Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Non-random mutations

Expand Messages
  • Rayment, Philip
    Non-random mutations ... Suppose someone was shooting at drink cans with an air rifle. He randomly picks a can and shoots it. Some cans end up with holes in
    Message 1 of 10 , Dec 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Non-random mutations

      Chris wrote:

        > A mutation is a random unintentional change. If the changes are not

        > random, they are not mutations at all, but more likely a change
        > produced intentionally through genetic recombination.

      Suppose someone was shooting at drink cans with an air rifle.  He randomly picks a can and shoots it.  Some cans end up with holes in them, and some don't.  The hole/no-hole result is not random, because it depends on whether or not the can was made of aluminium or steel.  This does not imply that his choice of cans was non-random.

      In the same way, non-random changes to genes does not have to mean that they are non-random mutations if some genes are more (or less) susceptible to mutations.

      Philip Rayment

    • Chris Ashcraft
      There are two times when DNA is likely to have been changed. One is during genetic recombination, and the other is during replication. We know the intention of
      Message 2 of 10 , Dec 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment

        There are two times when DNA is likely to have been changed. One is during genetic recombination, and the other is during replication. We know the intention of genetic recombination is to change the genome, and the intention of recombination is to copy all DNA verbatim. Why should we conclude the later is responsible by making errors when we know the former occurs specifically to alter the genome?

        The Theory of Evolution requires an unintentional source of new genetic information because life is supposed to be the result of random reactions, and not by design. Mutations must also explain the development of genetic diversity before meiosis had ever evolved, but the molecular machinery possesses an ability to manipulate the genome that is not being recognized as a result of this theoretic perspective.

        Perhaps the biggest argument against mutations being the source of these alleles is the length of time it took for them to accumulate. If you have millions of years to tolerate lots of mutant deaths, then no problem, but the millions of alleles present today in most populations accumulated since the flood. If these new alleles were not beneficial then we might also assume they were neutral random changes, but instead we now know important house-keeping genes are not typically altered, whereas those that need to be altered such as antibiotic resistance gene are indeed.

        Important genes such as TAQ or those the provide antibiotic resistance are likely new or significantly altered constructs. We know recombination is induced in bacteria by all manner of environmental stresses, and although a repair function to these reactions is also certain, they may also be defensive attempts to construct helpful code. All bacterial plasmids are actually constructs that bacteria have assembled through the recombination of native and foreign genes. Bacterial antibiotic resistance genes and such are not the result of mutation. Bacterial have acquired these new editions rapidly, and not over millions of years.

        http://nwcreation.net/recombinationreview.html

          "Rayment, Philip" <PRayment@...> wrote:

        Chris wrote:

          > A mutation is a random unintentional change. If the changes are not
          > random, they are not mutations at all, but more likely a change
          > produced intentionally through genetic recombination.

        Suppose someone was shooting at drink cans with an air rifle.  He randomly picks a can and shoots it.  Some cans end up with holes in them, and some don't.  The hole/no-hole result is not random, because it depends on whether or not the can was made of aluminium or steel.  This does not imply that his choice of cans was non-random.

        In the same way, non-random changes to genes does not have to mean that they are non-random mutations if some genes are more (or less) susceptible to mutations.



