Evolutionary problem: an insanely high mutation rate.
Offline As that I think a new thread is needed, I will oblige. Mathematical competence and microbiological understanding may be required to understand all of the arguments here.
Evolution has several flaws in its mutation theory.
1. Information producing mutations. Even though deludedgod has convinced me that genome increasing mutations are theoretically possible, they are not observed. Even if a new gene length is added to an intron, natural selection will not select out the gene as beneficial until it has completed 2 requirements, becoming an extron, and being a functional protein for the task it is applied to. The probability for either of these is very low and requires an extreme number of point mutations, mostly silent.
2. Beneficial mutations, the "heart of evolution," are very rare when compared to silent or detremental mutations. When the number of beneficial mutations alone required to produce any present lifeform from the original, self-replicating molecules is concidered-much less a eukariote or other complex life-form, the number of net mutations required becomes truly astronomical. Using the concept of uniformitarianism, 4.5 billion years is not long enough to create the diversity of life that we see, and punctuated equilibrium has not been observed and cannot be legitimately proven by the lack of present evolutionary change.
3. Furthermore, the largest microevolutionary change observed to date-the Grant observations of Galapagos finches, actually illustrates the stability of living things and their tendancy to not change or evolve. The total observation of over 20 years of beak length measurement of the medium ground finch showed a 1 milimeter shift to a larger beak, then back to a larger beak. This is not an illustration of evolution in action, concidering that the net change was zero. Similar things can be said of microbial antiboitic immunities, the "evolved" result cannot survive when the competition with the "non-evolved" bacteria resumes.
All this suggests that living things do not have unlimited dynamicism or flexibility, but rather that life is reluctant to change at all. The Grants observed only a 1 milimeter shift in beak length, despite the large percentage of the population that was eliminated because of the drought, or the large growth of population created by the fertility growth by a long rain season.
[quote=Egann]As that I think a new thread is needed, I will oblige. Mathematical competence and microbiological understanding may be required to understand all of the arguments here.
Evolution has several flaws in its mutation theory.
1. Information producing mutations. Even though deludedgod has convinced me that genome increasing mutations are theoretically possible, they are not observed. Even if a new gene length is added to an intron, natural selection will not select out the gene as beneficial until it has completed 2 requirements, becoming an extron, and being a functional protein for the task it is applied to. The probability for either of these is very low and requires an extreme number of point mutations, mostly silent.[/quote]Here is one example. The first hit on google when I typed in [i]mutation observe[/i]
http://english.people.com.cn/200701/26/eng20070126_345137.html
[quote]2. Beneficial mutations, the "heart of evolution," are very rare when compared to silent or detremental mutations.[/quote]They may be heavily outweighed by nonbeneficial mutations, but that doesn't mean they are rare.
Fact: the sheer amount of mutations that occur are enormous. More than enough for a significant amount of them to be beneficial.
All you have to do is apply natural selection, and the beneficial mutations are very probable to survive.
[quote]3. Furthermore, the largest microevolutionary change observed to date-the Grant observations of Galapagos finches[/quote]Things we have observed to have evolved:
The Aids virus, Influenza and various other bacteria or viruses which mutate to become resistant to drugs
the English Peppered Moth
[url=http://evolvethought.blogspot.com/2006/02/cane-toad-evolution.html]the Cane toad[/url]
Fewer & fewer humans are growing wisdom teeth
[url=http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/061116_lizard_legs.html]Anole Lizards[/url]
Not to mention, the fossilized records clearly indicate not just micro-evolution, but macro-evolution aswell.
[quote]actually illustrates the stability of living things and their tendancy to not change or evolve.[/quote]Bullshit. Things are changing all the time. I gave a few examples above.
The rest of your post is completely based on the points I already addressed.
Your link: This disturbs me. Do you know little about biology or did you just post the first link that popped up like you said?
1. Viruses are not living things. They have genetic information, but no metabolism, ergo the rules of biology and the [i]rate[/i] of mutation needed for evolution need not apply.
2. Where do you get these figures on the mutation rates (oh, that's right, there aren't any figures, just assertions.) Add the fact that natural selection of mutations as beneficial or detrimental is not predictable, and you wind up with a question begging "scientific" system that says in effect "the survivors will survive." Well no duh, ya think?
3.
HIV (formerly known as GRIDS) virus: viral "evolution cannot be applied to non-viral lifeforms as that the reproductive system is fundamentally different and viruses are organic structures and not organisms.
Antibiotic resistant bacteria: It is known that the DNA for antibiotic resistance is naturally on one of the DNA rings of the bacteria in the wild population, but as that the gene involves the loss of information (the control on the antibiotic destroying enzymes is non-functional) except in extreme situations (like a hospital bed where the antibiotics are present) the standard bacteria will overpower the immune. Only the presence of antibiotics makes the immune ones any better under any circumstance.
Peppered Moths: It is known that the peppered moth aleel frequency changed, but this [i]has not[/i] been linked to a natural selection mechanism. It is known that in the wild peppered moths -camuflaged or not- do not rest on tree trunks where J.W. Tutt [i]placed[/i] the moths and filmed birds picking them off. Regardless, all that has been asserted is natural selection modifying the aleel frequency, which I never contested. This has no relevence to discussing [i]mutation.[/i]
Cane toad: As that the information already existed in the gene pool, this is an example of natural selection, which I never questioned.
Fewer people developing wisdom teeth: As that there is no means to link this with natural selection, I can only assume that you are using LaMarkian evolutionary lines, where because the teeth were removed in the parent, they never form in the child. I hope that we can agree that this (LaMarkian evolution) is not the case.
Anole Lizard: Is this really evolution, or just the gene pool loosing information for the climbing variety of lizard?
4. I never questioned micro-evolution. I am questioning the possibility for macroevolution (especially as that all your examples of "evolution" are really devolution, or the loss of information and capacity of the population. You have not provided any new information examples, but rather beg the question by asserting mutations provide new information. I hope I have proven that the sources that you have cited say that they don't.
The fossil record is no help either. We do not see unlimited plasticity of living things illustrated, but a miriad of differing species that some may look similar. It is an unfounded assumption to assume that a similar look is due to a family resemblence.
Even assuming the fossil record [i]looks[/i] like it evolved, it is logically unsound to assert this as any evidence of evolution. The scientific method asserts that a thesis must be tested, not compared to observation, so why don't we test punctuated equilibria evolution?
The Dodo went extinct. Why? Applying the punctuated equilibrium model, as it was progressively hunted more and more and its gene pool shrunk, the evolutionary rate should have exponentially increased.
That didn't happen and the Dodo...went the way of the Dodo. It didn't evolve to be able to cope with the pressures it had been exposed to because the gene pool was not a ball of silly putty that could be pushed back and forth. It did not have the genetic capacity to change beyond the limits of its own gene pool, so it died out.
Even if evolution is the case and is how life forms came to be, its effects cannot be predicted becase the same cause -selective pressure- may produce differing results-evolution or extinction. Evolution cannot be tested because of this, therefore evolution, even if true, is not science.
If you think the theories current status has some issues why don't you become an evolutionary biologist and help solve them?