Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

[Stuu]

Stuu, it is geneticists who make the claim that genetic load is increasing.

I've never heard that being a matter of consensus amongst any group of scientists.

The evidence is absolutely consistent with God's Word

In science, no one's word matters. It's about unambiguous evidence.

a perfectly created genome that has been subjected to several thousand years of corruption / mutations.

The human genome has not changed in any statistically significant way for several tens of thousands of years.

Genetics provides evidence that common ancestry is a false belief system.

No, it proves common ancestry beyond any doubt. Endogenous retroviruses and comparisons of mutations in the same or analogous proteins or genes mapped against fossil morphology is enough to demonstrate it completely.

Research shows it is impossible that selection can detect and remove mutations which cause increasing genetic load.

What do you call spontaneous miscarriage then?

But sure, show the mutation rate and number of mutations in the genomes of the "Sima people" (that you believe are 430000 years old) compared to modern humans. This will be interesting.

You have the burden of proof, for you made the claim. Can you demonstrate your claim about this supposed degradation of the genome? Please show us how the evidence unambiguously demonstrates that.

Stuart

[Stuu]

Evolutionist have a very difficult understanding what is a reasonable extrapolation based on science and one that is just a wild-eyed faith.

I have little difficulty telling the difference. By the way, you probably mean inference or inductive reasoning rather than extrapolation.

Stuart

[JudgeRightly]

Stuu, it is geneticists who make the claim that genetic load is increasing.

I've never heard that being a matter of consensus amongst any group of scientists.

Good thing 6D didn't say anything about consensus, which would just be an appeal to popularity.

Try reading what he actually wrote, which is that geneticists are making the claim that genetic load is increasing.

The evidence is absolutely consistent with God's Word

In science, no one's word matters. It's about unambiguous evidence.

There you go again, focusing on the wrong portion of what he said.

6D said the evidence is consistent with the Bible.

a perfectly created genome that has been subjected to several thousand years of corruption / mutations.

The human genome has not changed in any statistically significant way for several tens of thousands of years.

The numbers don't add up the way you want them to, Stuu.

Most human single nucleotide variants (SNVs) arose within the past 5,000-10,000 years.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11690

We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000–10,000 years.

Summarized here:

https://www.wired.com/2012/11/recent-human-evolution-2/

Most of the mutations that we found arose in the last 200 generations or so. There hasn't been much time for random change or deterministic change through natural selection," said geneticist Joshua Akey of the University of Washington, co-author of the Nov. 28 Nature study. "We have a repository of all this new variation for humanity to use as a substrate. In a way, we're more evolvable now than at any time in our history."

200 generations is consistent with the Bible, which says there's been around 200 generations from Adam to the present.

First blue eyes as few as 6,000 years ago.

https://link.springer.com/article/10...439-007-0460-x

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0130170343.htm

Genetics provides evidence that common ancestry is a false belief system.

No, it proves common ancestry beyond any doubt.

Except that it doesn't.

Endogenous retroviruses

Viruses (and retroviruses) are more evidence of a perfect creation gone bad.

and comparisons of mutations in the same or analogous proteins or genes mapped against fossil morphology is enough to demonstrate it completely.

See above.

Research shows it is impossible that selection can detect and remove mutations which cause increasing genetic load.

What do you call spontaneous miscarriage then?

You say spontaneous, but how do you know that there wasn't some unknown cause?

But sure, show the mutation rate and number of mutations in the genomes of the "Sima people" (that you believe are 430000 years old) compared to modern humans. This will be interesting.

You have the burden of proof, for you made the claim. Can you demonstrate your claim about this supposed degradation of the genome? Please show us how the evidence unambiguously demonstrates that

See above.

[6days]

I've never heard that (increasing genetic load) being a matter of consensus amongst any group of scientists.

You may also not have heard about consensus about gravity. There is gravity no matter if you have heard about consensus or not.

