Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

This is a strange assertion, since literally every gene in your body represents a long series mutations. Humans have approximately 30,000 genes. Each one is the product of many mutations, some of which happened in the last ten thousand years, but most of which occurred hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago. A few of our genes evolved literally billions of years ago. Every one of us is just a bunch of random mutations that gradually accumulated to form a functional organism.

---

Mutations, evolutions way of adding information? That may be helpful in some other environment?

alzheimers
Gene Mutation Predicts Alzheimer's


breast cancer
Breast cancer - Genetics Home Reference


colon cancer
p53 mutations in colorectal cancer. [Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990] - PubMed Result

Digeorge
eMedicine - DiGeorge Syndrome : Article by Suguru Imaeda

Lou Gherigs
Prevalence of SOD1 mutations in the Italian ALS population -- Chiò et al. 70 (7): 533 -- Neurology


Genes and disease
lists of various diseases

Quote:

---

The 46 human chromosomes (22 pairs of autosomal chromosomes and 2 sex chromosomes) between them house almost 3 billion base pairs of DNA that contains about 30,000 - 40,000 protein-coding genes. This is a much smaller number than predicted - only twice as many as in the worm or fly model organisms. The coding regions make up less than 5% of the genome (the function of the remaining DNA is not clear) and some chromosomes have a higher density of genes than others.

---

Now is it clear how mutations, natural selection, and a couple billion years caused single cell to "evolve" into human beings;)



As to adding information:

PLoS Genetics: A Mutation in the Myostatin Gene Increases Muscle Mass and Enhances Racing Performance in Heterozygote Dogs

Quote:

---

Here we describe a new mutation in MSTN found in the whippet dog breed that results in a double-muscled phenotype known as the “bully” whippet. Individuals with this phenotype carry two copies of a two-base-pair deletion in the third exon of MSTN leading to a premature stop codon at amino acid 313.

---

Hmmm, the information was already there!

It's a genetic mutation that causes sickle cell also. But it's only a problem if you have 2 copies. With only 1 you have immunity to malaria - a beneficial mutation. And, as I've posted before, there are stressor genes whose function is to make sure proteins, etc are there to try and correct errors in mitochondria. Sometimes when they fail, a bunch of stored mutations are 'set free' and maybe a new char appears. Whether it is beneficial will be borne out by the environmental pressures (selection) or by whether it interferes with a vital function. Obviously, not all do.

As for genes already there... that's why, for example, some whales and snakes have vestigial hip bones. So what?

Blonds and redheads were a mutation, so there are beneficial mutations as well. :)

Just cause you can point to bad mutations really doesn't prove anything because what is bad in one case may be good in another. The mutation doesn't design it's self good or bad it just is and the environment decides whether that trait gets passed down or not.

I don't know what to say. inthebox actually believes that mutations only cause diseases and don't do anything else? He doesn't even know what a gene is? Seriously? Where is SassyT to explain this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

I don't know what to say. inthebox actually believes that mutations only cause diseases and don't do anything else? He doesn't even know what a gene is? Seriously? Where is SassyT to explain this?

---

And does that really surprise you?
This is what this topic is precisely about : the lack of knowledge of creationists and their organisations, and the emptiness and/or deliberate dishonesty of their argumentation.

:rolleyes:

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WVHiflyer

It's a genetic mutation that causes sickle cell also. But it's only a problem if you have 2 copies. With only 1 you have immunity to malaria

---

The SCIENCE actually proves you wrong :p

Quote:

---

Clinical malaria and sickle cell disease among mul...[Pediatrics. 2007] - PubMed Result

The 3 other siblings had sickle cell trait, 2 of whom had complicated malaria. Patients who have sickle cell disease and are infected with malaria are prone to hyperhemolytic crisis; therefore, this complication should be anticipated

---

The hemolysis was actually worse!

Quote:

---

eMedicine - Sickle Cell Anemia : Article by Ariel Distenfeld


While children with sickle cell trait Hb SA seem to have a milder form of falciparum malaria, those with homozygous Hb S have a severe form that is associated with very high mortality rate.

