Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[6days]

There was. And you refused to further engage with Jose or myself.

That's on YOU

Again... the question ... the discussion (should you wish to engage) "How can natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person, 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."

 

[Jose Fly]

WellJose... if anyone other than you and me read these posts, I hope they do read that paragraph. They will notice Muellers concern of accumulating mutations has nothing to do with population size. (Although, as we already agreed it can cause rapid extinction in small populations).

Tell me 6days, what does N represent in the calculations in Muller (1950)?

The funny thing is..... it is YOU, Jose Fly who is rejecting the data and imposing your beliefs upon it.

????????? What data am I rejecting and what beliefs am I imposing?

I have cited numerous secular articles

Yes, and as I've documented, you cherry-pick from those articles. For example, with Kondrashov's work you accept the science behind the concept of genetic load, but you reject the same science when it generates a solution. Another example is how you accept the science behind the estimates of mutation rates, but you reject the science used to verify it.

And it's no mystery as to why you do this. You explained it quite clearly when you said that genetic load is consistent with the Bible and that the resolutions aren't. IOW, you're viewing all the data through the lens of...

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record

...a highly biased and anti-scientific framework that you called "true" and agreed with.

but in each case you use a rescue device to 'save' yourself. For example, you say essentially 'But IF...IF synergistic epistasis' works the right way, it solves my problem'.

?????? Me? I've never said that. But you know who did? The authors of the papers you've been citing!

Here's Kondrashov in his 2002 paper you cited: "Genomic deleterious mutation rates in excess of 1 do not necessarily lead to prohibitively high genetic load, as long as selection against mutations involves synergistic epistasis [see Crow, 2000a]."

Here's the website you cited: "Purging of deleterious mutations in sexual populations is facilitated by synergistic epistasis among deleterious mutations."

I gotta be honest with you 6days....it's really weird to see you try and say that I'm the one relying on "rescue devices" when it's in the very sources you've been citing.

Once again... it IS YOU who is imposing your worldview...your beliefs.... your framework upon the data.

Where? How? I don't know if you've noticed, but I'm the one taking the sources you've been citing at their face value, whereas you're the one who's cherry-picking from them.

From here it looks like you're childishly trying to accuse me of your own faults.

I don't need all the rescue devices the various articles use to rationalize the data with their pre-conceived conclusions (truncation selection, multipicative model, synergistic epistasis, quasi truncation, additive model)

Of course not. You simply reject out-of-hand everything that you see as conflicting with scripture. You said so yourself.

 

[6days]

Tell me 6days, what does N represent in the calculations in Muller (1950)? Mueller is doing a calculation trying to determine, or rather he is determining that selection can't create equilibrium with the human mutation rate.


It is interesting that Mueller comes to his conclusion of increasing load, even though he plugs in a value for the mutation rate, we now know is more than 1,000% too low. "It becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1"

????????? What data am I rejecting and what beliefs am I imposing?

Simple... you reject the data showing a good genome is slowly getting worse. And you believe the genome must have improved in the past by by many orders of magnitude increasing in complexity and sophistication. You reject the data, imposing hypothetical and unrealistic rescue devices such as synergistic epistasis.

For example, with Kondrashov's work you accept the science behind the concept of genetic load, but you reject the same science when it generates a solution.

Funny....and a bit dishonest. Yes, I accept the science showing the problem of increasing genetic load. But...there is no science involved in Kondrashov's "solution".... which he himself called it a potential solution.

IOW... IF the mutation rate is a 1,000% lower...and IF we use a biologically unrealistic selection model...then MAYBE we don't have the paradox problem... That is not science.

...a highly biased and anti-scientific framework that you called "true" and agreed with.

We know why you keep trying to create bunny trails instead of sticking with evidence. And we know that you think only evolutionists put on a lab coat and are transformed into unbiased blank slates.

 

[Stuu]

Again... the question ... the discussion (should you wish to engage) "How can natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person, 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."

90% of fertilised eggs don't result in the birth of a child. A great deal of that loss is selection on genetic non-viability.

Were you looking for a selection factor that explains why we have not been overwhelmed by deleterious mutation?

