creationism, where is the evidence???!!! i see none

A little something for the creationists:
youtube.com...
youtube.com...
youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
youtube.com...
youtube.com...

If you want to test the validity of evolution yourself through a simulation program like the one shown in the last link, free software is available through Michigan State University and the program is called "AVIDA".
avida-ed.msu.edu...
A simpler version called "AVIDA-ED" is compatible with most systems and can be downloaded from this site:
avida-ed.msu.edu...
A user manual for this software may be found here:
www.msu.edu/course/isb/202/ebertmay/2004/homepage/Avida-ED%20User%20Manual%20v1.2.pdf

Each pixel represents a microorganism on a plate (screen). The user can impose various mutation rates (randomly generated in the genomes of your digital organisms) and you can dictate which nutrients are to be made available as well. Separate mutation rates can be adjusted for the environment (simulating proximity to mutagenic factors as opposed to genome stability of each microbe). Gestation rates, metabolic rates, population growth, and fitness are all measured as the simulation is allowed to run. It is also possible for the user to dictate the dispersal patterns of progeny (near the parent or random migration). Additional constraints can be imposed on your bugs by limiting their population by "world size". Everything else you need to know is in the manual.

LONG LIVE EVOLUTION!

reply to post by apex


You're confusing adaptation with mutation. Were Europeans mutants because they'd adapted to the diseases that the South American Indians had no defense against?

By your reckoning, GT, we are all 'mutants'. Each of us have a hundred or so mutations at birth.

The vast majority of mutations are neither good nor bad. A few are bad (but most tend to be selected out quickly), and a few good.

ABE: after checking the original post, I see you appear to be suggesting that resistance to rat poison is not due to mutations...

Genetics, Vol. 170, 1839-1847, August 2005, Copyright © 2005
doi:10.1534/genetics.104.040360

The Genetic Basis of Resistance to Anticoagulants in Rodents
Hans-Joachim Pelz*,1, Simone Rost,1, Mirja Hünerberg, Andreas Fregin, Ann-Charlotte Heiberg, Kristof Baert, Alan D. MacNicoll**, Colin V. Prescott, Anne-Sophie Walker, Johannes Oldenburg and Clemens R. Müller,2

ABSTRACT

Anticoagulant compounds, i.e., derivatives of either 4-hydroxycoumarin (e.g., warfarin, bromadiolone) or indane-1,3-dione (e.g., diphacinone, chlorophacinone), have been in worldwide use as rodenticides for >50 years. These compounds inhibit blood coagulation by repression of the vitamin K reductase reaction (VKOR). Anticoagulant-resistant rodent populations have been reported from many countries and pose a considerable problem for pest control. Resistance is transmitted as an autosomal dominant trait although, until recently, the basic genetic mutation was unknown. Here, we report on the identification of eight different mutations in the VKORC1 gene in resistant laboratory strains of brown rats and house mice and in wild-caught brown rats from various locations in Europe with five of these mutations affecting only two amino acids (Tyr139Cys, Tyr139Ser, Tyr139Phe and Leu128Gln, Leu128Ser). By recombinant expression of VKORC1 constructs in HEK293 cells we demonstrate that mutations at Tyr139 confer resistance to warfarin at variable degrees while the other mutations, in addition, dramatically reduce VKOR activity. Our data strongly argue for at least seven independent mutation events in brown rats and two in mice. They suggest that mutations in VKORC1 are the genetic basis of anticoagulant resistance in wild populations of rodents, although the mutations alone do not explain all aspects of resistance that have been reported. We hypothesize that these mutations, apart from generating structural changes in the VKORC1 protein, may induce compensatory mechanisms to maintain blood clotting. Our findings provide the basis for a DNA-based field monitoring of anticoagulant resistance in rodents.

www.genetics.org...

So that's 8 different mutations of a single gene in rodents that protect against anti-coagulant pesticides.


[edit on 31-12-2007 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Just to introduce some balance melatonin, you did mention some favourable genetic mutations in humans but neglected to mention that the vast number of genetic mutations, by a mile, are deleterious:
Genetic Diseases

Moreover, although the Apo -AI Milano genetic variant is favourable against ischaemic heart disease, how does it spread through the human population by Natural Selection unless most people with heart disease die and these people are left to repopulate the Earth from a genetic bottleneck - a ridiculous scenario!

