Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chance or Design (Evolution or Creation)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Except dogs, anatomically modern humans, polar bears, lots of plants and insects. There's a large number of observed speciations. Such as insect D. miranda, about 50 years, O. lamarckana, plant, about 100 years and so on.
    Given that Darwinists jump on things like bird songs or dog eyes as examples of speciation — a term so malleable as to be next to useless in a scientific discussion — it's not surprising that you can find something, anything, to talk about to avoid the challenge.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Guyver View Post
      Sounds like you just responded sensibly to me Barbarian. Looks like you have a false accuser in the house.
      Funny, I never noticed...
      This message is hidden because ...

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
        Funny, I never noticed...
        Darwinists will say anything to avoid the challenge.
        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
        E≈mc2
        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
        -Bob B.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Lon View Post
          Well, me, but kudos. There are a few on TOL who won't agree of course. I'm sure you've met them here as well.
          Yeah, takes all kinds, um?

          Off the top of my head, that Africans are a lesser inferior species. Descent of Man p. 201
          That wasn't one of his points. Turns out, his four points remain as well-documented as ever. Darwin differed from his fellows mainly in arguing that Africans, after a few generations in England, would be as capable intellectually as Englishmen. And of course, in asserting that all humans deserved liberty and the right to their own labor.

          Could use a bit of elaboration here, if you've the time. Thanks.
          SDAs, who invented YE creationism have, in my experience, been less angry and dismissive of Christians who don't believe their version of Genesis, than are many non-SDA creationists.

          (Darwin)was a bit of an enigma considering he'd studied theology first. He does mention God, but his grasp of how God could have done things wasn't very clear in his mind. He didn't, by that matter, use his Bible as a roadmap and seemed to think some of the Bible wasn't inspired.
          He changed over a lifetime. When he was formulating his theory, he mentions how his Anglican orthodoxy was a source of amusement for the officers of the Beagle. Late in life, he said he was leaning toward agnosticism. So it matters what time in his life he wrote things.

          And I've already demonstrated how a mutation in a population produces new information. If you missed it, I can do the numbers for you.

          Yes. Please.
          O.K. Shannon showed information in a message is related to the uncertainty of the next bit coming in a message. So for a population genome, that means for any particular gene, the information is found by Summing the product of the frequency of each allele(version of a gene) by the log of the frequency of that allele, and multiplying it by -1.



          So, for a gene with two alleles, each 0.5 frequency, the information would be -(0.5 X log(0.5) + 0.5 X log(0.5)) or about 0.301. The more alleles, the greater the uncertainty of the genome of the next individual, and therefore, the greater the information in the genome itself.


          0.1% It is very small. From what I understand (your input appreciated) the DNA strand doesn't lose information per say, but rather shows dominant and lesser traits.
          There are dominant alleles, where only one has to be present to be expressed in the phenotype, and recessive alleles, where two have to be present to be expressed. Brown eyes are dominant, and blue are recessive, so a person with blue eyes has two alleles for blue. A person with brown eyes might have either one or two alleles for brown. It's not quite that simple, but that's how it works. There is also mixed dominance. Best example I know of is a white horse with two alleles for a "cream gene", and a reddish horse with two alleles for reddish, will produce only palominos. Hence, palominos can't "breed true." They are heterozygotes, with two different alleles for color.

          IOW, as I grasp, the genes are all carried, just differences in what becomes a trait. It is why, again as I understand, my eyes are brown, my wife's are green, and my daughter's are blue: No 'new' traits, simply another already there, becoming dominant.
          New alleles only happen by mutation. This is fairly common; all of us have dozens of mutations not found in either of our parents. Most of them don't do anything measurable.

          "New" here not meaning never being seen in the gene pool. This is where language needs to be very certain and careful.
          It means an allele not previously present in the gene pool. This could happen by immigration of a new individual with that allele, or by mutation. It's a major issue, since most speciations happen in small populations, with less diversity than normal.


          From what I'm reading, when someone says, for example that the sun changes my dna skin tones, it isn't really that it is new information, but rather a way my skin already acts.
          Yes. It's not a genetic change. The sun's rays merely induce melanocytes to move melanin from the center of the cell, to a wider distribution,thus darkening skin.


          Thus 'change' is (for me) a poor descriptor because it is merely a difference in the SAME DNA code. It is difficult to describe, but I think, essentially, these poor descriptors are always the problem. We just are not communicating effectively/creating misunderstood concepts such that another rightly 'should' question what we are saying. In essence, I've always tried to answer questions but it does often put me on a fence for not being as definitive as I think science education needs to be. It needs a better described conveyance.
          Yes, and biologists often assume a good understanding of high school biology on the part of laymen. Which is not a good assumption.