Stuart

 

[6days]

90% of fertilised eggs don't result in the birth of a child. A great deal of that loss is selection on genetic non-viability.

Hey Stuu... thanks for trying to answer. The problem is the increasing load in live birth living humans.

 

[Stuu]

Hey Stuu... thanks for trying to answer. The problem is the increasing load in live birth living humans.

But that problem doesn't exist because it is selected against before humans make it to being born live.

Stuart

 

[6days]

But that problem doesn't exist because it is selected against before humans make it to being born live.

Stuart

No... That is silly. Each person has well more than 100 NEW mutations in addition to the thousands you inherited from your parents.

 

[Stuu]

No... That is silly. Each person has well more than 100 NEW mutations in addition to the thousands you inherited from your parents.

Are these somatic cell or germ line cell mutations?

Stuart

 

[Greg Jennings]

Again... the question ... the discussion (should you wish to engage) "How can natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person, 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."

I cannot, other than what Kindrashov himself proposed, but you didn't accept. I believe he said that the problem only arose in very small populations. You accepted all of the paper BUT that.

Other studies done on the subject, as Jose provided in an earlier post, clarify that problem and present data suggesting a solution.

The authors of these studies are the experts in this field, I am not. I have no reason to ACCEPT the first paper's conclusion yet REJECT all others done later. That's what you are doing (except you even reject some of the first!)

 

[6days]

I cannot, other than what Kindrashov himself proposed, but you didn't accept. I believe he said that the problem only arose in very small populations.

No... he certainly did NOT say that.

Other studies done on the subject, as Jose provided in an earlier post, clarify that problem and present data suggesting a solution.

The key word in your sentence is "suggestion". I have listed various suggestions secularist propose trying to shoehorn data with their beliefs. The suggestions sometimes contradict other suggestions... which are biologically unrealistic.

 

[6days]

Are these somatic cell or germ line cell mutations?
Stuart

Germ line.

 

[Greg Jennings]

No... he certainly did NOT say that.
The key word in your sentence is "suggestion". I have listed various suggestions secularist propose trying to shoehorn data with their beliefs. The suggestions sometimes contradict other suggestions... which are biologically unrealistic.

You are rejecting parts of the studies while accepting other parts. Specifically, you're rejecting anything that doesn't jive with your preconceived ideas. Does that seem scientific to you? Or honest?


I don't have anything else to add on that subject. But I'd love to talk to you about how God created every animal perfectly at the beginning.....

 

[6days]

You are rejecting parts of the studies while accepting other parts. Specifically, you're rejecting anything that doesn't jive with your preconceived ideas.

What are you talking about? I accept the data. I reject some of his secular beliefs. The data is consistent with God's Word. We live in a world created perfectly, but now deteriorating.

I don't have anything else to add on that subject. But I'd love to talk to you about how God created every animal perfectly at the beginning.....

We agree... creation was perfect.

 

[Jose Fly]

Tell me 6days, what does N represent in the calculations in Muller (1950)?

Mueller is doing a calculation trying to determine, or rather he is determining that selection can't create equilibrium with the human mutation rate.

Well this is just plain absurd. 6days, when you get to the point where you refuse to answer such a simple question that has such an obvious answer, alarm bells should be going off in your head warning you that something is wrong with the position you're advocating. I mean....if you can't even bring yourself to to acknowledge that N represents population size in a paper you've cited, you've gone off the deep end.

But then that's consistent with this oddball talking point to begin with. You say you accept the science behind genetic load, but reject the solutions because they're based on "beliefs", and by "beliefs" you mean "anything that disagrees with the Bible".

The funny part about that is how the "science behind genetic load" is based on the exact same "beliefs" that you use to justify your rejection of the resolutions. For example, one key aspect of "the science behind genetic load" is the human mutation rate, but as previously documented, that rate is verified by comparing the human and chimp genomes and putting them in the context of the time since our last common ancestor.

And even more bizarrely, you consistently deny the fact that multiple authors (including Kondrashov) directly state that genetic load is only an issue in populations that are reduced to small numbers for long periods of time. And by "long periods of time" they're referring to the "millions of years" that you cite as your reason for rejecting the solutions. No matter how many different people point this out to you, and no matter how many times the parts of the papers are directly quoted to you, you just deny it all.

