It sounds like you are saying that there must be a greater number of beneficial mutations to arise than harmful mutations in order for us to evolve and (as is often the case) to increase in complexity. Please correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation.

Spontaneous beneficial mutations could be vastly outnumbered by harmful mutations and still be more predominant overall simply because harmful mutations are weeded out of the population faster. For example, harmful mutations that make you infertile, dead, sickly, etc are quickly selected out of the gene pool because they don't get passed on. Beneficial mutations, such as ones that make you stronger, healther, or attractive, are more likely to be passed on generation after generation.


You seem to equate the number of genes an organism has with its complexity. This is simply not the case. For example, humans have about half the genes that rice does.

I applaud you for accepting the evidence that beneficial mutations occur. There are many types of mutations, some of which result in an increase in genetic material, and since you understand that beneficial mutations do happen I don't think I understand what your argument here is exactly.

Thanks for hearing what I have to say and trying to understand.

I agree that increased DNA length does not always relate to complexity.

My point is that evolution requires that the number of useful functional genes increases, because even though there is no exact correlation between DNA gene size and complexity of an organism, it is impossible for higher life-forms (eg hominids) to exist with the number of genes found in basic bacteria (about 1000 genes).

So evolution has to involve additions of useful functional genes that become a part of the standard chromosomal pattern of that organism. This is unobserved in reality.

What do you mean by this, becuase we have shown you examples.

I am also trying to understand what you mean here. I am guessing you mean we do not have examples of bacteria evolving into a higher life form.

I think this is correct for two good reasons. 1) Time scale, really we have only been at this game of understanding evolution for a VERY short period of time compared to the lengths of time things have been evolving and tend to change at a evolutionary pace (bacteria also do not create fossils). 2) is that the state of life on earth is already higher evolved, and there are very few open niches for a species to form. The environment, which includes all competitors must provide support for new mutations, and if a given niche for an organism is very successful then there is little pressure for change to occur. We see this often, sharks are a good example.

I have been reading over this site the last few days, not sure of how accurate, but it seems plausible, and I thought Id share.

http://www.see.org/garcia/e-ct-2.htm

Edit: however this is exactly what I meant when I said it would be best to speak with a real evolutionary biologist, becuase trying to understand early evolution and the pathways to animals is probably one of the most complex and specialized areas of evolution.

I think I have been 100% consistently clear. Its not that we need evidence of bacteria evolving into a higher life form, we just need evidence of a mutation that just adds ONE FAVORABLE GENE. If this can be seen to be possible in nature, then evolution becomes viable over time as a possibility.We do see evidence of the loss of just one gene becoming useful, but not the gain becoming useful. These gains are always damaging or neutral.

You get various types of mutations, here's some examples:

Destruction of genes/chromosomes (a gene fails to function, or is lost)
You get duplication of genes/chromosomes
You get insertions of genes

Can insertions of active genes be beneficial? Yes in a laboratory, but not in nature.

There is a boundary. You seem to continuously miss my point. The boundary is the number of existing good genes. You cannot increase them, that is the boundary. You can throw in virusses, but these are recognisable as virusses, you cannot increase the number of non-viral good genes. And yet according to evolution the number of non-viral good genes has increased from single cell short DNA organisms to large complex organisms. HOW?

(ps I thought I was being over-repetitive on my point, but now I realise that people still haven't got my point, and so I'm glad I'm being repetitive, and I will repeat myself one more time , I am referring to ACTIVE ADDED GENES, not any old beneficial mutation)

I often hear creationists demand evidence of bacteria being observed to evolve into a higher life form and I chuckle every time since that would be evidence against evolution, not for it. I don't think that's what you were doing, just making an observation.

Andrew Lenski, a staunch creationist who spends his entire life lying about evolution and promoting creationism, wrote a paper that explained that an addition mutation in E coli increased its fitness in certain environments (mainly, in maltose). He of course spun it in a way where the evidence for evolution sounds like evidence against it. Its not like his audience is very discerning or knowledgeable after all. But still, even creationists admit that addition mutations can be beneficial.

Speaking of E coli, an insertion mutation was observed to allow it to utilize salicin in another experiment as well.

Not that it should matter. A beneficial mutation of any kind makes the idea of creationism look pretty silly.

According to you there is no boundary because you already realize that beneficial mutations (which result in an increase in 'good' genes) does happen.

Actually I wouldn't call it DNA (which is double-stranded) since it more likely began as single-strand genetic material. But I digress.

Simply put, mutations + natural selection + time = evolution. That's how.
Asking for added genes but denying beneficial mutations is like asking someone to add 2+2 together and denying the answer 4.

The rungs of the DNA 'ladder' are made of 4 different bases - these are often abbreviated as the letters A,C,G, and T. The arrangement of these 4 letters determines our genes. Changes (mutations) are often made in this sequence and these changes in sequence changes our genes. So new genes does not require the appearance of new structures or materials, the reality is it merely requires a change in sequence - and this happens all the time. We are born with 100+ mutations and acquire more over our lifetime. Therefore, new genes are produced all the time. 'New genes' have made certain peoples muscles stronger, reduced fat, or provided high cholesterol tolerance. New genes have provided resistance to AIDS. New genes enabled flavobacterium to digest nylon and apple maggots to digest apples (they used to eat hawthorn).

