Question about evolution?

Question

Can anyone tell me the anwer to this. I have looked everywhere but no one seems to be able to answer it. Why is evolution so widely accepted if it goes against all known scientific fact?
Example:
It's been proven that things can mutate(lose genetic information only)
It's also scientific fact and common knowledge that nothing can gain genetic info or evolve. so, if things cant evolve, nor have they ever, why do people believe this?

Ok so far you people have been arguing that things can gain gentic info. I'm telling you thay can't. No if, ands, or buts.
The ability to form things (zygotes) is already there. I know this ok, i've read too much on the subject and there are too many scientist who agree with this (all of them) to be wrong.

Answer 1

One word contradicts your "facts".

Plasmids.

Plasmids are non-chromosomal loops of DNA found in bacteria. They often contain antibacterial resistance genes, or give the ability to use different sugars. These plasmids are commonly shared by bacteria. This is a gain of genetic information.

Now, it is true that we only have 4 types of nucleotides in DNA, and they make about 20 amino acids. This is conserved in all life forms. But from this, a countless number of proteins can be made, and have a nearly infinite number of effects. Your suggesting could be likened to saying that we can never invent a new word, since we only have 26 letters.

Please provide a source for your claims, perhaps then we can understand how you arrived at such a conclusion.

Answer 2

Your premise is wrong most people believe in evolution because it is supported by research and scientific observation. Just look at the wide variety of dog breeds around today - only a few thousand years ago the ancestors of these dogs were all wolves, until humans domesticated them. For that matter look at cats, mice, rats and rabbits - all in vastly different sizes, shapes and colours from their original wild ancestors.
Mutation is not about losing genetic information it is about that information changing. DNA can be lost (yes) but it can also be modified, reversed or added to and this is the basis of mutation and of evolution.
Also on an end note there's no such thing as scientific fact, only probabilities and hypotheses that are proved or disproved by research and observation there are other theories out there to explain the diversity of life but none is as widely accepted by the scientific community of today as evolution - which is actually quite a different beast than it was when Darwin first concieved of it. Please don't go over to the side of the creationists (sorry, intelligent designists) their twaddle is based on religious fervour and (while it may well be at least partially true) cannot be proved (or more rightly disproved) by scientific methods so cannot rightly be called a theory.

Answer 3

You are so wise and so simple. Evolution is the only theory that we have to answer the ultimate question. Just as Darwin observed the integration of life to adapt, in the secular ponds containing fish that were once the same, so came the ultimate question that can never be answered. Why?


It's been proven that things can mutate(lose genetic information only)
It's also scientific fact and common knowledge that nothing can gain genetic info or evolve. so, if things cant evolve, nor have they ever, why do people believe this?

where did u come up w/this?

Answer 4

Seems strange doesn't it. The answer is because you have been lied to. No respectable scientist would say that mutations can't add genetic information because it is abundantly established in the scientific literature that they can and do (1000's of papers). Not only that but things CAN evolve. It has been abundantly observed, right up to and including speciation, for example. If what you are insisting was actually true then of course evolution wouldn't by so firmly accepted by 99.9% of biologists (0.1% not doing so purely on religious faith). Look up gene duplication, for example - the duplication of lengths of DNA, and polyploidy.

The fact that you are unaware of this, and insist "all of them" (ie. "scientists") agree with your statements, illustrates that you have been getting your info solely from some very dubious sources. Perhaps you might consider the wisdom of this. And hopefully you will have the good conscious to not pass on such lies, unchecked again.

But I get the feeling that you are lashing out in closed-minded hate already (eg. "I'm telling you thay can't. No if, ands, or buts") so I won't hold my breath. Hey, why don't you just make up a bigoted fantasy reason that suits you?

Answer 5

I will start this with a mention that I am a scientist. I have a PhD in microbiology. Therefor you cute statement of "don't even bother arguing with me" is totally worthless since I'm immensly more qualified than you.