Perhaps what you have heard is hypothetical, contradictory and unrealistic solutions which attempt to explain the evidence away. (Synergistic epistasis, quasi truncation, the additive model, antagonistic epistasis etc,)

The human genome has not changed in any statistically significant way for several tens of thousands of years.

That maybe your belief but it is not science, as geneticist JF Crow says, we are genetically inferior to our Stone age ancestors

No, it proves common ancestry beyond any doubt. Endogenous retroviruses and comparisons of mutations in the same or analogous proteins or genes mapped against fossil morphology is enough to demonstrate it completely.

As modern science continues to find function and purpose in so-called ERV's, we continue seeing evidence against common ancestry and evidence for our common designer.

What do you call spontaneous miscarriage then?

Miscarriages have nothing to do with increaseing genetic load. Natural selection is incapable of detecting and removing 70 + slightly deleterious mutations added to our genome every generation.

Science.... genetics provides awesome evidence for the truth of scripture. Science helps expose and put light on false evolutionary claims about human genomes from 430000 years ago, ERV''s, pseudogenes, junk DNA, poor design, useless evolutionary leftover organs etc

[Right Divider]

I have little difficulty telling the difference. By the way, you probably mean inference or inductive reasoning rather than extrapolation.

Stuart

Nope... extrapolation is the correct term.

[6days]

Nope... extrapolation is the correct term.

Wild extrapolation is "the “small thing definitely happened” story to focus on the “BIG THING MAY POSSIBLY HAPPEN MAYBE!” https://www.theguardian.com/science/...dia-scepticism

[Stuu]

Good thing 6D didn't say anything about consensus, which would just be an appeal to popularity.
Try reading what he actually wrote, which is that geneticists are making the claim that genetic load is increasing.

I hope you can see the contradiction there is in placing those two sentences together.

There you go again, focusing on the wrong portion of what he said.

I acknowledge your opinion about what was the wrong part.

6D said the evidence is consistent with the Bible.

The evidence for atomic theory is consistent with the bible as well. That's because the bible says nothing, as far as I know, about atomic theory.

Most human single nucleotide variants (SNVs) arose within the past 5,000-10,000 years.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11690
https://www.wired.com/2012/11/recent-human-evolution-2/
200 generations is consistent with the Bible, which says there's been around 200 generations from Adam to the present.

When there are more people there is more variation, and so evolution can happen at a greater rate. You will appreciate that an exponentially increasing population gives increasing numbers of opportunities for mutations to happen, but I don't see you mention fitness anywhere.
I also notice that the 73% of coding mutations within the past 5000-10,000 years has become, in your characterisation, 100% within the past 5000 years. With an exponentially growing population it is always true that the most new mutations of any one year happened within the past year. So there is nothing particularly special about 5000, or 10,000 years. You could go back another 100,000 years to cover maybe the next 10%.

There is a good review, worth a read if you are interested in this topic, of 'the nature of mutations and theories that describe their fate once they have entered a population' here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871823/

It makes many relevant points, including these four which are examples of how your choice of a few creationist soundbites denies the complexity of the genetics of mutation:
- Mutation rates are difficult to measure because the events are so rare that it is like measuring the frequency of needles in haystacks.
- the total of fitness degrading and fitness increasing effects that get fixed might be in equilibrium such that there is no unbounded change in fitness in most populations.
- Increases of mutation rates that may be caused by use of technology by humans might dangerously upset potentially finely balanced natural long-term equilibria between fitness increasing and fitness decreasing processes that are influenced by many evolutionary factors
- one can argue that extinctions are always caused by a lack of mutations that enable adaptation to new or rapidly changing situations.

First blue eyes as few as 6,000 years ago.

Or, in you view, as many as 6,000 years ago. A really early mutation in humans, right? Did you have a reason for mentioning it? It's an interesting example of a mutation that has conferred an advantage and become fixed in a population. Is it advantageous? It has probably become fixed due to sexual selection, but it could also be a byproduct of decreased melanin production that is an advantage for Vitamin D photosynthesis further from the equator.

