Debating With Evolution Deniers is Just Like This
Any point mutation in the vast non-coding regions of the genome have no effect at all on anything. They are genuinely neutral.
Non-coding DNA does not code for proteins and scientists have previously thought it is largely useless. But this idea is illogical for two reasons.
Reason 1: it is wrong since non-coding DNA helps during embryonic development and can be a part of many diseases.
Reason 2: just because scientists cannot see any function in non-coding DNA (in fact, we now know there is function and effects), that does not mean there is no function!
The idea that non-coding DNA absorbs mutations making them neutral is plausibly false.
in fact, we now know there is function and effects
No you don't. The human genome has a huge proportion of DNA that has no function. There is a single-cell archezoa that has an order of magnitude more DNA than humans. There are onions and rice plants that have bigger genomes than microbiologists. Obviously it is mostly freeloading junk. But that is another thread.
You claimed that there is no such thing as a neutral mutation. I proved that this is false with the example of Cytochrome C.
As usual you changed the goalposts - the irony.
You are the only "scientist" in the whole universe who is aware of this terrifying idea. Please publish your evidence in a peer-reviewed journal immediately.
Don’t worry Cofty. It has been done. An animal that has a harmful near-neutral mutation will not die out because the mutation is not big enough to be ‘noticeable.’ The animal lives on to reproduce — with its offspring also acquiring that mutation (if it affected the reproductive cells). But now, those offspring not only have the mutation it got from its parents, but 100-300 entirely new near-neutral mutations.1 By stark contrast, the famous geneticist, H.J. Muller, said a rate of only 0.5 mutations per person per generation would doom the human race!2
1. Kondrashov, A.S., “Direct Estimate of Human Per Nucleotide Mutation Rates at 20 Loci Causing Mendelian Diseases,” Human Mutation 21:12-27, 2002; Nachman, M.W., Crowell, S.L., “Estimation of the Mutation Rate Per Nucleotide in Humans,” Genetics156:297-304, 2000; Sanford, John C., Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome (New York: FMS Publications, 2005), third edition, p. 21.
2. Muller. H.J., “Our Load of Mutations,” American Journal of Human Genetics 2: 111-176.
Your post does nothing to support your false claim that there are no neutral mutations.
An animal that has a harmful near-neutral mutation...
I am not talking about a "harmful near-neutral mutation" - whatever your made up term is supposed to mean? I am talking about totally neutral mutations.
ha! You are citing a paper on genetics from 1950.
I know you are a bit behind the times but that is incredible!
Wizzstick, why do you get so agitated?
I wasn't - I was laughing when I typed.
Is that not what you believe? So what are you going to teach your child? Be kind to your cousins, the apes and monkeys.
I teach my kids to be kind to animals. Not just our 'cousins'.
A childish response to a childish theory, I know. But even if you put in highfiluted, technical language, it still come out as stupid. Let's not give children a bad name. I think most of them are far too intelligent to stomach such ludicrous notions. Fortunately, today they have a choice. They will not be railroaded into believing such gibberish.
What, I should teach them that they should believe in a creator that creates life like this?
No I won't teach them that a creator designed life to behave like that. It's gibberish. Evolution makes much more sense.
Here's my final gift to you. This is what lies ahead.
Why do you people still trot this out? Your 'Saviour' died almost 2,000 years. Some of you won't taste death until I return, he said. And they all did.
If it doesn't happen, the joke's on me
After almost 2 millennia, the joke is on more than just you.
Here's my final gift to you. This is what lies ahead. They might appear in our lifetime, they might not, but they will come. It's a promise. Those that will experience them will only have two choices before them. May each and everyone make right choice. If it doesn't happen, the joke's on me, but if it does happen, the joke's on all of you that feel the urge to ridicule:
3 I will empower my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, dressed in sackcloth."
4 These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth.
5 If anyone wants to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and consumes their enemies; if anyone wants to harm them, he must be killed in this way.
6 These men have the power to close the sky so that it does not rain during the days of their prophecy. They also have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to strike the earth with any plague whenever they want.
18 The nations were angry, but Your wrath has come. The time has come for the dead to be judged, and to give the reward to Your servants the prophets, to the saints, and to those who fear Your name, both small and great, and the time has come to destroy those who destroy the earth. (Rev. 11:3-6, 18 CSBO
I am a fan of jokes, this is a classic, satire at its finest. Jokes on you, jokes on me, we are all winners with jokes like this.
If you have any more of these zingers, don't hold back on us.
