Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Stripe]

He's just cutting and pasting from other websites. You might as well be speaking to him in Urdu.

:yawn:

Blablaman with another useless contribution.

 

[6days]

He's just cutting and pasting from other websites. You might as well be speaking to him in Urdu.

میں بجائے اردو میں بات کروں گا اس سے کہ میں اپنے آپ کو ایک جیسے گھنٹی گھنٹی بنوں.

 

[Stripe]

میں بجائے اردو میں بات کروں گا اس سے کہ میں اپنے آپ کو ایک جیسے گھنٹی گھنٹی بنوں.

:rotfl:

Me too.

 

[Jose Fly]

Accumulation of VSDM's in a lineage act like a time bomb. He says the mutation load 'paradox' appears real...it can lead to extinction.

Again 6days, under what set of circumstances?

ENCODE research reveals the paradox problem is likely much worse than Kondrashov imagined.

How so?

 

[The Barbarian]

You're wasting your time. He has no idea of what he's parroting from other websites.

 

[Jose Fly]

He's just cutting and pasting from other websites.

Oh definitely. I seriously doubt 6days happened across this paper as he was perusing a 1995 issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology.

You might as well be speaking to him in Urdu.

:chuckle:

 

[6days]

Again 6days, under what set of circumstances? (Mutation load can lead to extinction)

I answered this several times. Kondrashov calls it a paradox that humanity has survived such a high mutation rate, with such a low reproductive rate.

How so? (The problem is worse due to ENCODE results)

Kondrashov thought much of our genome was inactive, thus mutations in that region would have no effect. ENCODE has found that some, and perhaps most, of what was previously called junk is performing regulatory functions, thus mutations do have effect.

I seriously doubt 6days happened across this paper as he was perusing a 1995 issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology.

You also "seriously doubted" I had access to the article as I claimed. Maybe..... it's time for you to reconsider your "serious doubts" about the claims of Jesus on your life?

 

[SUTG]

He's just cutting and pasting from other websites. You might as well be speaking to him in Urdu.

I know, right? It's as if the YE Creationist are just playing an endless game of telephone where not only do they cut and paste everything without reading it, but they even end up getting that wrong.

Hey look, it's Piltdown Man!

 

[6days]

I know, right? It's as if the YE Creationist are just playing an endless game of telephone where not only do they cut and paste everything without reading it, but they even end up getting that wrong.

Hey look, it's Piltdown Man!

Hey... Good point..... Do you know about Piltdown? HA

SUTG.... Barbarian is frustrated, he wants to be relevant but is unable to respond with logic and intellect, so he resorts to lies. He is unable to show any cut and paste answers.

 

[Jose Fly]

I answered this several times. Kondrashov calls it a paradox that humanity has survived such a high mutation rate, with such a low reproductive rate.

One more chance....under what conditions does alleged paradox occur? If you've already answered, then you must understand the material, which means it should be no problem at all for you to restate your answer.

Kondrashov thought much of our genome was inactive, thus mutations in that region would have no effect.

Can you quote from the paper where he gives his estimate of how much of our genome is functional?

ENCODE has found that some, and perhaps most, of what was previously called junk is performing regulatory functions, thus mutations do have effect.

Apparently you've forgotten 6days, but we've been over this. Do we need to cover it again?

You also "seriously doubted" I had access to the article as I claimed. Maybe..... it's time for you to reconsider your "serious doubts" about the claims of Jesus on your life?

Exactly how did you come to be aware of this paper?

 

[6days]

One more chance....under what conditions does alleged paradox occur?

Alleged paradox? Your question has been answered numerous times. (Essentially the paradox is when mutational load is higher than removal rate / selection in a population). You (and Greg who I originally questioned) have not attempted to answer the question we started this with. "How can natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person (and maybe 3 that are deleterious), per generation in a population with a birth rate of about 2? And... I asked if you could answer from science and not answer with beliefs."

Can you quote from the paper where he gives his estimate of how much of our genome is functional?

In 1995, evolutionists thought more than 90% of our DNA was 'junk'. Science has revealed their is purpose and design in what was previously dismissed as junk.... research continues.

 

[Jose Fly]

Alleged paradox? Your question has been answered numerous times.

That's what I thought. You're doing your typical dishonest game where you deflect and dodge a question until you ultimately declare that you've already answered it (but never say what that answer was or where it can be found).

Like I said earlier, I'm not interested in chasing you around like that any more. Your evasiveness speaks for itself.

You (and Greg who I originally questioned) have not attempted to answer the question we started this with. "How can natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person (and maybe 3 that are deleterious), per generation in a population with a birth rate of about 2? And... I asked if you could answer from science and not answer with beliefs."

