Announcement

Collapse

Creation Science Rules

This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective.
Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed.
1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team
2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
See more
See less

Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

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

  • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    So far, you've failed to show even one mentioning "devolution" as a concern. We all know why.



    Show us your numbers for that belief. Take a genome of a European, and the genome of a Tibetan, and show us how the different alleles of the EPAS1 gene make one "broken down."



    As you learned earlier, the mutated allele found in Tibetans make them more fit, not less. If your belief doesn't fit reality, isn't that an important clue for you?



    Maybe in the doctrines of YE creationism. Not in genetics.
    Geneticists are concerned with mutational load, which is what devolution is if mutational load isn't mitigated.



    I already showed you two that work. No point in denying the fact.
    Biologists have worked hard to make a computer program that models common descent. Their best attempt so far is a program called "Ev", but it doesn't work.

    There hasn't been another model that works better, but if you know of one let us know the name.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

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

    Comment


    • (Barbarian notes that after numerous requests, Yorzhik is still unable to find even one geneticist who is concerned about "devolution."

      Originally posted by Yorzhik View Post
      Geneticists are concerned with mutational load, which is what devolution is if mutational load isn't mitigated.
      But you can't find even one cite in the literature that says so? Isn't that a wake-up call?

      Biologists have worked hard to make a computer program that models common descent. Their best attempt so far is a program called "Ev", but it doesn't work.
      You've been badly misled:

      Phylogenetic Analysis of Covariance by Computer Simulation
      Theodore Garland, Jr., Allan W. Dickerman, Christine M. Janis, Jason A. Jones
      Systematic Biology, Volume 42, Issue 3, September 1993, Pages 265–292


      It works. This is the point; in living things, we see a nested hierarchy of taxa that never occur without common descent.

      That is why Linnaeus, who first discovered it, was puzzled when he couldn't find the same kind of order in minerals and other natural things; it won't happen without common descent.

      So some biologists, before Darwin tried to apply a scala natura to living things, applying the pagan philosophy of Neoplatonism to imagine a deity who would produce all possible life forms on a scale from lowest to highest. This became modern YE creationism, via the Seventh Day Adventists Ellen G. White and George McCready Price, who evangelized this pagan idea to the founders of the Institute for Creastion Research.

      But there isn't a "ladder" of higher to lower. Mollusks were considered quite low by the creationist, but comparing an octopus to a lamprey, it's obvious that the creationist notion of higher and lower will not fit.

      There are lots of models that show phylogenetic diversity and how it forms. The above is one I haven't shown you before.
      This message is hidden because ...

      Comment


      • And I'm still waiting on this:

        Show us your numbers for that belief. Take a genome of a European, and the genome of a Tibetan, and show us how the different alleles of the EPAS1 gene make one "broken down."


        If you can't even do that, what makes you think you're right about any of it?
        This message is hidden because ...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
          And I'm still waiting on this:

          Show us your numbers for that belief. Take a genome of a European, and the genome of a Tibetan, and show us how the different alleles of the EPAS1 gene make one "broken down."


          If you can't even do that, what makes you think you're right about any of it?
          Take a planet and sew it onto a black hole. What? You can't? Your Darwinism must be wrong.
          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


          • Ahhhhhh

            Poetry.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
              (Barbarian notes that after numerous requests, Yorzhik is still unable to find even one geneticist who is concerned about "devolution."
              Wiki points out the obvious: "High genetic load may put a population in danger of extinction"

              But you can't find even one cite in the literature that says so? Isn't that a wake-up call?
              I just did. Again.

              You've been badly misled:

              Phylogenetic Analysis of Covariance by Computer Simulation
              Theodore Garland, Jr., Allan W. Dickerman, Christine M. Janis, Jason A. Jones
              Systematic Biology, Volume 42, Issue 3, September 1993, Pages 265–292


              It works. This is the point; in living things, we see a nested hierarchy of taxa that never occur without common descent.

              That is why Linnaeus, who first discovered it, was puzzled when he couldn't find the same kind of order in minerals and other natural things; it won't happen without common descent.

              So some biologists, before Darwin tried to apply a scala natura to living things, applying the pagan philosophy of Neoplatonism to imagine a deity who would produce all possible life forms on a scale from lowest to highest. This became modern YE creationism, via the Seventh Day Adventists Ellen G. White and George McCready Price, who evangelized this pagan idea to the founders of the Institute for Creastion Research.

