New Mutation Variables Disprove Evolution !

I give you the animals of Chernobyl.

So in 1986 Cheynobyl had a cataclysmic radiation event, what followed was the death and mutations of animals in the region.

It seems 33 years later and despite large scale mutations the animal populations are stabilizing, even prospering.
So what happened, the badly effected just died, but those that got dosed just enough to mutate but not die did not pass there exact mutations onto the next generation, the damaged DNA was either too damaged to pass to the next generation as in they couldn't reproduce. Or in succeeding generations it self-corrected. So you might get bigger catfish but they are still catfish.

This was a long term mutation test in the wild that reminds us of the old fruit fly tests from last century, no matter what mutations have been unable to unlock the DNA/RNA codes to make major changes that stay permanent.

Mutations do not support evolution, and the animals of Chernobyl prove that.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Sounds like adaptation due to the environment, which is evolution.

Underwerks is correct.

This in no way disproves evolution.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

You hypothesize, but i see little of the evidence to support your claim.
Good for you for trying though.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Radiation does not cause evolution.

On to the next inane theory.

a reply to: underwerks

Adaptation is a form of evolution, but we both know it is not the kind OP is talking about. Micro vs macro evolution.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

I do not endorse the OP since I have not looked into it, but you misstate his post.

His post states that mutations are not causing evolution.

Adaption has and always will be a benefit for all of plant and animal life. The million dollar question is does that lead to one kind turning in to another kind? Sorry to say to the op, but adaption does not prove nor disprove evolution...

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Radiation does not cause evolution.

On to the next inane theory.

Actually you're wrong.

It has long been theorized that cosmic radiation has played a significant role in the evolution of species and much research has been conducted on this theory.

Google "evolution cosmic radiation" for 6.7 million results discussing this topic in depth.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Sounds like adaptation due to the environment, which is evolution.

Incorrect, the process he is describing is not adaptation per se.

He is discussing DNA repair functions over a period of several generations.

DNA repair is a collection of processes by which a cell identifies and corrects damage to the DNA molecules that encode its genome.[1] In human cells, both normal metabolic activities and environmental factors such as radiation can cause DNA damage, resulting in as many as 1 million individual molecular lesions per cell per day.[2] Many of these lesions cause structural damage to the DNA molecule and can alter or eliminate the cell's ability to transcribe the gene that the affected DNA encodes. Other lesions induce potentially harmful mutations in the cell's genome, which affect the survival of its daughter cells after it undergoes mitosis. As a consequence, the DNA repair process is constantly active as it responds to damage in the DNA structure. When normal repair processes fail, and when cellular apoptosis does not occur, irreparable DNA damage may occur, including double-strand breaks and DNA crosslinkages (interstrand crosslinks or ICLs).[3][4]

Specifically his point is that the Genome of a creature will either be completely destroyed beyond repair or that it will actually repair itself over a period of time.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Ksihkehe

I do not endorse the OP since I have not looked into it, but you misstate his post.

His post states that mutations are not causing evolution.

Correct, that is what the OP is saying (that mutations are not being shown in the real world to lead to evolution of the species into new species).

And in terms of verifiable evidence, we have not yet seen the emergence of new species despite many factors that ought to have hypothetically contributed to it according to our theories. It is still theoretically plausible but we need evidence and to gain a much better understanding of what's going on.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
I give you the animals of Chernobyl.

So in 1986 Cheynobyl had a cataclysmic radiation event, what followed was the death and mutations of animals in the region.

It seems 33 years later and despite large scale mutations the animal populations are stabilizing, even prospering.
So what happened, the badly effected just died, but those that got dosed just enough to mutate but not die did not pass there exact mutations onto the next generation, the damaged DNA was either too damaged to pass to the next generation as in they couldn't reproduce. Or in succeeding generations it self-corrected. So you might get bigger catfish but they are still catfish.

This was a long term mutation test in the wild that reminds us of the old fruit fly tests from last century, no matter what mutations have been unable to unlock the DNA/RNA codes to make major changes that stay permanent.

Mutations do not support evolution, and the animals of Chernobyl prove that.

30 year or so is not "long term test" in any possible way, for something like evolution

The animals adapted to the environment, but the environment did not change much other than having radiation levels beyond normal, do you see weird food or giant animal eating plants or something that would cause animals to develop wings or other stuff like that?

Also even some people continue to live around Chernobyl and they are not developing 3 eyes so far because that's not how evolution works, at all

Also damaged DNA seems programmed to abort damaged mutations to stop further change with
cell suicide, also known as apoptosis or programmed cell death.

It seems DNA is very good at stopping evolution, it's like computer code it either works as intended or not at all if something corrupts it enough.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

So was this just a poorly named thread or a backfire?

Stating DNA can stop evolution implies that it obviously happens

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

So what I am hearing is that radiation caused mutations and the mutations failed to enforce adaptation, rather the mutations succumbed to the existing structures. Sounds like the opposite of evolution

Humankind supposedly lost their fur during the Ice Age whereas most animals retained their "changing" of fur due to the seasons.
Was this evolution ?
Or a rampant gene caused by some form of radiation ?
The question has yet to be answered definitively .
Remember , evolution is defined as a natural progression .

a reply to: onthedownlow

I think you are looking at it wrong. Mutations don't "force" adaptations. The idea behind evolution is that those creatures with a mutation that makes survival easier, survive and pass on their genes, including what ever mutation made it easier for them to survive.

That also swings the other way, if a creature has a mutation that makes it harder for them to survive, they die without being able to pass of their genes.

It isn't the mutations that force anything it is the habitat which filters who prospers and who dies off.

a reply to: daskakik

It isn't the mutations that force anything it is the habitat which filters who prospers and who dies off.

Semantics, the mutations are caused by a habitat/environment condition in this case radiation. Do we have any examples were mutations caused a permanent change to a species and it positively benefited the organism, because every picture I have ever seen shows deformities that hinder rather than help the animal.

This is a 3 minute informative video, it seems human occupation is more dangerous to the animal population than high doses of radiation, and that is sad and ironic.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Once again you show a complete lack of understanding of the things your trying to disprove.

House mice repeatedly exposed to poison have adapted and are now immune to many poisons.
www.bbc.com...

Mouse poison hasn’t been around for long. Longer then Chernobyl however.
a reply to: Blue_Jay33