Viruses (and retroviruses) are more evidence of a perfect creation gone bad.

I recommend reading about what retroviral insertions are, how they demonstrate common descent, and how they have probably provided a significant proportion of the DNA material upon which mutation and natural selection has worked.

Stuart

[Stuu]

You may also not have heard about consensus about gravity. There is gravity no matter if you have heard about consensus or not.

Worse than that even, creationism is not history even though there is consensus amongst creationists that it happened.

Perhaps what you have heard is hypothetical, contradictory and unrealistic solutions which attempt to explain the evidence away. (Synergistic epistasis, quasi truncation, the additive model, antagonistic epistasis etc,)

I had never heard of etc as a genetic mechanism. That etc must include the long list of other factors that affect the fixation or removal of mutations in a population.

That maybe your belief but it is not science, as geneticist JF Crow says, we are genetically inferior to our Stone age ancestors

And what does he mean by that? We live longer, healthier, safer, more productive lives than our ancestors from the previous 3.4 million years. Is he referring to fitness, and if so, how, and by how much exactly? In other words, are you just combining an appeal to authority with creationist cherry-picking?

As modern science continues to find function and purpose in so-called ERV's, we continue seeing evidence against common ancestry and evidence for our common designer.

Hilarious. As you well know, it's not about the purpose of ERVs, because it doesn't particularly serve any purpose to have virus DNA inserted into your germ cell line DNA, although natural selection appears to have done what it does with DNA in general and use the DNA as raw material through mutation. It's about the fact that patterns of ERV insertion map patterns of branching on the tree of common ancestry, perfectly matching fossil morphology and mutation rate data.

Creationist apologist writers have no answers to this one. Their waffling on about how the bible must be right while failing to address the evidence is entertaining to read.

Miscarriages have nothing to do with increaseing genetic load. Natural selection is incapable of detecting and removing 70 + slightly deleterious mutations added to our genome every generation.

Now you are appealing to your own authority.

Science.... genetics provides awesome evidence for the truth of scripture.

I agree that genetics is awesome evidence, but this really highlights the complete lack of anything special about scripture. The Judeo-christian scriptures don't even mention ribosomes, let along base sequences and codons. Why not, if it is inspired by a god that created humans with curiosity? Doesn't it like us very much?

Stuart

[Stuu]

Nope... extrapolation is the correct term.

Well far be it from me to be the one to tell you how you should communicate what you mean to say. But I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by 'Evolutionist have a very difficult understanding what is a reasonable extrapolation based on science and one that is just a wild-eyed faith'.

Since JudgeRightly and mtwilcox are fans of your post, perhaps I should ask them why you used the term extrapolation.

Stuart

[Right Divider]

Well far be it from me to be the one to tell you how you should communicate what you mean to say. But I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by 'Evolutionist have a very difficult understanding what is a reasonable extrapolation based on science and one that is just a wild-eyed faith'.

Evolutionists see small changes and then ASSUME that these can lead to big changes.

Since JudgeRightly and mtwilcox are fans of your post, perhaps I should ask them why you used the term extrapolation.

Asking others why I did something? Is this more "evolutionist" logic?

[6days]

creationism is not history even though there is consensus amongst creationists that it happened.

Creationism and evolutionism are two opposing belief systems about our history.

I had never heard of etc as a genetic mechanism. That etc must include the long list of other factors that affect the fixation or removal of mutations in a population.

The multiplicative model, truncation, relaxed selection model ETC you may not have heard of, but they are unrealistic models proposed by some geneticists / rejected by other geneticists as a solution to their problem / the paradox. Their beliefs are inconsistent with the evidence.

And what does he (geneticist JF Crow) mean by that?