Anyway, the OP wanted some evidence for a Creationist event and someone mentioned the existence of DNA. I think this would be a central point of argument because of the sheer amount of information carried by DNA. Evolutionists start from the point of appearance of organisms, which is fair enough, but Creationists may define their starting point as the appearance of DNA. Of course, it would mean abandoning literal interpretations of the Scriptures and for people to consider the use of allegory, simile and metaphor.

Anyway, melatonin, I hope 2008 is better for you than 2007. Best wishes mate.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Just to introduce some balance melatonin, you did mention some favourable genetic mutations in humans but neglected to mention that the vast number of genetic mutations, by a mile, are deleterious:
Genetic Diseases

Most mutations are actually neutral.

Nachman & Crowell (2000)

Moreover, although the Apo -AI Milano genetic variant is favourable against ischaemic heart disease, how does it spread through the human population by Natural Selection unless most people with heart disease die and these people are left to repopulate the Earth from a genetic bottleneck - a ridiculous scenario!

I think the idea is that with such poor diets and sedate modern lifestyles, protection from the effects of high cholesterol will have positive benefits. Indeed, it is pretty easy to see that sugar-daddies with this gene might well be pumping out sprogs much longer than people without (well, they would if all was equal).

Anyway, melatonin, I hope 2008 is better for you than 2007. Best wishes mate.

And you too, also hope you had a great yule

Had radiohead bring in the new year with their webcast earlier. Sweet!

The biggest proof for creation is the complexity of life and the lack of evidence for evolution. It is very improbable and basically impossible for life to happen by chance. For example:

"There are 1,051,200,000,000,000 minutes in 2 billion years and there are 1,000,000,000,000,000 connections in the brain.. In order to evolve that many connections, evolution must produce by sheer accident approximately one organized, perfected, in place and fully functional connections every minute for 2 billion years* (the amount of time that evolutionary science claims for the existence of life)."

There is no proof for evolution beyond micro evolution which creationists don't have a problem with. Ex. dogs come from dogs, cats from cats, etc...
Evolution takes a religious leap of faith from saying micro evolution proves: macro evolution, organic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, and cosmic evolution, none of which have been proved or even observed.
Creation has never been disproven and for starters, just observing the complexity of life proves it.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

reply to post by ppkjjkpp


hahaha is that the best you have? do your homework!
first of all life first appeared 3.6 billion yrs ago.
as for brain connections - please tell me how u came up with this theory - i'm sure you have no idea how this works.
evolution has been observed many of times - it was actually just in the news the other day under the title evolution observed!
today just about every scientist agrees with evolution because of all the facts proof and evidence.
creationism on the other hand has been disproven so many times its unbelievable - yet the story is always changed to fit the evidence - how many times will your story change till it eventually fits evolution?
first you's say that dinosaurs neva exsisted then you change that then you's say that man and dinosaurs walked together at the same time?! dinosaurs 200 million yrs old - man 200 thousand yrs old.
so i ask again - is there any proof of creationism?
looks to me like there is none!

Originally posted by melatonin

Most mutations are actually neutral.

Nachman & Crowell (2000)

I take your assertion and agree with it to a point. However, the paper you cited is about the rate of mutation in pseudogenes and I would criticise that study because much of the change in pseudogene sequences may be neutral anyway.

Nevertheless the point at which I disagree is at the level of phenotype (features or characteristics). These humans can only affect the population or environment at the level of phenotype. The vast majority of phenotypic gemetic mutations in humans tend to affect health in a negative manner.

Another link

In fact one of the diseases - beta thalassaemia, is caused by a single base pair substitution:

A thalassemic beta-globin gene cloned from a haplotype I chromosome contains a T to G transversion at position 116 of IVS1 which results in the generation of an abnormal alternative acceptor splice site. Transient expression studies revealed a 4-fold decrease in the amount of RNA produced with greater than 99% of it being abnormally spliced despite preservation of the normal acceptor splice site at position 130. These results suggest that the mutation at IVS1 position 116 results in beta zero thalassemia.

Link

I think the idea is that with such poor diets and sedate modern lifestyles, protection from the effects of high cholesterol will have positive benefits. Indeed, it is pretty easy to see that sugar-daddies with this gene might well be pumping out sprogs much longer than people without (well, they would if all was equal).