          Would you agree that a majority of evolution/creation discussion on TOL is largely over term disagreement?
          A great deal of it is.

          Well, tree is different and it comes back to 'kinds.' If by kinds, we see God separating or recreating, then we can make some connections, but we have to be careful when doing so. The next line of scripture is that God formed man from the dust and breathed into him. Literal breath of God? Something of, but not from human lungs or a physical necessity. It is beyond the ability of science to grasp.
          Yes. Our bodies are formed naturally, like other living things, but an immortal soul is given directly by God, which is beyond anything science can analyze.

          Well, you have to deal with Romans 8:20 in order to say that. What does it mean?
          Romans 8:18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

          Clearly, relates to humans, not other creatures, who are not cursed by Adam's sin.

          Rather, I think animals are subject to the curse as are plants etc. How? I'm not sure, just seeing Romans 8:20 saying all of creation groans. If you look at Genesis 3, man's curse was fallow ground, weeds, thorns, etc.
          What other creature must till the soil to live? Weeds are of no concern to them.

          If the wolf will one day lay down with the lamb, something, it would seem, must necessarily be out of order. Carnivores may have 1) been more of omnivores and 2) may have only eaten deceased creatures. Wild speculation? Yes, I'm left only guessing. Science observation 'could' shed light, perhaps.
          Cats can't live without meat. They just can't get essential amino acids without it.

          What Exactly is an 'Obligate Carnivore?'
          https://feline-nutrition.org/answers...gate-carnivore
          This message is hidden because ...

          Comment


          • #95
            You can tell when Barbarian is flustered, he starts umming.
            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
            E≈mc2
            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
            -Bob B.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
              Except dogs, anatomically modern humans, polar bears, lots of plants and insects. There's a large number of observed speciations. Such as insect D. miranda, about 50 years, O. lamarckana, plant, about 100 years and so on.

              Tibetans evolved their high-altitude compatibility in the past few thousand years. Polar bears no older than 150,000 years. Dogs on the outside, 50,000 years. Tuataras, about 200,000,000 years ago. Horseshoe crab, 445 million years old. Martialis huereka ant, 120 million years old. Apple maggot fly 200 years.



              About 200,000 years was the onset of a severe glacial period. So that makes sense. Obviously, there are lots of exceptions, but they seem to be either marine or from environments less vulnerable to colder climate.
              No, the research actually implies that dogs or humans are nothing special. Humans are in the midst of all research targets that their DNA spectrum has nothing special.

              To put it in another term, there's no trail implying that dogs or humans have evolved into something else in the past 200,000 years. By applying the same token, not only dogs and humans, it's not a particular known species existing today have ever evolved into anything else in the past 200,000 years. That's the implication of the result.

              It seems to me that they tried to come up with an explanation compatible with ToE. That is, all species today had experienced a nearly extinction status some 200,000 ago that today's living organisms are all repopulated from that extremely small number of each species. That is, no evolution in the past 200,000, but evolution was still possible before 200,000, that is before the nearly extinction occurred.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                You can tell when Barbarian is flustered, he starts umming.
                Yeah, takes all kinds, um?

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                  Yeah, takes all kinds, um?
                  I wish it um ... didn't.
                  Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                  E≈mc2
                  "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                  "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                  -Bob B.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Hawkins View Post
                    No,
                    Yes. As you see, humans have evolved markedly in the past few thousand years. Tibetans, for example, can now thrive at altitudes where just a few thousand years ago, humans could not. They were originally indistinguishable from Han Chinese, but now they are something else. Dogs are not wolves. Indeed, the wolves you see today are as different from the common ancestor as dogs are. Each of them are now something else, not that common ancestor. Would you like to learn how we know this?

                    the research actually implies that dogs or humans are nothing special.
                    True. As I showed you, there are many, many other organisms with similar genetic histories. It's the nature of evolution. Some are very much older than our species; some are very much younger. But we're about average; our history seems to be concurrent with an ice age about 100,000 years ago, as are many other animals. That's not surprising; major climate changes often lead to numerous extinctions and speciations.

                    To put it in another term, there's no trail implying that dogs or humans have evolved into something else in the past 200,000 years.
                    No,l that's wrong. Dogs, for example, Diverged with wolves from a common ancestor that was neither a dog nor a wolf of the sort we know today. Neither of them is the same thing as that common ancestor.

                    A new genetic analysis of modern dogs and wolves suggests that man's best friend was domesticated before agriculture.