So the concept of "genetic load" has a basis in human/chimp common ancestry and "millions of years", both of which you deny. Yet you try and claim that you "accept the science" behind genetic load. The only question is whether you're deliberately lying when you say that.

Further (and as I noted previously), the very concept of genetic load is a product of population genetics, which is a sub-field of evolutionary biology (population genetics is the statistical modeling of how populations evolve). Obviously you believe the identification of genetic load is very important. Yet you try to simultaneously argue that evolutionary biology hasn't contributed anything to our scientific knowledge.

You can't have it both ways. Either genetic load is real and important, which means evolutionary biology has indeed contributed to our knowledge, or genetic load is just an artifact of inaccurate statistical modeling. IOW, one of your favorite talking points has to be wrong.

Also, you claimed that the reason you reject the resolutions to genetic load is because they're based on "millions of years", as if "millions of years" is some fringe concept that only came about recently and is largely rejected in the scientific community. Of course reality is that "millions of years" have been a foundation of the earth and life sciences for well over two centuries and is only denied by religious fundamentalists like you. So basically you're no different than the flat-earthers on the other threads, in that you simply reject long-standing scientific reality out-of-hand for no other reason than that it conflicts with your beliefs.

And that brings us to the most important thing we've learned here....that everything you post regarding science...every talking point, every assertion, every dodge, every evasion, every quote mine, every copy-n-paste....they're all extensions of your application of a binary and anti-scientific filter that you referred to as true and good:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record

That explains all the things we've seen from you. Your cherry-picking from the papers you cite, your out-of-hand rejection of resolutions, your refusal to answer straight-forward questions, your conflicting talking points, and your constant repetition...all directly stem from the above framework.

I just hope that everyone here who interacts with you remembers that.

 

[6days]

I mean....if you can't even bring yourself to to acknowledge that N represents population size in a paper you've cited, you've gone off the deep end.

Jose... the question was answered "he is determining that selection can't create equilibrium with the human mutation rate." Perhaps you didn't understand.... in his formula he uses "N1" to represent equilibrium (in a population)/ or where selection removes mutations at same rate they appear. He says if the mutatation rate was 0.1 ( which is at least a thousand percent too low) that genetic load will not increase if each couple has about 5 kids / 2.4 per individual.


Kondrashov is certainly NOT saying the problem exists in a small population only...and neither do other geneticists. You seem to keep ignoring Kondrashov says " it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep Pace with a mutation rate of 0.1 it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children her couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1"

You say you accept the science behind genetic load, but reject the solutions because they're based on "beliefs"...

Correct... I accept the data. I do reject the unrealistic rescue device (beliefs) of synergistic epistasis. ( even many secular geneticist reject that "possible solution")

...one key aspect of "the science behind genetic load" is the human mutation rate, but as previously documented, that rate is verified by comparing the human and chimp genomes and putting them in the context of the time since our last common ancestor.

That is so false and psuedoscientific for many reasons. The human mutation rate is best calculated by the direct method or the biochemical method. It would be silly to try figure out how many mutations per generation in chimps before you get a human. Chimps also suffer from overwhelming number of deleterious mutations causing genetic load. (The molecular clock/ phylogenetic method has been proven silly since it depends on neutral mutations and uphill evution).

And even more bizarrely, you consistently deny the fact that multiple authors (including Kondrashov) directly state that genetic load is only an issue in populations that are reduced to small numbers for long periods of time.

What is bizarre is that you keep repeating that even though you have been proven wrong on that. Even the one article you linked to described the problem as worse in small populations but still existing in the large population.

Yet you try to simultaneously argue that evolutionary biology hasn't contributed anything to our scientific knowledge.

Correct... what I have said is the common ancestry belief system has only hindered scientific progress and in some cases harm humanity.

Also, you claimed that the reason you reject the resolutions to genetic load is because they're based on "millions of years"...

Genetic load is based on empirical science and is consistent with the Biblical model. We have at very good genome that is slowly degenerating.