Two points:

1. Is there an obvious link between cholesterol levels and heart disease. Some investigators disagree with this simple association, certainly in middle-aged men in London, if not elewhere:

Cholesterol levels controversy

2. To successfully spread this gene, the carriers of Apo AI Milano would have to be sexually active up to middle age and have a significant number of progeny. Europeans do not seem to fall into this categorisation.
Also, I think, from the paper, that this is a rare variant found in one family, so it is not widespread at the moment anyway.

Good to hear that Radiohead brought in the New Year for you. I had to be exposed to the TV Hogmanay celebrations with kilted men full of whiskey throwing themselves around a room shouting Wheeuch! and Och Aye! at each other to the accompaniment of the bagpipes - still, we can't all have everything can we?








[edit on 1/1/2008 by Heronumber0]

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
"There are 1,051,200,000,000,000 minutes in 2 billion years and there are 1,000,000,000,000,000 connections in the brain.. In order to evolve that many connections, evolution must produce by sheer accident approximately one organized, perfected, in place and fully functional connections every minute for 2 billion years*

What if we had 100,000 individuals all producing multiple connections in the brain at the same time with each generation? Creationists tend to have a very poor grasp of probability and statistics, along with evolutionary biology.

You are really talking about a single organism picking up a new connection each generation. Not at all like the real-world situation which has large populations evolving, swapping genes over time. Why would it only be one connection per generation? Why wouldn't a mutation occur that results in 1000 new neurons each producing 1000 new connections? Why not 1 billion new neurons each with 1000 new connections? What would stop this?

Indeed, it is estimated that other great apes have about about 7 billion neurons, humans have about 30 billion neurons. Thus we have almost a quadrupling in a few million years. We are already finding the genes underpinning this development.

Evolution of primary microcephaly genes and the enlargement of primate brains.
Curr Opin Genet Dev, 15(3):241-8.

Abstract
Brain size, in relation to body size, has varied markedly during the evolution of mammals. In particular, a large cerebral cortex is a feature that distinguishes humans from our fellow primates. Such anatomical changes must have a basis in genetic alterations, but the molecular processes involved have yet to be defined. However, recent advances from the cloning of two human disease genes promise to make inroads in this important area. Microcephalin (MCPH1) and Abnormal spindle-like microcephaly associated (ASPM) are genes mutated in primary microcephaly, a human neurodevelopmental disorder. In this 'atavistic' condition, brain size is reduced in volume to a size comparable with that of early hominids. Hence, it has been proposed that these genes evolved adaptively with increasing primate brain size. Subsequent studies have lent weight to this hypothesis by showing that both genes have undergone positive selection during great ape evolution. Further functional characterisation of their proteins will contribute to an understanding of the molecular and evolutionary processes that have determined human brain size.

Moroever, evolution is not 'sheer accident'. It wouldn't be an accident that a small nematode-like worm with 100 neurons might well be more successful than another individual with 50 neurons.

We can see the evolutionary progression of the brain just by comparing species, with phylogentically old regions being 'built' upon over time.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by melatonin]

You don't see the evidence eh? have you looked around? you should go see the show where they show the human body, it's a tour-museum type called bodies. the human body alone is all you need to know that there was a creator. it's like making a car, do you need to see someone build the car to know it was created? the same with the human body, it's perfect, it has organs that do different things, brain funtions. nerves. muscles. and it's all organic. Now please do you think that evolution can do that? no way..evolution can only change what has already been there..

reply to post by jedimiller


you can keep saying "but it's too complex" until the cows come home, but we have a method for that complexity to arise. mel described it and is quite knowledgeable on the subject.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
I take your assertion and agree with it to a point. However, the paper you cited is about the rate of mutation in pseudogenes and I would criticise that study because much of the change in pseudogene sequences may be neutral anyway.

I think this is just a method of assessing mutation rate. These areas are unconstrained, so are the best method of giving an estimate of the true rate of mutation in the genome. The 3 deleterious mutations is actually a bit higher than previous estimations.

In fact one of the diseases - beta thalassaemia, is caused by a single base pair substitution:

Aye, and being a mere carrier of these genes may actually be beneficial in particular environments. I don't doubt that people suffer from negative mutations, I actually stated this earlier. But the chances are very high that we all have numerous mutations in our genome, most being pretty innocuous - well I hope mine are...

