New study provides first evidence of non-random mutations in DNA

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: neoholographic

Did you even watch the video?

Yes, I did.

Natural selection is blind and random

Did you?

Nothing is 'random' in evolution, it happens for a reason, the mutations are a result of the driving forces that lead up to that mutation, it might seem random, but it's all a song and dance sort of speak.

Of course you're going to say that nothing is random in evolution because you realize how asinine that sounds but it is random and blind. It has no purpose or direction.

Show me the paper that shows the purpose and direction in evolution.

It's random. This is why Darwin was looking for INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES!

“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” ― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

I truly don't think you guys understand the theory you blindly believe. Why did Darwin expect to see these INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES?

It's because a natural interpretation of evolution is random and it has no purpose or direction.

For instance:

A natural interperpretation says when Malaria spreads throughout the population, this triggers random, blind mutations. There should be INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES in the fossil record or in the genome where we see Leucine mutating into Histidine or Histidine mutating into Valine. Then natural selection would select the trait Glutamic Acid to Valine because it best helped the organism survive in a malaria rich environment.

A BLIND, RANDOM PROCESS!

This is a natural interpretation of evolution. What do we see?

There's no evolution needed just a change in the code at the exact point needed to respond to the change in the environment. This is design! When x(malaria) occurs then y(a mutation) occurs at a specific point that gives carriers of malaria a protective advantage. Where's the evolution of information?

You don't understand the fantasy you believe in. What's natural selection selecting if this isn't the case????

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: TzarChasm

Natural selection makes perfect sense when you know what 'natural' meant back in Darwin's day. It's a more of a grandfathered term that has been abused by creationists and contorted in all sorts of ways that it lost it's meaning.

The term "selection" does imply a degree of intent which is absent in evolution. The only intent is to survive. Apparently plants that developed a moderating function in their genome survived better, for obvious reasons. But this is why 20th century language is important for such discussions because outmoded terminology carries baggage that confuses people.

which gene is responsible for the opposable thumb?

asking for a friend . . . man's best friend.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You said:

The only intent is to survive.

This points to intelligence. The only intent isn't to survive, it's to adapt to survive. Again, this points to intelligence.

When it's cold outside, I intelligently adapt to the environment by sleeping under the covers and turning up the heat. When it's hot outside, I turn on the air condition and I don't sleep under the covers. I use my intelligence to adapt to the environment.

This is what we see in evolution. This is why we see so many extremophiles.

We're Designed to adapt to different environments and that's how we survive through reproduction.

What you and others don't want to accept is the absurdity of a natural interpretation of evolution so you try to minimize the importance of mutations to a natural interpretation of evolution.

This is an important point because this is what natural selection is selecting. Darwin expected to see INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES because evolution is random and has no direction or purpose.

So a bunch of traits, INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES reach the environment via random mutations and natural selection "selects" which traits populate the environment based on the traits that survive best in the environment via reproduction.

Let me repeat:

So a bunch of traits, INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES reach the environment via random mutations and natural selection "selects" which traits populate the environment based on the traits that survive best in the environment via reproduction.

If this isn't the case, what is natural selection selecting?

If a natural interpretation of evolution isn't driven by random, blind mutations then how does the organism know where in the genome to mutate to create the exact trait needed for the species to survive in the environment?

Answer the question please.......

The explanation lies indeed.

a reply to: neoholographic

a reply to: neoholographic

There is no need to prove that god created everything, especially to those who are not looking and won't see.

We need to just put our faith in him and soon everything in the dark will be seen in the light. The truth of everything will be clear.
We need to pray for those who are not seeing to have their eyes opened and a seed planted and watered.
We need to love them all because our creator loves them all and Jesus died for us all.

You said

The Designer put in place error correction and proofreading that allows us to evolve and not be overrun with copying errors. We would simply die out.

So your evidence of intelligence design is there is not a world overrun with copying errors is they don't exists
rather than the reason for the world not being overrun by copying errors is because the copying errors simply die out.

Puzzled - there are plenty of copying errors in existence the issue being what is classed as error?
Would a "Species DNA" be classed as an error if the DNA from the reproduction process of that species didn't reproduce a similar offspring?

a reply to: neoholographic

This points to intelligence. The only intent isn't to survive, it's to adapt to survive. Again, this points to intelligence.

Intelligence implies a decision making process. Survival is an instinct. A man lost in the desert will eat lizards and spiders. A man in a restaurant will recoil if you serve him a freshly dismembered snake on a plate. One is "rationalizing", the other isn't. One is making decisions and the other isn't.

If a natural interpretation of evolution isn't driven by random, blind mutations then how does the organism know where in the genome to mutate to create the exact trait needed for the species to survive in the environment?

It either survives, or doesn't. Those who survive contribute their mutations to the gene pool assuming the reproductive cycle continues for several generations. Enough contributions from "germline inheritance" (mutations that can be passed from parent to progeny) will eventually produce a new species. That new species may or may not be suitable to sustain or protect itself in a given environment. The mutations may or may not be helpful the way spinning rims or shatter resistant glass may or may not be helpful in a car that one happens to find abandoned on a road in some hypothetical dystopian wasteland. Unlike the vehicle manufacturing facility, those mutations aren't being engineered or "selected" the way you seem to be interpreting the phrase "natural selection".

a reply to: neoholographic

Check this out
90% of all animals appeared at the same time new study shows.