The "possible resolutions" are not science but instead attempts to align data with a false belief system, and uphill evolution.

 

[Stripe]

Geneticists accept the neutralist theory because the predictions it made have been verified. Strict selectionism cannot explain what we see in nature, but neutralist theory does.

And that's all that matters in science.

Nope.

The most important thing in science is that ideas are thrown out when proven false (or shown unfalsifiable).

Holding up successful predictions as "the only thing that matters in science" leads down the path of avoiding falsification, and falsification is the No. 1 component of the scientific approach.

This is exactly correct!

And it was widely understood and fully accepted before science went down the road of mathematical theories and atheistic creation mythologies.

Predictions are terrific and needed and super valuable but they do not, in and of themselves, prove that a theory is correct. Typically, a prediction that is verified is a prediction that has failed to falsify the theory and a theory that is permitted to survived repeated failed predictions evolves into an unfalsifiable belief system rather than a scientific theory, which is precisely what has occurred with several modern scientific theories, not the least of which is Darwinian Evolution, which has had it's "incremental small changes" having been disproved hundreds and hundreds of times over, including on this very thread!

As I taught you earlier, predictions are what matters in science.

Blablarian: Still as dishonest -- and stupid -- as ever.

 

[Greg Jennings]

No... he certainly did NOT say that.
The key word in your sentence is "suggestion". I have listed various suggestions secularist propose trying to shoehorn data with their beliefs. The suggestions sometimes contradict other suggestions... which are biologically unrealistic.

The problem, that you know was from 1994, has been further studied and a solution proposed. It will take time to verify anything for certain. That's how science works. It takes time to find out EXACTLY how and why something happens

The only thing unrealistic about this is how you can accept part of a paper, while ignoring or rejecting the rest.

I assume you know what cherry-picking is? Surely I'm not the first to tell you about it?

 

[6days]

The problem, that you know was from 1994, has been further studied and a solution proposed.

The problem was identified by 1950, or earlier. We have discussed articles from then up until very recent times (2016) .


The problem for those who deny God's Word is that mutation rates are inconsistent with the common ancestry belief system. The mutation rates ARE consistent with Scripture. A perfect creation is deteriorating and the evidence is consistent with a recent creation. Science helps confirm the truth of God's Word... and provides another avenue of worship.

 

[Greg Jennings]

The problem was identified by 1950, or earlier. We have discussed articles from then up until very recent times (2016) .


The problem for those who deny God's Word is that mutation rates are inconsistent with the common ancestry belief system. The mutation rates ARE consistent with Scripture. A perfect creation is deteriorating and the evidence is consistent with a recent creation. Science helps confirm the truth of God's Word... and provides another avenue of worship.

The mutation rates, if you ignore ALL other information provided in the papers, are a problem. But unlike you, most people don't cherry-pick as they read

And what of all of the science that directly contradicts a young created Earth? You reject radiometric dating, tree rings, ice core data, and so on -- all indicating an Earth that is very very old. How do explain that some trees are older than your Earth is?

I've even heard you say that the speed of light in a vacuum IS NOT a constant, which would destroy all we know about physics and out universe if true.

 

[6days]

The mutation rates, if you ignore ALL other information provided in the papers, are a problem. But unlike you, most people don't cherry-pick as they read.

Are you saying that accepting ALL the data is cherry picking?


Greg... a couple weeks had now passed since you suggested you could dissect creationist arguments on genetics. I think you now know what VSDM's are. So can you now answer the question from a couple weeks back.

And what of all of the science that directly contradicts a young created Earth?

Science helps confirm the truth of God's Word, and our young created universe.

You reject radiometric dating, tree rings, ice core data, and so on...

No... I accept the data. I think you are no longer wanting to "dissect" genetics, and want new goal posts?

How do explain that some trees are older than your Earth is?

Oh my goodness Greg! How can you possibly believe a tree is older than the earth???

I've even heard you say that the speed of light in a vacuum IS NOT a constant...

You are frustrated it seems so now fabricating an argument, you think you can beat up on. (Strawman fallacy). I have never said that about the speed of light. If you wish to say genetics supports Scripture, and discuss the speed of light... can do.