---

There is no immunity. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

I don't know what to say. inthebox actually believes that mutations only cause diseases and don't do anything else? He doesn't even know what a gene is? Seriously? Where is SassyT to explain this?

---

So this is your response to the SCIENCE, I linked?:confused:

A tactic to divert attention from the fact that genetic mutations are harmful.

If you believe that genetic mutations can be "beneficial" why does the actual science
show the contrary? People intuitively know that mutations are harmful.

That is why premenopausal women get screened before even a simple x-ray, because no one wants to pass on mutation[s.]

Maybe you are confusing X-Men fantasy type of "beneficial" mutations :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

And does that really surprise you?
This is what this topic is precisely about : the lack of knowledge of creationists and their organisations, and the emptiness and/or deliberate dishonesty of their argumentation.

:rolleyes:

·

---

So, when someone questions the role of mutations in evolution, and intelligently backs up it up with the objective scientific facts, this is the type of response that evolutionists give :confused:

Cred you are projecting :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

So this is your response to the SCIENCE, I linked?:confused:

---

I don't have any problem with the science, but you are cherry picking. What you did is like linking to a list of news articles about car accidents to show that riding in a car is always deadly. It can be, but it isn't always, obviously.

Quote:

---

A tactic to divert attention from the fact that genetic mutations are harmful.

---

They can be, but since every gene in your body is the product of extensive mutation, they obviously aren't always.

Quote:

---

If you believe that genetic mutations can be "beneficial" why does the actual science
show the contrary? People intuitively know that mutations are harmful.

---

"The" actual science doesn't show the contrary. Mutations can be good or bad. It's natural selection's job to let the good ones accumulate and weed out the bad ones.

Here's a good one: The gene for hemoglobin comes in several different forms, each one useful under different circumstances and each one a mutant with respect to the others. Babies start with fetal hemoglobin and later switch to adult hemoglobin since they handle oxygen differently in the womb than outside breathing air--to give one of thousands of examples of useful mutations.

Quote:

---

That is why [reproductive] women get screened before even a simple x-ray, because no one wants to pass on mutation[s.]

---

They should screen men too. (They have genes too.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

So, when someone questions ... and intelligently backs up it up ....

---

"... someone ... intelligently ..." Are you really referring to yourself here??

:D :D :D :D :D

·

Evolution: Library: A Mutation Story


A Mutation Story:
A gene known as HbS was the center of a medical and evolutionary detective story that began in the middle 1940s in Africa. Doctors noticed that patients who had sickle cell anemia, a serious hereditary blood disease, were more likely to survive malaria , a disease which kills some 1.2 million people every year. What was puzzling was why sickle cell anemia was so prevalent in some African populations.


How could a "bad" gene -- the mutation that causes the sometimes lethal sickle cell disease -- also be beneficial? On the other hand, if it didn't provide some survival advantage, why had the sickle gene persisted in such a high frequency in the populations that had it?

... Every person has two copies of the hemoglobin gene. Usually, both genes make a normal hemoglobin protein. When someone inherits two mutant copies of the hemoglobin gene, the abnormal form of the hemoglobin protein causes the red blood cells to lose oxygen and warp into a sickle shape during periods of high activity...

But it takes two copies of the mutant gene, one from each parent, to give someone the full-blown disease. Many people have just one copy, the other being normal. Those who carry the sickle cell trait do not suffer nearly as severely from the disease.


Researchers found that the sickle cell gene is especially prevalent in areas of Africa hard-hit by malaria. In some regions, as much as 40 percent of the population carries at least one HbS gene.


It turns out that, in these areas, HbS carriers have been naturally selected , because the trait confers some resistance to malaria. Their red blood cells, containing some abnormal hemoglobin, tend to sickle when they are infected by the malaria parasite. Those infected cells flow through the spleen, which culls them out because of their sickle shape -- and the parasite is eliminated along with them.