Cofty: There is a little thing in every cell of every living thing on earth that is essential to life. It is slightly different in every species but the amazing thing is that the amount by which it is different is identical to what evolution would predict.
It is impossible for this to happen by chance - really, really impossible. Therefore evolution is true.
Is this a paradox or what? Is evolutionism not based on chance? If you really believe what you said here, our views are not so far from each other. I also believe that it is impossible for all of this to happen by chance. Anyway, I do believe the creation model explains the above satisfactorily.
There is no 100% “neutral” mutation. This is a misnomer, one of many. One should excuse the scientists. Not many linguists amongst them. Cf. Crick’s “central dogma of molecular biology.” Similar to Newton’s third law, in the nucleus of a cell every action would be having a reaction. The reaction might be minor or unnoticible. E.g., even then, it would be causing the genome to change and expand. In the end, multiple minor mutations would be detrimental to health of a cell. Since certain codons are less-used than others, the body does not produce as much tRNA for that specific codon. Protein synthesis would be slowed. On the long run, such so-called “neutral” mutations would be influencing the genome negatively. Summary: Even “neutral” mutations, compounded over time, could result in loss of the original specified use of the genetic code.
That brings me to “junk DNA.” There is no “junk DNA.” This is another misnomer. It should be called Noncoding DNA. Splice out all socalled “junk DNA” and the organism dies. Everything in the genome is interconnected. No part should be seen in isolation. Evolutionary scientists should be thanking creation scientist for insisting that every part of the genome has a purpose. The fact that nobody could work out the function of Noncoding DNA, doesn’t mean it has no function. According to ENCODE, they predict that over 80% of the genome is functional.
Stefan Schwarz has compiled the following arguments, of which I concur wholeheartedly.
1. There is no mechanism for evolution - mutations only cause deleterious effects.
Mutations cause cancer, deformities, ageing (in somatic cells) and other deleterious effects.
Even neutral mutations, compounded over time, result in loss of the original specified use of the genetic code.
This points to a more perfect genetic past.
Random mutations are not a mechanism that creates new, usable, specified, complex genetic information. They only add to, subtract from, or replace the original DNA with random changes.
There are many claims that beneficial mutations occur, from nylon digesting bacteria to citrate digesting bacteria. Under closer examination, these so-called mutations are repeatable in laboratory experiments where the same mutation occurs under similar situations....which shows that it is not a mutation, but an ability to adapt under certain environmental pressures. Further, none of the examples invent digestion or anything novel.
2. DNA Copying - chicken and the egg
DNA is copied using complex machines that can copy DNA forward and backwards in segments.
If evolution is true, this method of copying would have evolved.
Yet, evolution cannot occur according to the theory if there is no copying mechanism or no method of reproduction.
Therefore, DNA could not begin to evolve before it supposedly evolved a copying mechanism.
If the mechanism of copying slowly evolved, every generation would have to have at least one fully working copying mechanism for it to evolve, which presupposes that the thing evolving caused itself to evolve which is absurd. Something can not cause itself to exist before it exists!
Some will suggest self replicating pairs of RNA might have gotten the whole process going....and then evolved a programmed molecular machine that could copy DNA and then changed itself into DNA, all in one generation (the machine doesn't work without DNA or all the parts, or the parts of the DNA that have the instructions to create the DNA copying machines, and therefore could not incrementally work).
Many will say, "but evolution doesn't explain origins!" They are correct, if there is no way to get evolution started. Evolution, at minimum, supposes that the process could start on its own. No matter how much time you wait for something that is impossible to happen, it will be impossible for it to happen.
There are a few other arguments, such as the Cambrian explosion where the sudden appearance of most phyla (and broad genetic diversity) originates, the flawed presumptuous ad hoc dating methods used in geology, the impossibility of the evolution of gender, the logical contradictions inherent in the claims of evolution, the inexplicable commonality of convergent evolution among disparate phyla, and so on.
If someone has put all their faith in evolution, they will most likely reject these arguments. They are then left believing something that is absurd. Either the self-contradictory mechanism of unguided random mutations being intelligently directed or that something can create itself before it exists.
Is this a paradox or what? Is evolutionism not based on chance? - Vidqun
No. If you were not lying when you claimed to be a professional microbiologist you would not even ask that question.
The differences in sequence of cytochrome C between different species - caused by neutral mutations over millions of years - exactly reflects the evolutionary relationships we already knew from other fields.
The chances of this happening without evolution by natural selection being the reason is literally impossible. Therefore evolution is a fact.
our views are not so far from each other
They could not be more different.