Contradiction in evolutionary theory

Video presentation of the article: "The evolutionary dynamics of digital and nucleotide codes: a mutation protection perspective", (The Open Evolution Journal, February 2011, Vol.5, p.1-4) http://www.benthamscience.com/open/to...

• Category

  Science & Technology

[gregrutz]

A wolf can make every dog in the world without mutations. How did the genetic diversity get there if not from change in DNA?

[watafug]

Mutation protection doesn't prevent mutation. Mutation still happens. Yes cancer is a mutation, not all mutations are beneficial. Beneficial mutations happen by chance. Mutations are completely random in nature. Natural selection is nonrandom based on traits.

[metalsusa1]

Why waste your time exposing contradictions in evolution on You Tube while you could be challenging it in a peer reviewed paper? Silly me I forgot, your not interested in actual education on any real level, your just interested in mudding the water to confuse the already confused to further your assault on science that disagrees with your theology.

[odinata]

The information problem exists only in your Creationist bias.

[TaslemGuy]

4 is fundamentally false. Organisms are completely capable of developing new traits not previously coded for genetics. A good example is nylonase-producing flavobacterium, and related strains which also have produced to gene in lab experiments.

6 is false as well. While being overrun by mutation is bad, having a low mutation rate is beneficial for surviving in a changing environment (esp. for single-celled organisms). Moreover, the effectiveness of genetic algorithms contradicts your results.

[circusOFprecision]

What is the purpose of an auto-catalyzing ribozyme? It's a middle man between DNA/RNA, and proteins. So how does it obtain it's unique function/shape/sequence when there is no DNA/RNA template and no proteins that share a biologically significant sequence? Also, if you want to convince me, than you will have to address the information problem, that of the functional (NOT chemically determined!) sequencing of the DNA/RNAs which allow for a self replicating genetic system.

[huttarl]

@dhicks: You're correct that I chose a clear-cut example (as opposed to e.g. P = NP), in order illustrate a point: a hypothesis may be the "current best guess" within certain arbitrary constraints, but if those constraints happen to exclude reality, then the current best guess within those constraints can only be wrong. "It's up to them to find a better *natural* explanation." [emphasis mine] You're applying an a prior philosophical constraint to the answer. This is, by definition, not science.

[dhicks3]

It's not at all like saying that. Math provides a very simple proof that no integer squared equals 7. Do you really think the question "Could life have existed before protein synthesizing machinery?" is of similar complexity and difficulty to be comparable? (Beside the fact that you chose a patently false math example. A better one would be "Does P = NP?") Anyways, if someone rejects the RNA-world hypothesis, it's not MY problem. It's up to them to find a better natural explanation.

[dhicks3]

The only reason you claim there's no evidence for it is because you aren't current on your literature. We've discovered many ribozymes (RNA enzymes which perform cellular reactions), some of which are autocatalyzing (self-replicating). Man, if that doesn't provide for you at least some support that RNA could run things in the absence even of ribosomes, then you can't be convinced.

[circusOFprecision]

Right, a hypothesis that lacks observable or demonstratable data to support it.