Scientists believe the sickle cell gene appeared and disappeared in the population several times, but became permanently established after a particularly vicious form of malaria jumped from animals to humans in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

In areas where the sickle cell gene is common, the immunity conferred has become a selective advantage. Unfortunately, it is also a disadvantage because the chances of being born with sickle cell anemia are relatively high.


... This situation is a stark example of genetic compromise, or an evolutionary "trade-off."

Flyer, I found that story truly fascinating. Thanks for sharing it. :)

Welcome, Alty. I had to counter box's partial story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WVHiflyer

Evolution: Library: A Mutation Story


A Mutation Story:
A gene known as HbS was the center of a medical and evolutionary detective story that began in the middle 1940s in Africa. Doctors noticed that patients who had sickle cell anemia, a serious hereditary blood disease, were more likely to survive malaria , a disease which kills some 1.2 million people every year. What was puzzling was why sickle cell anemia was so prevalent in some African populations.


How could a "bad" gene -- the mutation that causes the sometimes lethal sickle cell disease -- also be beneficial? On the other hand, if it didn't provide some survival advantage, why had the sickle gene persisted in such a high frequency in the populations that had it?

... Every person has two copies of the hemoglobin gene. Usually, both genes make a normal hemoglobin protein. When someone inherits two mutant copies of the hemoglobin gene, the abnormal form of the hemoglobin protein causes the red blood cells to lose oxygen and warp into a sickle shape during periods of high activity...

But it takes two copies of the mutant gene, one from each parent, to give someone the full-blown disease. Many people have just one copy, the other being normal. Those who carry the sickle cell trait do not suffer nearly as severely from the disease.


Researchers found that the sickle cell gene is especially prevalent in areas of Africa hard-hit by malaria. In some regions, as much as 40 percent of the population carries at least one HbS gene.


It turns out that, in these areas, HbS carriers have been naturally selected , because the trait confers some resistance to malaria. Their red blood cells, containing some abnormal hemoglobin, tend to sickle when they are infected by the malaria parasite. Those infected cells flow through the spleen, which culls them out because of their sickle shape -- and the parasite is eliminated along with them.


Scientists believe the sickle cell gene appeared and disappeared in the population several times, but became permanently established after a particularly vicious form of malaria jumped from animals to humans in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

In areas where the sickle cell gene is common, the immunity conferred has become a selective advantage. Unfortunately, it is also a disadvantage because the chances of being born with sickle cell anemia are relatively high.


... This situation is a stark example of genetic compromise, or an evolutionary "trade-off."

---

Your link is obviously biased toward evolution.
Even they cannot get their facts straight. Notice the bolded in your link :)

Quote:

---

eMedicine - Sickle Cell Anemia : Article by Ariel Distenfeld


While children with sickle cell trait Hb SA seem to have a milder form of falciparum malaria, those with homozygous Hb S have a severe form that is associated with very high mortality rate.

---

Quote:

---

Clinical malaria and sickle cell disease among mul...[Pediatrics. 2007] - PubMed Result


The 3 other siblings had sickle cell trait , 2 of whom had complicated malaria. Patients who have sickle cell disease and are infected with malaria are prone to hyperhemolytic crisis;

---

Both my links are MEDICAL - that is practical and objective with no bias toward ID or creationism or evolution - just the straight facts.



Sickle cell trait does not confer immunity



I have cared for Sickle cell patients in crisis. There is no comfort to them, while they are in excrutiating pain, to know that there is a malaria induced selective advantage for sickle cell trait, :( and because of that, their parents have a advantage, while they got the disease.



Regardless, the fact remains that sickle cell anemia 1] does not add to genetic information 2] is a substitution mutation that causes human morbidity and mortality.

Found this it was too funny not to post in this topic.
List of scientists who became creationists after studying the evidence - RationalWiki

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Found this it was too funny not to post in this topic.

---

I waited and waited and waited... must be something wrong with my connection...

:D

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Found this it was too funny not to post in this topic.
List of scientists who became creationists after studying the evidence - RationalWiki

---

I like the tumbleweeds. :)

Needs more crickets. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Found this it was too funny not to post in this topic.
List of scientists who became creationists after studying the evidence - RationalWiki

---

Needs color, the grey tumbleweeds are boring. ;):)

Now something positive about Michealb's link, please!!