              But there isn't a "ladder" of higher to lower. Mollusks were considered quite low by the creationist, but comparing an octopus to a lamprey, it's obvious that the creationist notion of higher and lower will not fit.

              There are lots of models that show phylogenetic diversity and how it forms. The above is one I haven't shown you before.
              This program, like the others you've shown, are not computer models of common descent. The latest computer model of common descent is called "Ev", and it fails. There hasn't been a successful computer model for common descent. Or are you saying Ev is not a computer model for common descent?
              Good things come to those who shoot straight.

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

              Comment


              • (Barbarian notes that after numerous requests, Yorzhik is still unable to find even one geneticist who is concerned about "devolution."

                (Yorzhik still can't find one)

                Kind of a wake-up, isn't it? And no, as you learned, none of those quotes even mentions "devolution." Why not just admit you're never going to find a geneticist who says what you claim?

                (Yorzhik denies computer simulation of common descent is a computer simulation of common descent)

                There's a pattern showing up here...

                Phylogenetic Analysis of Covariance by Computer Simulation
                Theodore Garland, Jr., Allan W. Dickerman, Christine M. Janis, Jason A. Jones
                Systematic Biology, Volume 42, Issue 3, September 1993, Pages 265–292


                In biology, phylogenetics is the study of the evolutionary history and relationships among individuals or groups of organisms (e.g. species, or populations). These relationships are discovered through phylogenetic inference methods that evaluate observed heritable traits, such as DNA sequences or morphology under a model of evolution of these traits. The result of these analyses is a phylogeny (also known as a phylogenetic tree)—a diagrammatic hypothesis about the history of the evolutionary relationships of a group of organisms.[4] The tips of a phylogenetic tree can be living organisms or fossils, and represent the 'end', or the present, in an evolutionary lineage. A phylogenetic tree can be rooted or unrooted. A rooted tree indicates the common ancestor, or ancestral lineage, of the tree. An unrooted tree makes no assumption about the ancestral line, and does not show the origin or "root" of the gene or organism in question.[5] Phylogenetic analyses have become central to understanding biodiversity, evolution, ecology, and genomes.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics

                If you don't get that, then you're as lost as a guy who flunked algebra, trying to understand vector analysis.

                Read the article and learn. Hint: "Phylogenesis" is common descent.
                This message is hidden because ...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                  (Barbarian notes that after numerous requests, Yorzhik is still unable to find even one geneticist who is concerned about "devolution."

                  (Yorzhik still can't find one)

                  Kind of a wake-up, isn't it? And no, as you learned, none of those quotes even mentions "devolution." Why not just admit you're never going to find a geneticist who says what you claim?
                  Since mutational load, and genetic load, gets a lot of attention from geneticists we have a lot of information on just what devolution is. Geneticists claim mutational load and genetic load has to be mitigated or a population will devolve.

                  (Yorzhik denies computer simulation of common descent is a computer simulation of common descent)

                  There's a pattern showing up here...

                  Phylogenetic Analysis of Covariance by Computer Simulation
                  Theodore Garland, Jr., Allan W. Dickerman, Christine M. Janis, Jason A. Jones
                  Systematic Biology, Volume 42, Issue 3, September 1993, Pages 265–292


                  In biology, phylogenetics is the study of the evolutionary history and relationships among individuals or groups of organisms (e.g. species, or populations). These relationships are discovered through phylogenetic inference methods that evaluate observed heritable traits, such as DNA sequences or morphology under a model of evolution of these traits. The result of these analyses is a phylogeny (also known as a phylogenetic tree)—a diagrammatic hypothesis about the history of the evolutionary relationships of a group of organisms.[4] The tips of a phylogenetic tree can be living organisms or fossils, and represent the 'end', or the present, in an evolutionary lineage. A phylogenetic tree can be rooted or unrooted. A rooted tree indicates the common ancestor, or ancestral lineage, of the tree. An unrooted tree makes no assumption about the ancestral line, and does not show the origin or "root" of the gene or organism in question.[5] Phylogenetic analyses have become central to understanding biodiversity, evolution, ecology, and genomes.
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics

                  If you don't get that, then you're as lost as a guy who flunked algebra, trying to understand vector analysis.