        Christopher W. Ashcraft

      • Rayment, Philip
        Chris wrote: There are two times when DNA is likely to have been changed. One is during genetic recombination, and the other is during replication. We know the
        Message 3 of 10 , Dec 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Chris wrote:
          There are two times when DNA is likely to have been changed. One is during genetic recombination, and the other is during replication. We know the intention of genetic recombination is to change the genome, and the intention of recombination [replication?] is to copy all DNA verbatim. Why should we conclude the later is responsible by making errors when we know the former occurs specifically to alter the genome?
          I don't understand.  Who concludes that errors only occur during replication?  And doesn't replication occur much more frequently than recombination.  And what is the point anyway?
          The Theory of Evolution requires an unintentional source of new genetic information because life is supposed to be the result of random reactions, and not by design. Mutations must also explain the development of genetic diversity before meiosis had ever evolved, but the molecular machinery possesses an ability to manipulate the genome that is not being recognized as a result of this theoretic perspective.
          1.  This ability is, if I understand you correctly, what you are attempting to demonstrate.  It is not something that is yet accepted.
          2.  Why would evolutionists not recognise this ability if it exists?  They are opposed to a designer, not to a mechanism of deriving new genetic information.  To put it another way, evolutionists accept that the genome has the ability to recombine, replicate, correct errors, etc. etc., but believe that these abilities occurred without a Designer.  Why wouldn't they just accept that an ability to derive new genetic information occurred by chance also?
          Perhaps the biggest argument against mutations being the source of these alleles is the length of time it took for them to accumulate. If you have millions of years to tolerate lots of mutant deaths, then no problem, but the millions of alleles present today in most populations accumulated since the flood. If these new alleles were not beneficial then we might also assume they were neutral random changes, but instead we now know important house-keeping genes are not typically altered, ...
          Is it true that "important house-keeping genes are not typically altered", or is it just that when these genes are altered, the affect is fatal, whereas changes in other areas may not be fatal?
          ...whereas those that need to be altered such as antibiotic resistance gene are indeed.
          Important genes such as TAQ or those the provide antibiotic resistance are likely new or significantly altered constructs.
          Known cases of acquired antibiotic resistance are due to a *loss* (or transfer) of genetic information, not the creation of new information.
           
          Philip Rayment
        • Dr. Robert A. Herrmann
          1. It has been shown many times that the notion of random is purely theory dependent. For more information on this fact, you should try my book Science
          Message 4 of 10 , Dec 2, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            1. It has been shown many times that the notion of "random" is purely theory
            dependent. For more information on this fact, you should try my book
            "Science Declares Our Universe is Intelligently Designed (Xulon Press)" (Go
            to my Web site below.) The are many processes that are deterministic yet
            they will pass any analytical test for "randomness."


            Dr. Robert A. Herrmann
            Professor of Mathematics
            www.RAHerrmann.com
            Private e-mail address
            drrah1@...


            >From: "Rayment, Philip" <PRayment@...>
            >Reply-To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
            >To: 'Creation Talk' <CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com>
            >Subject: [CreationTalk] Non-random mutations
            >Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:01:47 +1100


            _________________________________________________________________
            Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
            http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
          • Chris Ashcraft
            ... The point is whether random mutation or genetic recombination is responsible for the genetic changes that organisms are apparently using to adapt. Errors
            Message 5 of 10 , Dec 5, 2002
            • 0 Attachment

              "Rayment, Philip" <PRayment@...> wrote:

              >Who concludes that errors only occur during replication?  And doesn't replication occur much more frequently than recombination.  And what is the point anyway?

              The point is whether random mutation or genetic recombination is responsible for the genetic changes that organisms are apparently using to adapt. Errors can occur during recombination also, but whether the change to the genome is intentional or unintention is the key issue. A mutation during a biochemical reaction is an unintentional change. Are the new alleles the result of an random processes or intelligent design via an intentional reaction?

              And no, recombination occurs much more frequently than replication. It occurs during mitosis also, and is induced by stresses at any stage in the cell life cycle.

              >1.  This ability is, if I understand you correctly, what you are attempting to demonstrate.  It is not something that is yet accepted.

              Correct. Many of the abilities that I describe in my paper have only recently been discovered. "The ability to induce homologous recombination in response to unfavorable environmental changes would be adaptive for each species, as it would increase genetic diversity and would help to avoid species' extinction. Homologous recombination would be more efficient for evolution than random mutagenesis or nonhomologous recombination. Although the latter two will mostly disrupt previously existing genes rather than creating new ones, homologous recombination can use previously existing genes as building blocks, thus enabling the creation of new proteins with more complex functions in a step-by-step manner. " Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98(15):8425-8432 (2001) 

              >2.  Why would evolutionists not recognise this ability if it exists?  They are opposed to a designer, not to a mechanism of deriving new genetic information.  To put it another way, evolutionists accept that the genome has the ability to recombine, replicate, correct errors, etc. etc., but believe that these abilities occurred without a Designer.  Why wouldn't they just accept that an ability to derive new genetic information occurred by chance also?