As for how your simple cell acquired a greater amount of genetic material, I think you already accept that mutations can result in increased amount of DNA so what's the problem?

. . . of course not it makes no sense. As has been explained over and over.

Good post rockondon and thank you for participating.

LOL you still not getting it! You highlight this fact when you emphasize that a gene can change its form through changes in the four bases. This does not add a gene to the genome. And I explained it so carefully and its such a simple concept. Most beneficial mutations having nothing to do with added genes. They involve destroyed genes.

I tried to find your example of e coli fitness and can't find any evidence, have you got any links etc where we can see if its an added gene or alternatively an inactive gene that causes the increased fitness?

Beneficial mutations do not contradict creationism in any manner, even increased genes that benefit an organism would not contradict creationism, they would merely provide some evidence for evolution, which is currently lacking.

Where is the evidence for an added beneficial gene ? You quoted a creationist source of all sources , and the only articles I can find on that subject show the survival of a mutated organism with one less functional gene than the original, not one more.




I said no such thing! Misrepresentation!!! LOL
( a misrepresentation is not very good because then you end up arguing against strawmen)

You seem to assume that beneficial mutations involve increased genes, in fact they normally involved reduced functionality of genes as per the 3 examples mentioned earlier in the thread (blue eyes, malaria etc). I acknowledged beneficial mutations, but they do not involve an increase in good genes as you incorrectly added. Because you guys are failing to give me examples of the addition of non-retroviral "good genes", it makes the theory of evolution appear to be unsupported by the evidence.

I have been trying to find this "Andrew Lenski"

All I can find is a Richard Lenski who is a committed evolutionist, not a creationist, and incidentally also an expert in E coli. Any links please?

I think your answer isn't genes it's cells.Cells create what we are our arms and legs etc.Even a Amoeboe can create it's own tentacle using cells.It's not nessary for new genes it's the information sent from a gene through protien to let the cells do what they do.The information in one gene can send the message to create arms,legs another gene is for the brain,nerves,so the cells do all the work(these ar just examples not facts).As for 32,000 compared to 1,000 it's seem some single cell organisms joined and their genes started sending the messages and so then bigger life forms began

I think you're right. Thank you for the correction; it was late and I was reading something by Dembski, a creationist, whom was commenting on Lenski's work and I mixed up the names Lenski and Dembski.

Of course it does. The creation of new genes is not the creation of new genes? That's news to me.

And this would be relevant..how?
Implicitly, you just admitted that some beneficial mutations are due to added genes.
The most common way of adding new genes appears to be gene duplication.

In fact, here is an article you can check out - it discusses how new genes are created via gene duplication, transposable element protein domestication, lateral gene transfer, gene fusion, gene fission, and de novo origination.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/origins-of-new-genes-and-pseudogenes-835

You couldn't find it? Strange.
Here's his paper on pubmed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11572987
You don't need to buy it though, the abstract says enough: "In this study, we measured the fitness in four environments of 26 genotypes of Escherichia coli, each containing a single random insertion mutation...Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose..." etc.

Beneficial mutations reveal that biological systems were not fully developed. They also reveal that a creator is not required for change to occur.
And natural selection is self evident so when one accepts that beneficial mutations occur and natural selection occurs, then they essentiall accept that evolution occurs.

The evidence for evolution is lacking? lol. It was overwhelmingly strong a century ago, and has been proven stronger every day since.


You have repeatedly stated that you accept that beneficial mutations occur. It is common knowledge that mutations result in new genes and I explained how in very simple terms. So you're wrong.
(being wrong is not very good because then you end up being wrong)

I see you chose only the examples that do not refute your argument. How surprising.

The problem with christian creationists is that they have no interest in the truth, they're interested in holding on to their archaic interpretation of Genesis.
The ones who grudgingly accept the existence of beneficial mutations only do so by convincing themselves that all the genetic material was there to begin with (ie, God was still necessary to create it in the first place). Therefore, any evidence that shows how new useful genes are created simply "doesn't count" because they can't accept the idea that their beliefs are wrong.

The sad irony is creationists don't respect God either. If they did, they would be more honest in attempting to understand His creation. Do they really think that God will reward them for lying about His creation their entire life?

Edit: Nevermind, I was speculating he might have meant "Andrew Schlafly", but I was wrong. Andrew Schlafly argues against evolution, and does so in ignorance.

Semantics.

To Rock, a 'new gene' is a new combination of base pairs, a new sequence.

How is asking for evidence of a new useful piece of genetic material being appended to the sequence, not taking the place of from an portion of the sequence.

True, but the strongest evidence has not been very accessible to people without relevant, formal education.

This is wrong and unfair. I have known intelligent, honest Christians who started out as anti-evolution creationists, and eventually came see that evolution was strongly evidenced. They evolved into 'creation through evolution' types.