                    But the origin of this domestication remains stubbornly mysterious. Researchers analyzed the genomes of wolves from three likely sites of domestication (the Middle East, Asia and eastern Europe), and found that modern dogs were not more closely related to any of the three. In fact, it seems that the closest wolf ancestors of today's dogs may have gone extinct, leaving no wild descendants.

                    "The dogs all form one group, and the wolves all form one group, and there's no wolf that these dogs are more closely related to of the three that we sampled," said study researcher John Novembre, a professor of genetics at the University of Chicago. "That's the big surprise of the study." [10 Things You Didn't Know About Dogs]

                    https://www.livescience.com/42649-do...s-extinct.html

                    By applying the same token, not only dogs and humans, it's not a particular known species existing today have ever evolved into anything else in the past 200,000 years. That's the implication of the result.
                    See above. It's just what the evidence shows. The common ancestor of dogs and wolves is extinct. On one side of the evolutionary trail, there's just dogs. On the other is only wolves. And that common ancestor that was neither of these was something else.

                    It seems to me that they tried to come up with an explanation compatible with ToE. That is, all species today had experienced a nearly extinction status some 200,000 ago that today's living organisms are all repopulated from that extremely small number of each species.
                    Many of them, particularly in the temperate zones, where ice ages would have the most effect, do show that. But as you just learned, there are many, many exceptions, which are either much older, or much younger than that.

                    Even in humans, significant adaptive evolution has preceded in the past 100,000 years, sometimes just in the last few thousand years.
                    This message is hidden because ...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                      Yes. As you see, humans have evolved markedly in the past few thousand years. Tibetans, for example, can now thrive at altitudes where just a few thousand years ago, humans could not. They were originally indistinguishable from Han Chinese, but now they are something else. Dogs are not wolves. Indeed, the wolves you see today are as different from the common ancestor as dogs are. Each of them are now something else, not that common ancestor. Would you like to learn how we know this?
                      Because the created kinds have a great deal of variability in their genomes... not because they are all descended from a single common ancestor.
                      All of my ancestors are human.
                      Originally posted by Squeaky
                      That explains why your an idiot.
                      Originally posted by God's Truth
                      Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                      Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                      (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                      1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                      (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                      Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Barbarian
                        And I've already demonstrated how a mutation in a population produces new information. If you missed it, I can do the numbers for you.
                        You have demonstrated that you have beliefs which contradict God's Word, and which are not supported by science. A spelling error in an instruction manual is never considered as new meaningful information... unless you are an evolutionist with little understanding of genetics.

                        Geneticist J.F. Crow says "Each mutation leads ultimately to 1 genetic death"¹ Only in the pseudo-scientific world of evolutionism, can death be referred to as "new information".

                        Geneticist Kondrashov referred to VSDM'S as a time bomb.² (Those are the mutations that evolutionist used to call silent or neutral). Evolutionists ignore the science, and think time bombs are the saviors of their belief system. For the record - bombs do not create ever increasing levels of complex sophisticated information systems.

                        Mutations irreversibly cause deterioration of our perfectly created genome. The evidence is consistent with God's words. We have a genome that has been subjected to several thousand years of corruption. The evidence is not consistent with evolutionary beliefs. And that is why various evolutionists refer to the problem as a paradox, and propose hypothetical rescue devices such as truncation, the multiplicative model, synergistic epistasis quasi truncation and others. Geneticists often refer to other geneticist models (hypothetical rescue devices) as "unrealistic".

                        1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9237985/
                        2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7475094/
                        Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

                        Comment


                        • Barbarian observes:
                          Yes. As you see, humans have evolved markedly in the past few thousand years. Tibetans, for example, can now thrive at altitudes where just a few thousand years ago, humans could not. They were originally indistinguishable from Han Chinese, but now they are something else. Dogs are not wolves. Indeed, the wolves you see today are as different from the common ancestor as dogs are. Each of them are now something else, not that common ancestor. Would you like to learn how we know this?

                          Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                          Because the created kinds have a great deal of variability in their genomes...
                          No. Animals can only have at most 2 alleles for each gene locus. So very little variability is in one organism. It's spread out though an entire population. But you won't get a jaguar from the variability in leopard population or any other interbreeding group. The alleles don't exist for them. Hence, although humans and chimpanzees have very, very similar genomes, there are still many, many alleles in each one of them, that don't exist in the other, and never did.
                          This message is hidden because ...

                          Comment


                          • Barbarian observes:
                            And I've already demonstrated how a mutation in a population produces new information. If you missed it, I can do the numbers for you.

                            Originally posted by 6days View Post
                            You have demonstrated that you have beliefs which contradict God's Word
                            As Claude Shannon demonstrated, every mutation in a population increases information. It's mathematically demonstrable. You are unwilling to accept God's word and so you invent new doctrines about "information" without even knowing what information is.