Simple...Due to genetic load / increasing mutations, humanity is genetically inferior to our stone age ancestors. It is interesting that he vastly underestimates the problem for the common ancestry belief system, in that he brushes aside most mutations in the non coding DNA. Genetics in the past 20 years has shown the problem is much worse, than what J. Crow thought. Crow attempts to brush the problem away with his hypothetical solution of quasi truncation.
"It seems clear that for the past few centuries harmful mutations have been accumulating. Why don’t we notice this? If we are like Drosophila, the decrease in viability from mutation accumulation is some 1 or 2% per generation. This is more than compensated for by much more rapid environmental improvements, which are keeping well ahead of any decreased efficiency of selection. How long can we keep this up? Perhaps for a long time, but only if there remains a social order that permits steady environmental improvements. If war or famine force our descendants to return to a stone-age life they will have to contend with all the problems that their stone-age ancestors had plus mutations that have accumulated in the meantime."https://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380

Hilarious. As you well know, it's not about the purpose of ERVs, because it doesn't particularly serve any purpose to have virus DNA inserted into your germ cell line DNA

Of course it would serve no purpose, to have viral DNA inserted into our genome, and could even be harmful. Likewise, it would be harmful to science in general to assume any sequence is a viral insertion. There is a long history of egg on face of evolutionists, who assume things based on their beliefs, rather than evidence

.... patterns of branching on the tree of common ancestry

So... If something matches the pattern you believe in, it is due to homology. And when it doesn't match the pattern the tree is simply redrawn... And when the tree simply can't be redrawn any further, evolutionists call it analogous, and claim that it must have evolve independently. Sorry Stuu... But that is not science; that is false religion.

Now you are appealing to your own authority. (Regarding claim that natural selection is incapable of detecting and removing 70+ mutations added to our genome every generation).

No Stuu... It is science that has been understood by geneticists for about 70 years. HJ Mueller in 1950 recognized that the number of children per couple had to be much greater than the mutation rate. In fact, Mueller thought there may only be 0.1 mutations added to our grnome every generation and he thought was a problem. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1716299/

Genetics provides awesome evidence of the truth of scripture. Our genome is totally consistent with a sophisticated perfectly created genome, subjected to several thousand years of mutation The evidence is totally inconsistent was common ancestry...and, that is why secular geneticists have referred to the problem as a paradox.

[Stuu]

Evolutionists see small changes and then ASSUME that these can lead to big changes.

You think there are no big changes visible?

Asking others why I did something? Is this more "evolutionists" logic?

I just thought given their enthusiasm for your postings, they might like to join in.

Stuart

[Right Divider]

You think there are no big changes visible?

Equivocating and conflating will get you nowhere.

[Stuu]

Creationism and evolutionism are two opposing belief systems about our history.

So how do we decide which is more likely to represent what happened? The one that explains all the evidence in terms of mechanisms, or the one that is not falsifiable (except in the cases where it has been falsified)?

The multiplicative model, truncation, relaxed selection model ETC you may not have heard of, but they are unrealistic models proposed by some geneticists / rejected by other geneticists as a solution to their problem / the paradox.

I see, so something you are telling me about that you say I might not have heard of are things you feel I should find unconvincing.

Their beliefs are inconsistent with the evidence.

So the etc mechanism you haven't told me about doesn't match the evidence that you haven't cited.

Due to genetic load / increasing mutations, humanity is genetically inferior to our stone age ancestors.

Even though we live longer, healthier, safer, more comfortable, more productive lives with a better understanding of our place in the universe, we are in James F. Crow's opinion 'genetically inferior'. Did he really say exactly that phrase? Is that all he said, or have you cherry picked that?

It is interesting that he vastly underestimates the problem for the common ancestry belief system, in that he brushes aside most mutations in the non coding DNA.

...in your opinion.

"It seems clear that for the past few centuries harmful mutations have been accumulating. Why don’t we notice this? If we are like Drosophila, the decrease in viability from mutation accumulation is some 1 or 2% per generation. This is more than compensated for by much more rapid environmental improvements, which are keeping well ahead of any decreased efficiency of selection. How long can we keep this up? Perhaps for a long time, but only if there remains a social order that permits steady environmental improvements. If war or famine force our descendants to return to a stone-age life they will have to contend with all the problems that their stone-age ancestors had plus mutations that have accumulated in the meantime."