Intelligent design. Adaption and evolution occurs, but they were created. Human dna is older than earth. Pretty much settles it.
Human dna older than earth

a reply to: KorosStrohna

From the source study linked in the article:

Modern humans are a low-average animal species in terms of the APD. The molecu-
lar clock as a heuristic marks 1% sequence divergence per million years which is consis-
tent with evidence for a clonal stage of human mitochondria between 100,000- 200,000
years ago and the 0.1% APD found in the modern human population [34, 155, 156]. A
conjunction of factors could bring about the same result. However, one should not as a first impulse seek a complex and multifaceted explanation for one of the clearest, most
data rich and general facts in all of evolution. The simple hypothesis is that the same
explanation offered for the sequence variation found among modern humans applies
equally to the modern populations of essentially all other animal species. Namely that the extant population, no matter what its current size or similarity to fossils of any age,
has expanded from mitochondrial uniformity within the past 200,000 years. Nonhuman animals, as well as bacteria and yeast, are often considered “model sys-
tems” whose results can be extrapolated to humans. The direction of inference is re-
versible. Fossil evidence for mammalian evolution in Africa implies that most species
started with small founding populations and later expanded [157] and sequence analysis
has been interpreted to suggest that the last ice age created widespread conditions for a
subsequent expansion [158]. The characteristics of contemporary mitochondrial variance may represent a rare snapshot of animal life evolving during a special period. Al-
ternatively, the similarity in variance within species could be a sign or a consequence of
coevolution [159].

The "complex and multifaceted explanation" referred to is obviously a supernatural conclusion, which is neither the simplest nor the cleverest deduction at hand as the study clearly proposes.

We are evolving and it could be the genetic tampering from the custodians

They have shown that mutations are not random years ago even in human genetics. Epigenetics changes when necessary with the environment. Some salt water fish can go into freshwater and barely survive then their genetics is altered in the genes of the eggs and the gills work in freshwater the next generation. This can also be reversed when needed.

Just because they teach the BS in high school and college does not mean it is real. When you get in to the research it shows that mutations are not random many times. Even the beaks of a bird changing because of overpopulation so they can eat different foods is not random, the resulting bird is not the same genetically anymore and since it happens often within the species when the food is scarce, it shows it is not random.

originally posted by: KorosStrohna
a reply to: neoholographic

Check this out
90% of all animals appeared at the same time new study shows.

Intelligent design. Adaption and evolution occurs, but they were created. Human dna is older than earth. Pretty much settles it.
Human dna older than earth

Thanks for the links to the studies! Very interesting stuff.

Like you said, ID, adaptation and evolution occur but it was Created and Designed by intelligence. That's why I say there's a natural interpretation of evolution and an intelligent design interpretation of evolution.

A natural interpretation of evolution is pure fiction. It's a fantasy. The only reason it's pushed is because atheist and materialisr use it to support their belief.

Like I said earlier, the fact that random mutations have nothing to do with adaptations destroys evolution.

Darwin's theory called for INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES reaching the environment. These INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES are driven by random mutations. Some of these INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES just happen to help the species survive in the environment.These species populate the environment via reproduction.

This is at the heart of a natural interpretation of evolution and there's not a shred of evidence to support it in the fossil record or the genome.

There isn't any evidence of species accidently adapting to their environment by random dumb luck. There isn't any evidence of these adaptations competing with other INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES and surving better in the environment than all of the other random mutations that have reached the environment.

This is a fantasy and a work of fiction but Darwin had no idea about the supercomputer in DNA. It's people today that sadly keep the lie alive.

What we see in the fossil record and the genome is a species need x traits to survive in an environment and x traits evolve. It's a one to one correspondence down to a point mutation.

Think about that! DNA has 3 billion base pairs and when a species is in a malaria rich environment, a point mutation occurs that gives the species protection against malaria so it can survive.

A natural interpretation saysMalaria triggers random mutations and just by dumb luck not by any purpose or direction the exact trait needed reaches the environment but Darwin said the single point mutation reaches the environment with a bunch of other mutations or INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES. Nature just "selects" via reproduction that trait that best helps the species survive which in this case would be Glutamic Acid and Valine.

“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” ― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

This is a work of fiction though that put's J.R.R. Tolkien to shame.

There's no evidence of this in the fossil record or the genome.

What we see is species adapting the traits they need to survive. We're taught this in Junior High science class. They teach species adapt to their environment.

This is clear intelligent design. It's like a thermostat in your house. It's set at 80 degrees and intelligence designed it to respond to the environment. So when it drops below 80 degrees, the heater clicks on.

We see this design with evolution. A species need x traits to survive in the environment then x traits evolve. It's a one to one correspondence. There's no INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES or random mutations involved in any way!

originally posted by: rickymouse.

