Why Evolution is Wrong: Part One - Mutations

This is a short video with basic information on mutations. This video isn't really meant to teach about mutations. I put this video out just so the information would be available. Read the sources and learn for your selves!

Sources:

Eyre-Walker A, Keightley PD. The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations. Nat Rev Genet. 2007;8:610-618.

KIMURAM, ., 1979 Model of effectivelyneutral mutations in which selection constraint is incorporated. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 7 6 3440-3444.

GERRISH, P. J., A. COLATO, A. S. PERELSON and P. D. SNIEGOWSKI, 2007 Complete genetic linkage can subvert natural selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104: 6266-6271

Pennisi, Elizabeth (2007). "DNA Study Forces Rethink of What It Means to Be a Gene". Science 316 (5831): 15567

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• evolution
• science
• mutations
• genetics
• creationism
• creationist
• religion
• intelligent
• design
• proof

[f0xfree]

You do realize the source you have quoted disagrees with your videos?

Your source says "The enormous amount of phenotypic diversity among different phyla or classes of organisms is a product of accumulation of novel mutations and their conservation that have facilitated adaptation to different environments."

Mutationists would agree with you. Modern synthesis disagrees with you because heritable variation in gene pools does not come from mutations alone and has many many other sources.

[owchywawa]

@f0xfree I never claimed variation in the gene pools come from mutations alone.

[f0xfree]

@owchywawa

If you do not reject the idea that variations in the gene pool come from mutations alone then do you accept that the modern evolutionary synthesis does not require new mutations in order for evolution to occur in terms of adaptive fitness which means modification through common decent by the mechanisms of natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow.

[owchywawa]

@f0xfree Theodosius Dobzhansky was actually a major part of the modern synthesis and he said:

“The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution.”

So, it's not just mutationists who claim this. That said, I am not sure exactly what you are referring to when you say evolution "does not require new mutations in order for evolution to occur in terms of adaptive fitness." Are you talking about mendelian genetics?

[owchywawa]

@f0xfree 2) I mean, any change to the genetic material is called a mutation. You can have changes without mutations by interactions of different chromosomes and things like that, but the changes ultimately derive from mutations.

[pilgrimpater]

Beneficial mutations are rare? Compared to neutral & unbeneficial that's true & indeed it is the ambient environment that determines if a mutation is beneficial or not (i.e. not just the mutation itself). Indeed the fact that 99% of all species that ever lived are now extinct proves unbeneficial outweigh beneficial. However, the fact is that we are still left with the survivors. Animal husbandry (unnatural selection) thrives on beneficial mutations. It's just that Nature requires a lot longer.

[Casshyr]

The only true way to unbiasedly look at evidence for evolution is to first forget everything you know about religion. Pretend Bible, Quran, or whatever religion you are, pretend you never heard of them. And also put your belief of God aside. Pretend you don't know God. Forget all of this.

Then now, look at the evidence at hand. See if this still point to creationism. Try this exercise, if your brain can handle it.

[314violin]

@rapplejab you spelled "adenine" wrong again.

[kyekire]

@AlanaPower Lol the chicken and the egg paradox is one of the dumbest creationists arguments, I've ever heard off. But to put it in simple terms it is the egg, since the first chicken came from the egg of an animal slightly different from a chicken, depending on where we draw the speciation. As for everything else you said, that's not an argument, just petty slander on the theory that you made up. Your ignorance on the matter doesn't really help out those statements either. Evolution was create

[AlanaPower111]

@kyekire You believe in evolution? Lol so tell me something what came first the Chicken or the egg? Sense neither can exist without the other but we know they exist that can only mean they were created. You very DNA contradicts with EVERYTHING the evolutin theory says. We all know our DNA is real. Evolution is Speculation. It was created by ATHEIST to prove why they believe God isnt real. When in actuality Our very exsistence prove their in fact a creator...

[kyekire]

So where's the proof evolutions wrong?

[StoreyNUFC]

@9pt9 This is really a stupid comment, since the creation of earth, there was amoeba, a single celled organism, from this there was EVOLUTION which created different species, depending on their climate they would adapt to living in that environment efficiently, some moved onto land and EVOLVED to that specific climate in order to survive and have the largest possible chance of surviving, they didnt pop out of no where due to "GOD" which we cant see hear or touch!

[inconsp1cuous1515]

uh oh creationists .. marine life can't go onto land? you might wanna see this!! XD

/watch?v=FjQr3lRACPI