I'm sure you would agree that creationist cherry-picking is a blight on any serious discourse, and so would assent enthusiastically to me posting his previous paragraph:

However efficient natural selection was in eliminating harmful mutations in the past, it is no longer so in much of the world. In the wealthy nations, natural selection for differential mortality is greatly reduced. A newborn infant now has a large probability of surviving past the reproducing years. There are fertility differences, to be sure, but they are clearly not distributed in such a way as to eliminate mutations efficiently. Except for pre-natal mortality, natural selection for effective mutation removal has been greatly reduced.

So his point becomes a bit clearer, his concern is regarding the modern technology that acts to thwart mechanisms that remove deleterious mutations. Of course there are still many we haven't removed. In my opinion, technology has not made as much such difference to most of the world's population as it has to the minority of the very richest.

Others have raised the additional concern that modern technology is good at exposing us to more mutagens. So it may well be there is something to be concerned about regarding the past few centuries, but not the past few thousands of years, especially when the claim has been made elsewhere in this thread that 73% of new mutations in the past 5000-10,000 years is pretty much the same as saying there are 200 generations since Adam. Since we have technology that lets us choose embryos for implantation that are missing deleterious mutations, and we have better safety standards for chemical and radiation technologies, perhaps our new technologies will take us away from the concerns James Crow raised more than 20 years ago in this paper. Whatever the case, I don't think you have established any kind of Goddidit.

If you stick by it though, then what kind of creation just lets over 99.9% of all species go extinct, including ones that have no ancestors doing any naughty apple-biting? Maybe you could start with that one if you really want us to understand the mechanisms by which there was a 'fall'.

Of course it would serve no purpose, to have viral DNA inserted into our genome, and could even be harmful. Likewise, it would be harmful to science in general to assume any sequence is a viral insertion.

I see you have made exactly as much progress as all those creationist writers out there, ie none. They certainly are viruses. And, again, we must assume you believe they were created by your god, because that's what scripture says. So, while real science understands that there is no 'purpose' in the appearance of a viral parasite, what is your explanation for their existence? Did your god make something that has no purpose, or are we talking about a spiteful god?

So... If something matches the pattern you believe in, it is due to homology.

The patterns are real. The inference is homology. It's not a matter of me believing there is a pattern, a forelimb with five digits is a forelimb with five digits.

I wonder if your next step is to suggest that I would be foolish to assume that one generation gives rise to a following generation by reproduction.

And when it doesn't match the pattern the tree is simply redrawn... And when the tree simply can't be redrawn any further, evolutionists call it analogous, and claim that it must have evolve independently.

What is it like living in 1952?

It is science that has been understood by geneticists for about 70 years. HJ Mueller in 1950 recognized that the number of children per couple had to be much greater than the mutation rate. In fact, Mueller thought there may only be 0.1 mutations added to our grnome every generation and he thought was a problem. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1716299/

You are citing a paper that conceded that at the time there was no reliable way to measure mutations in humans. Could that be because in 1950 we did not even know about base pairs?

Genetics provides awesome evidence of the truth of scripture. Our genome is totally consistent with a sophisticated perfectly created genome, subjected to several thousand years of mutation The evidence is totally inconsistent was common ancestry...and, that is why secular geneticists have referred to the problem as a paradox.

There is nothing in our genomes consistent with 'several thousand years of mutation'. It's several billion years. Our genome looks far more like a careless, blind, wasteful tinkerer has taken unimaginable amounts of time to throw together stuff that might work, or might not, then exposed it to live and reproduce, or die. Is that the kind of 'created' you have in mind? It's exactly what the evidence shows.

Stuart

[Stuu]

Equivocating and conflating will get you nowhere.

And nor should it.

Are you saying it is not possible to observe big changes in biology?

Are you denying that accumulated small changes add to give big changes?

Stuart