Just because they teach the BS in high school and college does not mean it is real.

Exactly!

Just think about this, for a natural interpretation to be true, it means that all of the information in the genome for these adaptations down to extremophiles, just happened to be available every time species need to adapt down to point mutations and molecular machines with 10, 20 or 100 different parts!

This is pure fiction and fantasy.

Where did all of this information come from and why did it appear at the right times when the species needed it to survive?

It's asinine.

It's like I have a magic piece of paper that responds to my needs at the exact times I needed to respond.

So I'm hungry, this magical paper changes color and the directions to Subway just appear on my paper. I then need a computer, my magic paper mutates and changes colors and the directions to Best Buy just appear on my paper.

This is a natural interpretation of evolution.

It says you have these genomes that are blank slates like the piece of paper. They contain no information. Then something magical happens. Environmental pressures causes random mutations to occur and Viola!, there's information that appears that triggers the modular machinary in the cell to create this new trait that the species just needed to survive in the environment.

I can't believe that people buy this nonsense but I understand why they do. It's because they' us it to support their belief system.

Think of all the species down to extremophiles that evolved the right traits needed to survive in an environment. Think of all the molecular machinary made up of 20, 30 or 100 different parts that are the right size, shape and come together at the right angles to build machines to carry out specific tasks.

Now think, none of this information existed before random mutations!!!! IT STRAINS CREDULITY!!!

How can anyone believe this nonsense!

All of this information just happened to appear when needed for a species to survive and there was NO INFORMATION before the random mutation? I can't believe I'm debating something so illogical!

This information just poofs into existence after random mutations and somehow, the machinery knows how to read this information during transcription and translation and somehow, this new, never before seen information is known and a polypeptide chain is formed. How could the machinery read information that never existed until random mutations occurred????

a reply to: TzarChasm

The term "selection" does imply a degree of intent which is absent in evolution

Sexual selection for example doesn't exist? The intent is quite clear in that driving force. There's several driving forces in evolution, the overall goal I guess is survival.

a reply to: neoholographic

No paper will change your mind st this point.
There is no purpose or intent or forethought in evolution, it just works itself out sort of speak.

The mutations that people say are random, happen so often and so fast they seem random but when it falls into place, yes it seems like there was an intent for that mutation to move forward and benefit that genetic pool, and move forward. Its about the frequency of mutations, and what lead up to that point, which is not random.
And if, let's say a certain male bird attracts 10x more females to than another male bird of the same species who only attracts 5x female birds, which gene pool has a greater chance to send off one of their beneficial genetic markers?

Nothing supernatural about it, no intent behind it from an original design, it's just the flow of natural selection.

This is just a lie. Mutations drive evolution and they're blind, random and without purpose. This is the fantasy of a natural interpretation of evolution. This isn't from the pre 60's. Here's an article from 2011 from nature.

a reply to: neoholographic

Well not exactly people often mix the two together. The main difference between evolution and mutation is that evolution is the process responsible for the descending of the modern organisms from ancient organisms over time whereas a mutation is a heritable change in the nucleotide sequence of the genome. Furthermore, evolution is responsible for producing organisms that are more suitable for the environment while mutation is the first step of evolution. However, doesnt mean its the only way organisms adapt. For example, if we continue to pollute the atmosphere it will favor light skinned people they will e in better health and no mutation is required.

Now the other thing is if a mutation is beneficial it will survive if not it is quickly removed from the genome. All DNA will attempt to repair itself living organisms are continuously exposed to a myriad of DNA damaging agents that can impact health and modulate disease-states. However, robust DNA repair and damage-bypass mechanisms faithfully protect the DNA by either removing or tolerating the damage to ensure an overall survival.

There is at least 5 pathways for DNA repair, The five major DNA repair pathways—base excision repair (BER), nucleotide excision repair (NER), mismatch repair (MMR), homologous recombination (HR) and non-homologous end joining (NHEJ).

Evolution is the process of producing modern organisms from earlier organisms over time. The main importance of evolution is that it helps to produce an organism that best fits the environment. On the other hand, a mutation is a heritable change in the nucleotide sequence of the genome. It allows the production of new phenotypes driving the organism to evolution. Therefore, the main difference between evolution and mutation is their effect.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: TzarChasm

The term "selection" does imply a degree of intent which is absent in evolution

Sexual selection for example doesn't exist? The intent is quite clear in that driving force. There's several driving forces in evolution, the overall goal I guess is survival.

You are correct there are several factors that cause evolution. Mutation is just one of them but I don't think he gets that.

a reply to: neoholographic

And the old statement, if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys. I am in cyber and to me DNA is a programming language. Only the octopus has a different type of dna. So, you can program any lifeform with dna if you understand the code. Obviously a code we are becomming more aware of how it functions. I never liked biology, went toward engineering physics, and chemistry. But, it looks to me to be a designed system. It is also becomming apparent that archaeology is facing some serious challenges to their storyline. I am older, I have seen the ice age coming to warming coming to climate change hysteria when neither of those predictions worked out. Science has laws, but it also has a lot of theories and too many people take them as fact.
Thanks for all your informatikn. Very interesting.