1. Is there an obvious link between cholesterol levels and heart disease. Some investigators disagree with this simple association, certainly in middle-aged men in London, if not elewhere:

OK, I know some people question this, but are you saying that clogged arteries are nothing to worry about, and that protection against this is not beneficial? This is what this mutation appears to be protecting against. Moroever, I pointed out more than one mutation earlier, so I don't see what the point of this is, unless it's an obscuration. One study using an APO-milano derived therapy appeared to have positive effects.

The requirement was to point out beneficial mutations, I did so. even if you want to doubt the protection provided by APO-milano, others are still outstanding. Moreover, I can find more if need be.

2. To successfully spread this gene, the carriers of Apo AI Milano would have to be sexually active up to middle age and have a significant number of progeny. Europeans do not seem to fall into this categorisation.
Also, I think, from the paper, that this is a rare variant found in one family, so it is not widespread at the moment anyway.

Heh, if we have more males producing babies at age 40-60 (which they can) in one group of people, then over time, this would have an effect. And there are many men producing babies at this age, indeed, many people are holding off having sprogs until later in their lives (given mostly educated middle-class - you'd have to watch the film 'Idiocracy' to see how these genes may help - j/k). Moroever, the point earlier was to show a beneficial mutation, and this is generally accepted as being one, despite possible obscuration.

I had to be exposed to the TV Hogmanay celebrations with kilted men full of whiskey throwing themselves around a room shouting Wheeuch! and Och Aye! at each other to the accompaniment of the bagpipes - still, we can't all have everything can we?

Heh, sounds painful. If I'm at home, I tend to watch Jools Holland new year, but a nice surprise from RH this year.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Aye, and being a mere carrier of these genes may actually be beneficial in particular environments. I don't doubt that people suffer from negative mutations, I actually stated this earlier. But the chances are very high that we all have numerous mutations in our genome, most being pretty innocuous - well I hope mine are...

As I mentioned earlier, I am willing to agree that there are many neutral mutations in the genome (up to over a hundred mentioned by the paper) which may be neutral. However, we disagree at the point where a disease exerts an effect on the phenotype of the individual. That individual can be at a survival disadvantage, for example in cystic fibrosis or Huntington's disease. The important effect of mutations would be on their environment in terms of the spread of their genes to confer slective advantages on people. This is the purpose of mutation in a Darwinian sense surely?

OK, I know some people question this, but are you saying that clogged arteries are nothing to worry about, and that protection against this is not beneficial? This is what this mutation appears to be protecting against. Moroever, I pointed out more than one mutation earlier, so I don't see what the point of this is, unless it's an obscuration. One study using an APO-milano derived therapy appeared to have positive effects.

I am not trying to obscure or obfuscate. I am trying to make the point that sometimes a single base change in the DNA can lead to debilitating disease. Look, I cannot see the possible advantages of the vast number of genetic diseases to survival. My other main point which I would stress is that there are many more genetic diseases in humans with negative effects than those variations with positive effects.

As regards the cholesterol controversy - people with low cholesterol have shown to have relatively high rates of ischaemic heart disease. However, I believe that the ratio of HDL to LDL is much more important to survival, is it not? I did not get a chance to read the whole paper on APO milano so you can inform me if HDL and LDL ratios were taken into account.

The requirement was to point out beneficial mutations, I did so. even if you want to doubt the protection provided by APO-milano, others are still outstanding. Moreover, I can find more if need be.

I have found about 7 beneficial mutations but many more non-beneficial mutations as stated above.

I think, let's return to the OP at this point because DNA is so important. I think that Creationists looking at an empirically examinable molecule can point to DNA as a computer of information that can generate all living organisms due to its information carrying capacity. I would foresee future debates around this ubiquitous macromolecule.

Originally posted by GT100FV
reply to post by apex

 

You're confusing adaptation with mutation. Were Europeans mutants because they'd adapted to the diseases that the South American Indians had no defense against?

Is that so hard a concept? Being exposed to those viruses for a few hundred years or more, and people become immune to it and pass that on to the next generation. It's a mutation that causes an adaptation.

mutation

1. an alteration or change

wiktionary

The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One theory for the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People who had this mutation were able to survive infection thus its frequency in the population increased.