There are many intelligent and honest christian creationists who are interested in truth, they have just only had access to a limited subset of the relevant facts.

I somewhat agree. I feel that the strongest evidence for evolution lays in the field of genetics. And I feel that it is accessible, you can purchase any article you want from pubmed for example, but it can be dry, complicated, and require much study to understand.

However, the fossil record is ample evidence of evolution, it is easily accessible, and it is quite simple to understand.

75-80% of the earth's land area is covered in sedimentary rock. This rock has layers called strata. Strata is created when material is deposited on the surface (via air, water, gravity, etc) and is eventually covered up by more layers above it. The lower areas gradually get pressed under enormous weight of the layers above and as the sediments are compacted and liquids are expelled it eventually becomes rock. Naturally, each layer of this rock (in an undisturbed area) is older than the layer above it.

We have many ways to date these layers. Since we know how old the layers are, we know how old the fossils are that are inside the layers. The oldest fossils, 3500 ma (million years ago) are simple prokaryotic cells. Next came more complex (eukaryotic) cells (2000 ma). The first multicellular animals were 670 ma. Shell bearing animals were 540 ma, the first vertebrates (simple fish) were 490ma, the first amphibians 350 ma, reptiles 310 ma, mammals 200 ma, nonhuman primates 60ma, earliest apes 25 ma, australopithecine human ancestors 4 ma, and modern humans around 150 000 years ago. If someone wants to argue the ages of these things it doesn't really change anything because it still shows that the fossil record is ordered from very simple to increasingly complex over time.

That's pretty simple I'd say.

I have no qualms with theistic evolutionists if that's what you're refering to. If God/Allah/whoever made the first life on earth that doesn't influence evolution at all.

In fact I consider that belief system to be far more elegant. I shudder to think what its like to believe in a god that creates things in a way where sightless creatures have eyes, gave us disease on purpose, designs creatures to give birth to thousands of babies where only a few survive, and countless idiotic imperfections that would make any self-respecting engineer cringe. I would much rather relish the notion of a god that provided the basic materials for life to begin on its own, and to flourish without the need for further intervention.

They don't have computers where they live? Books?
Or perhaps its the incentive to honestly and objectively understand their god's creation that they lack.
If a creator did gift us with the tools for logic and reason, I see no reason why He would prefer us to discard those gifts in favor of blind dogma spoonfed to us from the pulpit.

Hey I've got no problem with the creation of new species through changes to allele frequencies, but this does not explain evolution's stance of highly evolved creatures with lot's of genes coming from simple creatures with a few egenes. It is only that aspect of evolution that I disagree with. Sure creatures can evolve, but within their current gene diversity, and allele diversity. They can devolve, reducing their complexity. But additonal good genes as required by evolution to explain the existence of humans, naaa.

Tell me how does an arthropod (+-10000 genes) become a human? Two insects join together? :) A gene added here and there that becomes functional over time? How does it happen?

There are also honest intelligent and well educated evolutionists that became creationists when looking at the evidence.

And you made up the name Andrew? His name is William Dembski. Everyone is entitled to make mistakes, no problem, but I still can't find the comments Dembski made regarding an added gene.

Regardless I found the irony of your non-existent "Andrew Lenski" being criticised for being incorrect as hilarious, not meaning to mock, its just very very funny.

Its not adding an extra functional gene to the genome, which is required for evolution as an explantion for the appearance of complex life forms.




Duplications cause "junk DNA". Dormant unused inactive genes. Humans have 32000 active useful non-viral genes, where did these come from?



This is what appears to have happened to those E coli bacteria, they were artificially inserted with an extra cloned gene that involved resistance to tetracycline. They were then placed in an environment that encourages the production of tetracycline (maltose). Those with the extra resistance gene showed more fitness in the maltose environment but not in other environments.

I enjoyed this article because I feel it's the first real challenge to my main point in this entire thread. You have insertions that are beneficial.

However I do have 3 problems with that study being a refutaton of my main point regarding ACTIVE ADDED GENES being beneficial.

Firstly, the insertions were done in a very artificial manner, not found in nature.
Secondly these are clone genes, and not new unique active genes as found in the human genome.
Thirdly clone genes are NOT ACTIVE.

Clones or duplications are basically backup genes that would normally cause less fitness because the DNA takes longer to form with more material to form. But in some instances having the dormant backup genes becomes very important when the particular environment is highly dependent on that one gene. These type of additions of inactive genes to the genome do not explain the existence of 32000 active, non-cloned, non viral beneficial genes in a human.

And you made up the name Andrew? His name is William Dembski. Everyone is entitled to make mistakes, no problem, but I still can't find the comments Dembski made regarding an added gene. Did Lenski or Dembski mention beneficial added genes?

Regardless I found the irony of your non-existent "Andrew Lenski" being criticised for being incorrect as hilarious, not meaning to mock, its just very very funny.

Of course it does. The creation of new genes is not the creation of new genes? That's news to me.




Duplications cause "junk DNA". Dormant unused inactive genes. Humans have 32000 active useful non-viral genes, where did these come from?