              Evolution occurs through the selection of genetic changes, and mutations are a theoretic necessity to explain these genetic changes if the first cell formed through abiogenesis. Mutations must explain the production of new genetic information before recombination, and sexually reproducing organisms evolved. Admitting the cell is intentional driving evolution requires that mechanism be present since the beginning. It might be better to ask the evolution why they believe the molecular machinery could form spontaneously, but mutations are the ultimate source of variability driving evolution by theoretic necessity.

              Remember that discovery follows investigation, which follows theory formation. Genetics as a science develped following the theory of evolution, and has been affected by the presuppostion. An investigator will not look for a mechanism that is not believed to exist. A great deal of evidence has surfaced that these mechanisms are present, but their products are still attributed to mutation such as antibiotic resistance genes. It has been known for many years that bacteria possess new genetic information, but it was simply concluded to be the result of mutations over millions of generations. We now know however, that antiobiotic resistance develops rather rapidly, and a clear example of intentional genetic construction in action..

              Secular scientists are certainly not looking for more complexity than is readily obvious. An intelligent design theorist assumes a function, whereas the evolutionist assumes the cell is simply a molecular conglomerate and full of junk. Information about the functions of recomination is surfacing, and a greater role is becoming clear. Remember that current concepts about meiotic recombination were not proposed by ID theorists and another mechanism for genetic change is being given credit. A greater ability should be assumed by creationists, and hopefully this paper will shed some light.

              http://nwcreation.net/recombinationreview.html

               



              Christopher W. Ashcraft

            • Shelley S
              I will probably have a lot of questions, because I love learning about creation and have tons of notes. One creation speaker talked about the GAP theory
              Message 6 of 10 , Dec 5, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                I will probably have a lot of questions, because I
                love learning about creation and have tons of notes.

                One creation speaker talked about the GAP theory
                between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. He said The GAP
                theory says that during the GAP, Lucifer was cast out
                of heaven to hell. There is no death before Adam, so
                this disqualifies this theory.

                Question: According to a 6-literal creation, when was
                Satan cast out of Heaven then? Where does this fit in
                creation?

                ~ Shelley



                __________________________________________________
                Do you Yahoo!?
                Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                http://mailplus.yahoo.com
              • Charles Creager Jr.
                Ezekiel 28: 13. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God ; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the Beryl, the onyx, and
                Message 7 of 10 , Dec 6, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Ezekiel 28: 13.  Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the Beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
                   14.  Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
                   15.  Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
                   16.  By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
                  Here it indicates that Satan then called Lucifer, was in the Garden of Eden, be for he fell. The Garden of Eden wan Created on day six according to Genesis 2. Satan's fall was some time between day six and the fall of man.

                  ---- Charles creager Jr.
                   

                  Shelley S wrote:

                  I will probably have a lot of questions, because I
                  love learning about creation and have tons of notes.

                  One creation speaker talked about the GAP theory
                  between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.  He said The GAP
                  theory says that during the GAP, Lucifer was cast out
                  of heaven to hell.  There is no death before Adam, so
                  this disqualifies this theory.

                  Question:  According to a 6-literal creation, when was
                  Satan cast out of Heaven then?  Where does this fit in
                  creation?

                  ~ Shelley

                  __________________________________________________
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                  http://mailplus.yahoo.com

                  CreationTalk Discussion Group
                  Creation Science Resource
                  http://nwcreation.net/

                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  CreationTalk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                   
                   

                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                • s1970az <s1970az@yahoo.com>
                  ... I m glad to see your questions Shelley, they help me to think. ;) One thing I ve noticed about a lot of my own questions about creation has not only to do
                  Message 8 of 10 , Dec 9, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, Shelley S <shellsters5@y...>
                    wrote:
                    > I will probably have a lot of questions, because I
                    > love learning about creation and have tons of notes.
                    >
                    > One creation speaker talked about the GAP theory
                    > between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. He said The GAP
                    > theory says that during the GAP, Lucifer was cast out
                    > of heaven to hell. There is no death before Adam, so
                    > this disqualifies this theory.
                    >
                    > Question: According to a 6-literal creation, when was
                    > Satan cast out of Heaven then? Where does this fit in
                    > creation?
                    >
                    > ~ Shelley

                    I'm glad to see your questions Shelley, they help me to think. ;)

                    One thing I've noticed about a lot of my own questions about
                    creation has not only to do with the time line issue of creation,
                    but understanding "God rested." Implying to me that
                    once "everything" was created that first week it was all done. God
                    *rested* and "everything" went on it's own way.