Things for you to look up Mr. "known fact and common knowledge":

Gene duplication
Horizontal gene transfer via conjugation or transfection
Natural competence of bacteria

Who says mutation is only the loss of genetic information? Since you've done so much well thought out research (harr), surely you've seen the topic of missense mutations right? They involve substitution of 1 base for another, not the loss of a base. That can lead to either no change in AA coding sequence, or a change to another amino acid, or a "nonsense" mutation which is due to the formation of a stop codon and premature termination of the protein.

You'll note that 2/3 options I just listed are not the loss of DNA.

Take a look at the genomes of 3 Clostridium perfringens strains. 1 strain consists of significantly more IS elements than the other 2. This is most likely due to this particular strains inhabitation of the gut in close proximity to other bacteria, and gaining DNA through horizontal transfer. The other two strains inhabit the soil, which is much less densly populated.

Another example is the closely related bacterial species that make up the genus Yersinia. Y. pestis evolved from a single clone of Y. pseudotuberculosis. Again, when you look at the IS element data from Y. pseudotuberculosis and compare it to the data from all of the sequenced strains of Y. pestis you can very easily see that they've gained DNA in the form of these elements relative to their ancestor.

Finally, you should reread what you have about things such as genomic islands or pathogenicity islands. I say reread since you insist you're so well educated on this field that surely you read them but just you know forgot or failed to understand them the first time.

Answer 6

I will try:

First the premise of only loosing genetic information is incorrect. One only needs to look at Down Syndrome Patients whom have an extra chromosome, hence more genetic information.

I think it fairly clear that if you take a black moth and a white moth, place them on a white background, in a room with a predator that can see black and white only, that soon you will have no black moths. Hence your future generations of moths will be only black, until a a small mutataion in teh color gene results in a different color again.

Thus in this simple thought experiment, wherein the moths ancestors were once white and black, now only black survive. This is evolution. Where a diversity of genetic mutations compete in a varying environment favoring one mutataion over another.

If genetic mutataions did not occur then we would all be exactly (down to the very cell genetics ) the exact same as Adam and Eve or whom ever you might think came first. Thus we would all have the same fingerprints, the same color eyes, the same skin color. Hence I think it very clear that genetic mutations do occur.

Now I think most mutations are not beneficial, e.g., Down SYndrome, however some are (like intelligence).

I think the fossil record likely shows how the diversity of animals has changed over millions of years, how can that be if there are no genetic mutataions (additive or subtractive)?

Hope this helps

Answer 7

Who said that genetic information cannot be gained?
That is exactly what happens every time a zygote is formed, i.e., DNA from each gamete is combined into a single individual creature.

Presumably, the strongest plant or animal has survived to propagate therefore those genes will create offspring as strong as its parents.
Survival of the fittest = evolution

Living things definitely evolve. Perform the famous fruit fly experiment and watch evolution at work on a small scale.

Addendum: You state,"i've read too much on the subject and there are too many scientist who agree with this (all of them) to be wrong."
Please cite your sources so that we can research further.

Answer 8

you're mistaken

mutating does not mean "lose information only"

you start with an erroneous assumption, and then deny people the right to correct you. What a paradoxical (and wrong) way to proceed! ;-)

you're obviously not very well versed in what you call "science".


just one example: using, and overusing, antibiotics, as is commonly done in hospitals, kills MOST of the bugs. Some bugs have mutated, and have develop a better resistance to a given antibiotic. In the following generation, the bugs w/o that resistance will have nearly disappeared, but the bugs with that resistance will have become a dominant part of the population. So that bacteria population as a whole will have become anti-biotic resistant.

from the point of view of the bacteria, this is clearly a plus

Answer 9

If a homozygote undergoes a point mutation, it now has two unlike alleles and its information content is increased.
Transposons allow a mechanism by which whole genes can be duplicated, after which independent mutations add information content.

Bacteria can acquire antibiotic Resistance through plasmids that increase their genetic information, and their fitness, in other words, evolve.

You need to make up some new common sense scientific facts.

Answer 10

You are actually not right. Out of all the scientists who are in related fields 0.14% don't accept evolution. This is from a Newsweek article. And genetic info can evolve. Like I said, you are mistaken on the info and you should do some more research. You might not be using the correct sources.