selection and by gene regulation. http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOEVOLJ/TOEVOLJ-5-1.pdf
I have to say I find the comment above a little confusing, possibly because of its emotive tone. The sentence “Today, many people believe that mutations improve the DNA and expand it with new functionalities” may be true, but I think it misrepresents the evolutionist case. Words like “improve” “expand” and “new functionalities” don’t really mean anything in this context. Evolutionists certainly think that mutations alter DNA, and that some of those alterations result, usually in combination rather than individually, in enhanced reproduction in specific environments. Thus a mutation might be considered to have ‘improved’ the DNA of some individuals of a species, without improving that of the species as a whole. Similarly, the mutation need not “expand” the DNA. Sometimes reproductive enhancement results from ‘shorter’ rather than ‘longer’ DNA.
And I must say I concur with Socratic’s assessment of your voluntary genital radiation suggestion. All of us are subject to continuous involuntary radiation of our genitals, and occasional mutations that benefit reproduction both occur and disseminate - one thinks of lactose tolerance as an example - but one could not predict such a thing, or, necessarily, even recognise that it was beneficial for many generations. However, I have no doubt whatever that, in keeping with current experiments on smaller, more rapidly reproducing animals, the time is rapidly approaching when ‘improved’ genes will be discovered, and inserted into a human germline, and that it will be scientists’ children who first benefit from it.
Lactose tolerance. You’re welcome.
Details. The most common CF allele, deltaF508, is a deletion of THREE nucleotides.[quote=“WilliamDJ, post:20, topic:35086”]
Fortunately, the hundreds of thousands mutations that occur every day in every cell are antagonized by mutation repair systems (Nobel Prize Chemistry 2015).
[/quote]Can you point to some evidence to support your claim that hundreds of thousands of mutations occur in every cell every day, William?
False. Recombination between regions of tandem repeats routinely expands or contracts them, changing the length of DNA.
Sorry, but so far you haven’t presented anything that I would consider as “scientific information.” Just the same old tired macro vs micro evolution idea that YEC try to pass off as “scientific” when it ain’t.
To make my point a little clearer, it doesn’t take much knowledge to know that what you said is wrong. The people who know of what they speak are also pointing out what is wrong with what you are saying so please forgive me if I don’t accept it as “scientific”, whatever that is supposed to mean.