1 - All names are easy to remember !

2 - No race, gender, or sex differences !

3 - Political views are evenly spread !

4 - Display speed and direction are constant !

5 -.. .

Anyone any other positives ?

:D :D :D :D :D

·

5. Number of names is impressive.
6. No religious differences among the names.

Box - I never implied sickle cell wasn't a terrible condition. But one copy of the mutated gene does confer immunity to malaria. It may not always prevent one from getting it ubt it will, at the very least, reduce the seriousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WVHiflyer

box - I never implied sickle cell wasn't a terrible condition. But one copy of the mutated gene does confer immunity to malaria. It may not always prevent one from getting it but it will, at the very least, reduce the seriousness.

---

It simply was a case of what was the least bad for you in the tropics without medicines thousands of years ago : sickle cell sickness or the much higher human morbidity and mortality caused by malaria : evolution in all it's positive and negative effects !

:)

·

From Science Daily

Quote:

---

Survival Of The Fittest: Even Cancer Cells Follow The Laws Of Evolution


To arrive at these conclusions, researchers analyzed about 500,000 cancer mutation records from the Catalog of Somatic Mutations in Cancer database...

"Little could Darwin have known that his 'Origin of the Species' would one day explain the 'Origin of the Tumor,'"

---

So while millions of their fellow humans are suffering from cancer, looking to science for treatments and cures, there are a few researchers who call themselves fellows of the “institute of advanced studies” who have nothing better to do than tell jokes about On the Origin of Tumors by Natural Selection, and the Preservation of Favored Mistakes in the Struggle for Death.:( :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

.... there are a few researchers who ... have nothing better to do than tell jokes ...

---

That says something of the researchers involved here. But is does not say anything about the topic , about why the ICR seem to think that lying and cheating is a good approach to "spread the word"...

:rolleyes:

·

Hello everyone! :)
I have been gone for quite a while and not much has changed it seems.. the Darwinist are still struggling to scientifically prove their theory.
Darwinism relies on the uproven premise that random mutations create "new" information in species which lead to the creation of a new never seen before genus. However science has never observed this fantancy. I am yet to see a random mutation where by for instance a human baby is born with feathers or fish scales(new information).
With this said The theory of Macro evolution still remains a Myth, a farce and a hoax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

Hello everyone!! :)
i have been gone for quite a while

---

Hi Sassy. Were you traveling? I hope you had fun!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

.... the Darwinist are still struggling to scientifically prove their theory.

---

I did not see that struggling at all. All I saw were several theists struggling in vain to explain that their religious myths have any basis in reality...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

Darwinism relies on the uproven premise that random mutations ....

---

Darwinism does not rely on any unproven premise at all. It is an explanation of what can be seen by everyone with an open mind. And it is backed up by loads of actual findings across many different fields of support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

With this said The theory of Macro evolution still remains a Myth, a farce and a hoax.

---

Not really. But based on the drift of your statement one can conclude that it is more valid to state that any of the many religious claims still remain a Myth, a farce, and a hoax.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

From Science DailySo while millions of their fellow humans are suffering from cancer, looking to science for treatments and cures, there are a few researchers who call themselves fellows of the “institute of advanced studies” who have nothing better to do than tell jokes about On the Origin of Tumors by Natural Selection, and the Preservation of Favored Mistakes in the Struggle for Death.:( :mad:

---

Inthebox, as your quote shows, they didn't say what you just said. They just said "origin of the tumor," not the rest, which I guess you invented yourself? The evolution of cancer is cells is not a joke. It's very important that cells evolve, both inside us and in tissue culture. It's also a problem in the culture of adult stem cells in the laboratory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

Hi Sassy. Were you traveling? I hope you had fun!

---

Hello asking! Yes, I have been travelling.. because now I have to get back to school. Two more semesters and I will be done. Can't wait!

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

I did not see that struggling at all. All I saw were several theists struggling in vain to explain that their religious myths have any basis in reality...