                            and which are not supported by science. A spelling error in an instruction manual is never considered as new meaningful information...
                            Because you don't understand how information works in genetics, the fact that a new mutation can make an organism more fit than others of its kind, is a complete mystery to you. Shannon demonstrated why this is so. It turns out that every new mutation is an increase in information. The forumula is this:



                            Where pn is the frequency of allele n in the population. Multiply the frequency of each by the log of the frequency of that allele, sum all of the products, and multiply by -1 to get the information. Try it yourself. It clearly demonstrates the fact.


                            Unless you are a YE creationist with little understanding of genetics.

                            Geneticist J.F. Crow says...
                            This is what geneticists say about it:

                            Evolution is the process by which populations of organisms change over generations. Genetic variations underlie these changes. Genetic variations can arise from gene mutations or from genetic recombination (a normal process in which genetic material is rearranged as a cell is getting ready to divide). These variations often alter gene activity or protein function, which can introduce different traits in an organism. If a trait is advantageous and helps the individual survive and reproduce, the genetic variation is more likely to be passed to the next generation (a process known as natural selection). Over time, as generations of individuals with the trait continue to reproduce, the advantageous trait becomes increasingly common in a population, making the population different than an ancestral one. Sometimes the population becomes so different that it is considered a new species.
                            Genetics Home Reference
                            National Library of Medicine
                            NIH

                            Only in the pseudo-scientific world of evolutionism, can death be referred to as "new information".

                            ev·o·lu·tion-ism
                            /ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/izm

                            noun
                            noun: evolutionism;
                            1. 1.
                            the stories creationists tell about evolutionary theory, to avoid discussing the real theory.
                            "evolutionism is calling God a liar"
                            2. 2.
                            the numerous misconceptions creationists have about evolution
                            "evolutionism is about the origin of life"
                            synonyms: straw man, diversion, misconception


                            However, in statistics, genetics, and biology, every new mutation is an increase in information. But that only debunks one of your misconceptions. The other is the unfounded belief that evolution requires an increase in information. Often it results from a decrease in information. Evolution can even sometimes result indecreased fitness. Would you like to learn how that works?
                            This message is hidden because ...

                            Comment


                            • Your cite of Crow as support for your new doctrines is ill-considered. Here, he easily disposes of the "time bomb" argument, citing real world experience:

                              To account for the very high deleterious human mutation rate without incurring a tremendous genetic load, it is customary to invoke epistasis. I believe that the most effective epistasis is not a consequence of gene action, but rather of the way selection operates. With truncation selection, long known by breeders to be the most efficient method, individuals with a number of mutations above a threshold are eliminated. Thus, harmful mutations are eliminated in bunches. This is what I call quasi-epistasis, generated by selection's grouping alleles of similar effect. Thus, even genes with very small effects are effectively highly epistatic, despite being physiologically additive. It is important to note that truncation does not have to be sharp; approximate rank-order selection is almost as effective. Although strict truncation in nature is unlikely, quasi-truncation is expected in resource-limited species, and that is a lot of species. For a discussion see Crow (2008) and references therein.
                              J.F. Crow, On epistasis: why it is unimportant in polygenic directional selection
                              Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010 Apr 27; 365(1544): 1241–1244.
                              This message is hidden because ...

                              Comment


                              • Kondrashov offers you no support, either:

                                Topological features of rugged fitness landscapes in sequence space
                                Dmitry A. Kondrashov
                                Fyodor A. Kondrashov
                                Trends in Genetics October 15, 2014
                                The factors that determine the tempo and mode of protein evolution continue to be a central question in molecular evolution. Traditionally, studies of protein evolution focused on the rates of amino acid substitutions. More recently, with the availability of sequence data and advanced experimental techniques, the focus of attention has shifted toward the study of evolutionary trajectories and the overall layout of protein fitness landscapes. In this review we describe the effect of epistasis on the topology of evolutionary pathways that are likely to be found in fitness landscapes and develop a simple theory to connect the number of maladapted genotypes to the topology of fitness landscapes with epistatic interactions. Finally, we review recent studies that have probed the extent of epistatic interactions and have begun to chart the fitness landscapes in protein sequence space.


                                Kondrashov does believe that in modern civilzation, deleterious mutations are accumulating faster than they can be removed by natural selection.

                                For example, people with phenylketonuria are not being removed from the population by selection, because we can keep them healthy by a change in diet. Poor eyesight can be compensated for by glasses or surgery, and so on.

                                This merely means that selection is different now than it was a hundred thousand years ago.
                                This message is hidden because ...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X