                    The realization I've had is that the story continues. How long did
                    life in the garden last? Could have been years. Cain and Abel born
                    after the garden exile. Seth wasn't born until Adam was 130 years
                    old. How many nieces and nephews did Seth already have? Cain and
                    Abel were before him.

                    Does anyone know if the "'anyone' could kill him" part of Cain's
                    thanks for saving my life speech to God would mean 'anything'? (Gen
                    4:14-5) The word 'anyone' doesn't have to mean people in the HUMAN
                    sense, does it?


                    Thanks,
                    Shannon
                  • Rayment, Philip
                    Shannon wrote: Does anyone know if the anyone could kill him part of Cain s thanks for saving my life speech to God would mean anything ? (Gen 4:14-5)
                    Message 9 of 10 , Dec 9, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Shannon wrote:  Does anyone know if the "'anyone' could kill him" part of Cain's thanks for saving my life speech to God would mean 'anything'? (Gen 4:14-5) The word 'anyone' doesn't have to mean people in the HUMAN sense, does it?

                      What else could it mean?  Are you proposing demons or fictional pre-adamites or what?  It would mean Cain's extended family (e.g. siblings avenging their brother Abel).  Apart from them being the only other people in existence, they would be the only ones with motive.
                       
                      Philip Rayment
                    • s1970az <s1970az@yahoo.com>
                      ... part of ... mean anything ? (Gen ... sense, ... pre-adamites ... avenging their ... existence, ... I didn t propose demons or pre-adamites, I was
                      Message 10 of 10 , Dec 11, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Rayment, Philip"
                        <PRayment@C...> wrote:
                        > Shannon wrote: Does anyone know if the "'anyone' could kill him"
                        part of
                        > Cain's thanks for saving my life speech to God would
                        mean 'anything'? (Gen
                        > 4:14-5) The word 'anyone' doesn't have to mean people in the HUMAN
                        sense,
                        > does it?
                        >
                        > What else could it mean? Are you proposing demons or fictional
                        pre-adamites
                        > or what? It would mean Cain's extended family (e.g. siblings
                        avenging their
                        > brother Abel). Apart from them being the only other people in
                        existence,
                        > they would be the only ones with motive.
                        >
                        > Philip Rayment

                        I didn't propose demons or pre-adamites, I was wondering who Cain
                        was worried about.

                        I was reading from Gen 4:14 in the CEV "and just anyone could kill
                        me", in the KJV there's "and it shall come to pass, that every one
                        that findeth me shall slay me." That time reference makes it much
                        clearer.

                        Here's an example of the first capital punishment case. Cain
                        realizes he did something very bad and deserves death. God
                        understands this and proclaims that the blood demands this. And yet,
                        He still exiles rather than kill.

                        Interesting that the next murder recorded is by Cain's great-great-
                        great-great-great-great-grandson Lamech, who proclaims himself 10
                        times greater than God. ("Anyone who attempts retribution on me will
                        get 10 times what Cain's punisher may get" my paraphrase Gen 4:23)

                        Do you think the organization of the events in genesis is linear?
                        In other words, could the descendants of Cain in Gen 4:17-24 be
                        older than Seth whose birth is described in 4:25? Or do you thnk
                        this is more of a narrative aside to fill in Cain's story so you
                        don't have to go back to them again?

                        I think I answered my own question: Know what happens to the great-
                        great-great-great-great-great-grandson of Seth? (Hint: flood)

                        Thanks for the comment Philip,
                        Shannon
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.