WIKI

[edit on 1-1-2008 by apex]

[edit on 1-1-2008 by apex]

Originally posted by Heronumber0
As I mentioned earlier, I am willing to agree that there are many neutral mutations in the genome (up to over a hundred mentioned by the paper) which may be neutral. However, we disagree at the point where a disease exerts an effect on the phenotype of the individual.

....

I am not trying to obscure or obfuscate. I am trying to make the point that sometimes a single base change in the DNA can lead to debilitating disease.

I don't really see the point of this at all, just seems more obfuscation, really. Sorry.

You now accept there are many neutral mutations, I originally said there are deleterious mutations, but that there are also positive. We appear to have come full circle back to what I said originally in response to DT.

Back to square one. It all rather seems a waste of bandwidth.

I did not get a chance to read the whole paper on APO milano so you can inform me if HDL and LDL ratios were taken into account.

Recombinant ApoA-I milano & atherosclerosis

Apo-milano reduces plaque in the arteries by 'mobilising' cholesterol. The therapy uses a synthetic version to induce the same process. They actually measured the direct effect on atherosclerosis. It doesn't really matter whatever process you want to invoke for atherosclerosis, Apo-milano reduces the risk of atherosclerosis, and a treatment that mimics its effects appears to ameliorate severe atherosclerosis. Therefore, it is a beneficial mutation, as it has apparent beneficial effects on health.

I have found about 7 beneficial mutations but many more non-beneficial mutations as stated above.

It's also likely that the negatives are more obvious than the positives.

OK, so now we are at the point of saying that negative mutations may be more numerous than positive. Probably. The point is, then, that negative mutations will tend to be more likely to be selected out. Indeed, it's likely that a good number of embryos with negative mutations don't even make it to birth, never mind adulthood.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by melatonin]

So good, posted twice.

Forum's been a bit iffy for a day or so, sooooooo slow.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by melatonin]

[edit on 1-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

www.rael.org...

Rael has the answer. Life wasn't created by a "God" per say, but was genetically designed and engineered by aliens. I buy into that more than "God" and evolution. Existing life should be thought of as "living art", designed for the sole purpose of pleasing those that created. We aren't there yet, but man will create man in his own "image" one day.

Originally posted by jedimiller
You don't see the evidence eh? have you looked around? you should go see the show where they show the human body, it's a tour-museum type called bodies. the human body alone is all you need to know that there was a creator. it's like making a car, do you need to see someone build the car to know it was created? the same with the human body, it's perfect, it has organs that do different things, brain funtions. nerves. muscles. and it's all organic. Now please do you think that evolution can do that? no way..evolution can only change what has already been there..

I think our genetic code has the ability to "adapt" to changes/triggers from the environment, but to "evolve" from a single cell into a full blown human is insane, in my opinion. The changes or evolution we see is nothing more than the learning process of the Elohim, as they began with creating simple things (single cell organisms), learning, tweaking, creating something a bit more complex, learning, tweaking, creating something a bit more complex, etc.

reply to post by melatonin


Mamista and melatonin,
Even if life did appear 3.6 billion years ago thats still a positive mutation occuring in a matter of minutes. Even in high school evolutionist textbooks it is stated that mutations happen in small incremental changes over the course of generations. You are talking about thousands of mutations per hour. We have not observed a single positive mutation with no side effects in humans for thousands of years even with vast populations. It is not unreasonable and improbable to say that such positive mutations happen today every minute so why would they happen so rapidly 3.6 billion years ago. Melatonin you are speaking of 'what if's' but you can't prove anything because evolution takes a giant leap of faith. This is why you evolutionists came up with punctuated equilibrium which is pure faith because it acknowledges that things could not have evolved so quickly over time and that they must have occured in giant leaps.
Evolution is based on nothing else besides sheer accident. Think even before micro evolution. Think about chemical, cosmic, stellar, macro and organic evolution, all evolution that you can't prove and that had to occur by sheer accident. Don't extrapolate micro evolution to the rest of evolution.
Mamista you say that creation has been changed to fit evidence. No it hasn't, the bible has always been the same. Creationists never said that dinasaurs didn't existed.
How many times has evolution changed their story. In Darwin's time life originated 100 000 years ago, then it was several million, then 2 billion and now according to you 3.6 billion.


[edit on 1-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]