Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

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

  • Originally posted by Yorzhik View Post
    Most any example of random mutation improving fitness follows the predicted burning bridge approach as outlined by Michael Behe in Darwin Devolves.
    Behe has a lot of odd beliefs. It's why he's not taken very seriously by biologists. The observed increases in fitness by favorable mutations has been repeatedly observed. No point in denying the fact.

    Behe's belief includes assumptions that have so far been falsified when those assumptions are able to be verified. So, he's merely wrong. If you beliefs require denying observed phenomena, that's a pretty good clue for you.

    Mutations passed to the next generation include mutations to the most fit members of a population.
    Actually, they aren't passed out, depending on fitness. That's another myth creationists have about mutations.

    Eventually, the mutations accumulate to a point where it reduces fitness perhaps multiple generations into the future.
    Your belief is contradicted by observed populations,showing increasing fitness over time. Would you like to learn about some of them?

    Those mutations cannot be taken back.
    They are merely removed by natural selection. Would you like to learn more about how that happens?

    This is why computer models, like the ones you show, don't simulate common descent.
    I showed you several that do. No point in denying that, either.

    But genetic load is not defined as a loss of fitness,
    Well, let's take a look...

    Definition of genetic load
    : the decrease in fitness of the average individual in a population relative to the fittest genotype due to the presence of deleterious genes in the gene pool.

    First Known Use of genetic load
    1950, in the meaning defined above

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...genetic%20load

    But natural selection cannot act on a loss of fitness until it appears.
    You can't fix something until it's broken? Amazing.

    Loss of function is acted upon by natural selection. If you thought about it, you'd probably realize why.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
      The observed increases in fitness by favorable mutations has been repeatedly observed. No point in denying the fact.
      Darwinists love asserting their ideas as fact.

      But Barbarian's beliefs require denying observed phenomena. That's a pretty good clue for everyone.

      That's another myth Darwinists have about adaptation.

      Your belief is contradicted by observed populations,showing increasing fitness over time.
      Nope. Would you like to learn about what you've gotten wrong?

      Would you like to learn more about how that happens?

      We showed you several times. No point in denying it.

      Loss of function is acted upon by natural selection. If you thought about it, you'd probably realize why.
      Actually, natural selection can only theoretically work on expressed traits, while "random mutations" would occur in the DNA code.

      Hoping that random changes can allow natural selection to work is a little like suggesting that we might generate a better novel by randomly altering the pixels that make up each letter in a Word document.

      Hint: Changing one pixel would never do anything to improve a story.
      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


      • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
        that's a pretty good clue for you.
        Behe keeps stacking up arguments that haven't been answered by the scientific community going back to the mouse trap. So to think they've caught up on his latest book, Darwin Devolves, is a fantasy.

        That's another myth creationists have about mutations.
        Mutations get passed from one generation to the next, even from the most fit in a population to their progeny.

        Would you like to learn about some of them?
        Populations can only increase fitness by breaking functions. Those populations can't outcomplete the parent stock in the more common environment, while the parent stock can devolve to the "more fit" population again.

        Would you like to learn more about how that happens?
        Natural selection cannot act on mutations until they accumulate enough to affect fitness. But mutations accumulate in the fittest members of a population, generation after generation.

        No point in denying that, either.
        You showed no programs that simulate common descent. Name them if you think you did.

        Well, let's take a look...

        Definition of genetic load
        : the decrease in fitness of the average individual in a population relative to the fittest genotype due to the presence of deleterious genes in the gene pool.

        First Known Use of genetic load
        1950, in the meaning defined above

        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...genetic%20load
        Scientists that understand the problem with mutational load like Crow and Sanford define mutational load as affecting even the most fit members of any population.

        You can't fix something until it's broken? Amazing.

        Loss of function is acted upon by natural selection. If you thought about it, you'd probably realize why.
        As mentioned above, mutations that will eventually cause a loss in function are already being passed from generation to generation. Natural selection won't help.
        Good things come to those who shoot straight.

        Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Yorzhik View Post
          Behe keeps stacking up arguments that haven't been answered by the scientific community going back to the mouse trap.
          Even Behe doesn't try that story, any more...

          A reducibly complex mousetrap

          John H. McDonald
          Department of Biological Sciences
          University of Delaware

          https://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

          All the rest are like that. Behe has even admitted that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science.

          Mutations get passed from one generation to the next
          Some do, and some don't. For reasons that are completely beyond your ken.

          Populations can only increase fitness by breaking functions.
          That's a common creationist superstition, but it has no basis in fact. Gene duplication followed by mutation, or de novo gene mutations don't break anything at all. Again, if you were familiar even with high school genetics, this wouldn't puzzle you.

          Those populations can't outcomplete the parent stock in the more common environment
          Outcompete, you mean? Of course they can. If the new allele makes the population more fit than the previous genome, it will replace the old alleles. Would you like to see some examples?

          while the parent stock can devolve to the "more fit" population again.
          Remember, you just learned that there is no "devolution." Remember? You insisted that geneticist use the term, but when you were asked to show that, you couldn't find even one case.

          Natural selection cannot act on mutations until they accumulate enough to affect fitness.
          That word salad means nothing at all. A favorable mutation will immediately increase the fitness of the individual with it. If you thought about it for a moment, I'm sure you could figure out why.

          But mutations accumulate in the fittest members of a population, generation after generation.
          Favorable ones, or neutral ones do. As you may recall, as soon as they reduce fitness, harmful mutations are removed. You haven't given this much thought, it seems. Many harmful mutations are recessive, which mean that they only affect fitness if the individual has two copies, one from each parent. So long as you don't marry a close relative, the odds of getting two of those are very very small. But here's the interesting thing; animals that normally do interbreed with close relatives have very few harmful recessives. Can you guess why? Think about what we've discussed here.

          You showed no programs that simulate common descent.
          Everyone saw them. If you want me to look them up again, I'll go do it.

          Scientists that understand the problem with mutational load like Crow and Sanford define mutational load as affecting even the most fit members of any population.
          It's always there. This is why most populations show a mutation rate that's very close to optimal.

          And so far, no one has actually measured an absolute genetic load, because one would have to sum the load of each suboptimal allele, and be able to identify an absolutely optimal allele. This is easy to do in simulations,but in real life, there's a lot of factors beyond anything you've thought about so far.

          As mentioned above, mutations that will eventually cause a loss in function are already being passed from generation to generation.
          Fortunately, natural selection removes any that actually cause a loss of fitness.

          Natural selection won't help.
          I know you want to believe that, but the evidence shows that it does. A little common sense might be useful here:


          Population Size, Natural Selection and the Genetic Load

          J. R. G. TURNER & M. H. WILLIAMSON

          Nature volume 218, page700(1968)
          How great a genetic load can a population tolerate ? This subject has recently been discussed by several authors1–5. We believe that a most important point can be stated briefly: because most organisms produce far more offspring than are necessary to maintain a constant population density, and because population densities remain, very roughly, constant, many individuals die before they are mature; it does not matter whether they die of starvation, accidents or from genetic ailments; the population can still maintain itself. It is not so much that there is a genetic load which might threaten the species, but that there is an ecological load, resulting from density regulation, which because it must, as Darwin noted, produce natural selection, gives rise to the apparent genetic load. A population will be able to tolerate what seems to us a considerable genetic load, without being, on that account, in any danger of extinction. The genetic load is, for the most part, merely an expression of the fact that not all genotypes are equally viable when the population becomes crowded. Many individuals have to die in the process of density regulation, and if those which die differ genetically from those which survive, we will observe a “genetic load”. This is the crux of the Malthus—Darwin concept of selection. This does not of course apply to genetic conditions which are markedly disabling at all population densities; there must be a decided limit (although a fairly high one, for the dead individuals simply leave more food or space for others, which otherwise would die) to the number of these which a population can contain. We suggest the term “loaded” for this last kind of selection.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
            Even Behe doesn't try that story, any more...
            What's the bet that Behe still uses that analogy. I'll give you any odds you like.
            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

            Working...
            X