It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by BlackJackal
noctu,
The HIV virus has not mutated. The HIV virus is becoming tolerant of the drugs the same way that you and I would become tollerent of a poison if we were administered it daily for a long while.
Something for you to read on Beneficial Mutations.
www.icr.org...
[Edited on 27-5-2004 by BlackJackal]
Originally posted by TenPin
Heh, I know that mutations can't make it from molecules to man either but not a single evolutionist has ever been convinced otherwise.
Often the claim is made in biology classes that evolution has been observed in certain microbes-germs that over time have developed a resistance to antibiotics. For instance, penicillin is generally now less effective than before. Stronger and more focused drugs have been developed, each with initial benefits, but which must continue to be replaced with something stronger. Now, "super germs" defy treatment.
One might ask, have these single-celled germs "evolved"? And does this prove that single-celled organisms evolved into plants and people?
As is frequently the case, we must first distinguish between variation, adaptation, and recombination of existing traits (i.e., microevolution) and the appearance of new and different genes, body parts, and traits (i.e., macroevolution). Does this acquired resistance to antibiotics, this population shift, this dominant exhibition of a previously minority trait point to macroevolution? Since each species of germ remained that same species and nothing new was produced, the answer is no!
Originally posted by amantine
They got a new function, a new enzyme (the original one was deleted). This happened without the enzyme being formed from scratch, because it was a mutated enzyme that originally didn't work or coded for another enzyme.
Originally posted by BlackJackal
Byrd this is for you, Incidentally, the ICR biologists received their degrees from reputable universities, such as Harvard (Dr. Cumming), University of California, Berkeley (Gish and Scripture), UCLA (Franks), Ball State University (Parker), Texas A & M. (Thompson), Brown University (Mastropaolo), and others. You may find this information on there webpage at
www.icr.org...
Originally posted by BlackJackal
Let me start by saying I recognizes that mutations do exist, and that certain bacteria and viruses become resistant to treatments. However, no scientist in the listings you provide can give examples of any mutation that produces a net increase in genetic information....
Originally posted by BlackJackal
Even though deletious mutations can prove to be beneficial it does nothing to help evolutions case. Evolution is based upon a very simple organism evolving into a more complex organism.
Originally posted by Byrd
But not with one gene tweak. With a bunch of them. And you're assuming that the DNA is not full of garbage DNA.
If you thought we had explored all the important parts of our genome, think again. Scientists are puzzling over a collection of mystery DNA segments that seem to be essential to the survival of virtually all vertebrates. But their function is completely unknown.
The segments, dubbed 'ultraconserved elements', lie in the large parts of the genome that do not code for any protein. Their presence adds to growing evidence that the importance of these areas, often dismissed as junk DNA, could be much more fundamental than anyone suspected.
Some studies have found that noncoding DNA plays a vital role in the regulation of gene expression during development
Over 700 studies have demonstrated the role of non-coding DNA as enhancers for transcription of proximal genes.
The idea that a major part of our DNA is "garbage" ignored the fact that a key feature of biological organisms is optimal energy expenditure. To carry enormous amounts of unnecessary molecules is contrary to this fundamental energy saving feature of biological organisms. Increasing evidence are now indicating many important functions of this DNA, including various regulatory roles. This means that this so-called non-coding DNA influences the behavior of the genes, the "coding DNA", in important ways. Still there is very little knowledge about the relationship between non-coding DNA and the DNA of genes. This adds to other factors making it impossible to foresee and control the effect of artificial insertion of foreign genes.
Originally posted by The Astral City
1: Positive mutations HAVE in fact occured, a well known one is the super-rat in NYC. These mutated rats have grown up to 30% in size, become markedly more voratious and evolved resistances to many poisons. This took place through generations of rats and proved the theory of survival of the fit.
2: Evolution was never ment to describe the original creation of life on earth, it does not explain how "humans came from rocks" and was never ment to. Also, a growing number of scientists now believe that life did not originate on Earth, instead out single-celled ancestors came on an asteroid.
3: Micro-evolution DOES prove macro-evolution. What is macro-evolution except a series of smaller mutations that are described by micro-evolution.
4: You are not guilty of blaspheming for believing in evolution! The Catholic Church has come out in support of evolution and it is in every textbook of every Jesuit university on earth.