Because you're mischaracterizing Kondrashov's paper and misunderstanding what it describes, and from that state of confusion, you ask a question that is nonsense.

I've tried to help you understand the material, but all you can do is repeat the same talking points like a human tape recorder.

In 1995, evolutionists thought more than 90% of our DNA was 'junk'. Science has revealed their is purpose and design in what was previously dismissed as junk.... research continues.

See? You claimed that "Kondrashov thought much of our genome was inactive, thus mutations in that region would have no effect", but when I ask you to show where he said that, you dodge and evade. I guess you're hoping to play the same dishonest game as above, where you'll keep dodging until enough time has passed that you'll declare "I've already answered".

The fact that you have to repeatedly resort to that sort of behavior speaks volumes about you 6days. You should really think on that.

 

[SUTG]

SUTG.... Barbarian is frustrated, he wants to be relevant but is unable to respond with logic and intellect, so he resorts to lies.

I don't think he seems frustrated. He's probably chuckling a bit, but not frustrated.

 

[6days]

See? You claimed that "Kondrashov thought much of our genome was inactive, thus mutations in that region would have no effect", but when I ask you to show where he said that, you dodge and evade. I guess you're hoping to play the same dishonest game as above, where you'll keep dodging until enough time has passed that you'll declare "I've already answered".

The fact that you have to repeatedly resort to that sort of behavior speaks volumes about you 6days. You should really think on that.

You aren't being logical. Surely you aren't suggesting Kondrashov knew mutations in the 'junk' were actually deleterious? We now know 'junk' was a misnomer. Mutations can and do have a deleterious effect in non-coding regions of DNA, which previously was dismissed as non functional. Kondrashov simply could not have know the 'paradox' problem was bigger than he imagined.

 

[Jose Fly]

You aren't being logical. Surely you aren't suggesting Kondrashov knew mutations in the 'junk' were actually deleterious? We now know 'junk' was a misnomer. Mutations can and do have a deleterious effect in non-coding regions of DNA, which previously was dismissed as non functional. Kondrashov simply could not have know the 'paradox' problem was bigger than he imagined.

Still dodging. I'd ask you to quote from the paper where he estimates the amount of non-functional DNA, but you'll just keep dodging, won't you?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Still dodging. I'd ask you to quote from the paper where he estimates the amount of non-functional DNA, but you'll just keep dodging, won't you?

Do you really think 6days is going to truthfully answer a question about the contents of a paper he posted to support his assertion(s) about VSDMs? All 6days is going do in any reply is misrepresent outdated information with canned quotes from creationist web sites. He will NEVER "quote from the paper".

Who cares what was once thought about genetics, our understanding has improved. He blames "evolutionists" but biologists and geneticists need not be "evolutionists" in order to draw incorrect conclusions based on insufficient information.

He often cites the appendix as a "useless" organ but it wasn't "evolutionists" who thought removal of the appendix wasn't detrimental to the patient... that honor belongs to medical doctors, based on experience with medicine, not evolution.

 

[iouae]

6days is the cut and paste king. That way, it bypasses the brain and all reasoning. He is also the fringe science king, searching the archives high and low, for papers which "disprove" mainstream science.

I know 6days has not read that paper on statistics, nor can he understand it because his science and maths is not up to it. The paragraph I quoted in a previous post, stated that this paper was speaking over millions of generations of humans, when human population size drops to very low numbers, none of which conditions actually pertain, and especially to someone believing in a 6000 year old earth.

The only question of interest to me, is why 6days considers it in his interests for man to have such fragile DNA, so full of small but not lethal mutations. What benefit could that be to a YEC? Is he saying God was able to make all other creatures genetically stable, but not the pinnacle of His creation, mankind, genetically sustainable?

After all, mankind was intended to last forever, and before the flood, many did last nearly a thousand years.

Maybe one of you could explain to me why 6days is grinding this axe, and beating this particular drum. Thanks.

 

[Stripe]

You aren't being logical. Surely you aren't suggesting Kondrashov knew mutations in the 'junk' were actually deleterious? We now know 'junk' was a misnomer. Mutations can and do have a deleterious effect in non-coding regions of DNA, which previously was dismissed as non functional. Kondrashov simply could not have know the 'paradox' problem was bigger than he imagined.

My goodness, you've got a whole gaggle of Darwinists jumping up and down. :chuckle:

 

[Jonahdog]

Imagine how much less fun TOL would be if the fundys joined the 21st century and bothered to learn some science and understood.
Guess there are no decent universities where they live.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Imagine how much less fun TOL would be if the fundys joined the 21st century and bothered to learn some science and understood.
Guess there are no decent universities where they live.

If you have nothing to contribute to the conversation...