                  Read the article and learn. Hint: "Phylogenesis" is common descent.
                  A Phylogenetic Analysis is not a computer simulation of common descent. Ev is, as far as I know, the latest attempt at making a computer model of common descent and it fails. The reason another hasn't been attempted is because they can't even speculate how to model common descent.
                  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
                    Since mutational load, and genetic load, gets a lot of attention from geneticists we have a lot of information on just what devolution is. Geneticists claim mutational load and genetic load has to be mitigated or a population will devolve.
                    That's what you claimed. But when asked to show even one geneticist who said so, you couldn't do it. So we can only conclude there aren't any.

                    Or have you found one, now? Show us what you've got.
                    This message is hidden because ...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                      That's what you claimed. But when asked to show even one geneticist who said so, you couldn't do it. So we can only conclude there aren't any.

                      Or have you found one, now? Show us what you've got.
                      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 what you claimed. But when asked to show even one geneticist who said so, you couldn't do it. So we can only conclude there aren't any.

                        Or have you found one, now? Show us what you've got.
                        Geneticists claim mutational load and genetic load has to be mitigated or a population will lose fitness. Losing fitness is what devolving is.
                        Good things come to those who shoot straight.

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

                        Comment


                        • Barbarian chuckles:
                          That's what you claimed. But when asked to show even one geneticist who said so, you couldn't do it. So we can only conclude there aren't any.

                          Or have you found one, now? Show us what you've got.

                          (Yorzhik still can't find one)

                          Geneticists claim mutational load and genetic load has to be mitigated or a population will lose fitness.
                          Since even honest creationists admit that fitness tends to increase in a population, that's a given.

                          But recall that God, in His infinite wisdom, can make good come out of anything, and death is no exception. God is able to make good come out of even death itself. Natural selection, though fueled by death, helps the population by getting rid of genetic defects, etc.
                          https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/is-natural-selection-the-same-thing-as-evolution/

                          Yorzhik tries once again:
                          Losing fitness is what devolving is.
                          But you can't find even one geneticist who says so? By now, you should have realized why.
                          This message is hidden because ...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                            https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/is-natural-selection-the-same-thing-as-evolution/

                            The problem for evolutionists is that natural selection is nondirectional — should the environment change or the selective pressure be removed, those organisms with previously selected for characteristics are typically less able to deal with the changes and may be selected against because their genetic information has decreased... Evolution of the molecules-to-man variety requires directional change. Thus, the term “evolution” cannot be rightly used in the context of describing what natural selection can accomplish.



                            Barbarian switches sides.
                            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


                            • Apparently "devolution" actually means "being disabused of creationist error." From "Answers in Genesis:...

                              The Devolution of a Creationist
                              by Ken Ham on November 29, 2014
                              Recently a blog post appeared on the BioLogos website (an organization that promotes compromising Genesis with millions of years and evolution, and spreads that message to the church) written by a recent homeschool graduate who describes his switch from accepting young-earth creation to believing in old-earth, evolutionary ideas. He claims, “My shift away from young-earth creationism began not due to convincing answers from the evolutionist crowd, but because of the unconvincing and confusing answers of the young earth crowd.”

                              https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/k...a-creationist/
                              This message is hidden because ...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                                Since even honest creationists admit that fitness tends to increase in a population, that's a given.

                                But recall that God, in His infinite wisdom, can make good come out of anything, and death is no exception. God is able to make good come out of even death itself. Natural selection, though fueled by death, helps the population by getting rid of genetic defects, etc.
                                https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/is-natural-selection-the-same-thing-as-evolution/

                                Yorzhik tries once again:


                                But you can't find even one geneticist who says so? By now, you should have realized why.
                                Uh-oh. Barbarian gets caught again being dishonest. I said genetic load/mutational load decreases fitness, and he said I was wrong - natural selection increases fitness.

                                I guess if Barbarian is dishonest enough to try and sneak the word 'natural selection' in where 'genetic load' was stated, he'd be willing to be dishonest about what YEC websites will say.

                                And, go figure, the first bullet point after his quote, his quote-mine is exposed: "Natural Selection Can 1. Decrease genetic information."

                                So here is a curious question for Barbarian: Even if devolution doesn't occur according to you, what is the definition of devolution?
                                Good things come to those who shoot straight.

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X