---

Again these are your opinions and BELIEFS , which i must say, have proved to not be reflect reality in the past.

Quote:

---

Darwinism does not rely on any unproven premise at all. It is an explanation of what can be seen by everyone with an open mind. And it is backed up by loads of actual findings across many different fields of support.

---

Rather than making hot air empty claims like these, kindly provide objective evidence of a random mutation that has added new information to a species. (For example a human baby born with feathers or a baby elephant born with fish scales)

Quote:

---

Not really. But based on the drift of your statement one can conclude that it is more valid to state that any of the many religious claims still remain a Myth, a farce, and a hoax.

---

very original i must say...

I think the point that most evolutionist are making is that we don't have extraordinary claim and that all evidence point to evolution. If you have a different claim have it fit all of the evidence if you have a extraordinary supernatural claim point us to the evidence of something supernatural. Then we will listen to you too. Otherwise you are just fanatic. While this may be my opinion I think it fits with general reasoning which we should all use to govern our lives.

Quote:

---

(For example a human baby born with feathers)

---

How about a baby human born with a tail?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

Hello asking! Yes, i have been travelling.. because now i have to get back to school. two more semesters and i will be done. Can't wait!

---

So what's your plan after you get your degree? Are you going to get a job in biology?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

How about a baby human born with a tail?

---

I'm guessing Sassy will argue that's a throwback--since it's technically old information that was already there that has been suppressed. So it's not "new." But of course in order to argue that, she has to concede the genes for the tail are old information that we carry within us. A lose-lose situation. :)

That's kind of why I used that argument. Of course I've already read what the creationist say about the human tail so I know what she is going to come back with. I think it still answers her challenge though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Thats kind of why I used that argument. Of course I've already read what the creationist say about the human tail so I know what she is going to come back with. I think it still answers her challenge though.

---

The tail was a good idea. What is the creationist argument?

I keep thinking about my favorite example of hard-to-argue with evidence for evolution. But it's not an answer to her specific challenge--new genetic information.

To me, all new mutations are new information, so I don't really know what would satisfy in that department. Gene replication followed by separate mutations is so obvious. But I guess Sassy wants a specific trait. The problem is that you can see genetic mutations all the time but you can't know which ones will turn out to have been useful until generations pass and you can see the results. So the question is, by definition, unanswerable. It's not about whether it's right or not. But it is the nature of evolution that you can only answer that particular question retrospectively.

Anyway, in an old embryology experiment, mouse ectoderm (what later turns into skin and nerve tissue) placed on the mouth tissues of a developing chick embryo stimulated the development of actual teeth. In other words, the bird, which has not had teeth for millions of years, still carries the genes for making teeth. Those genes are just turned off. The mouse ectoderm, which normally stimulates the development of teeth in mice (and other mammals), was able to send a signal to the chick tissue to turn on those genes and make teeth--demonstrating that birds are descended from animals that made teeth--e.g. dinosaurs. How cool is that?

I thought that the experiment that produced E coli that could process citrate was a pretty compelling for mutations being able to add useful code but I'm not a biology student what do I know. :)
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist

The creationist argument for the tails in humans is that it's not really a tail it just looks like a tail. It's just a clump of skin since most of the time the tail doesn't have any bones in it.

Very nice! I love long-term experiments. So few scientists do them anymore.

(For anyone who doesn't want to read the article, it says that after 44,000 generations growing in the lab, one lineage of E. coli bacteria evolved the ability to break down citrate, even though the INability to break down citrate is considered one of the defining characteristics of these gut bacteria (E. coli). Not being able to metabolize citrate is a trait that separates E. coli from other species of bacteria, so by evolving that ability, they evolved a trait typical of another species.)

As for the human tail, this website says that about two- thirds of human tails are "true tails" with muscle, nerves, blood vessels, and normal skin. Rarely, they have vertebrae, too. Also, it mentions that the Barbary macaque (a monkey) has a vestigial tail with no vertebrae.

The following discussion is taken from

http://pharyngula.org/images/teach_both_theories.gif

I don't know why we don't do this?