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 Yorzhik View Post
    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.
    But you can't show where I actually said that? Not suprising. You kept telling me that geneticists say "devolution" is a problem, and you finally admitted that wasn't true. So now you're going to try it with me? In fact, genetic load does decrease fitness, and natural selection does increase fitness. As you just learned, even many honest YE creationists admit that fact.

    I guess if Barbarian is dishonest enough to try and sneak the word 'natural selection' in where 'genetic load' was stated,
    It's a dynamic equilibrium. Unfavorable mutations increase genetic load. Natural selection tends to remove them from a population. I thought you realized that. As usual, ignorance is your enemy. But if you're willing to be dishonest about what geneticists say, it's not surprising that you'll be dishonest about what creationists say.

    And, go figure, the first bullet point after his quote, his quote-mine is exposed: "Natural Selection Can 1. Decrease genetic information."\
    That's what natural selection does. It reduces harmful mutations, which decreases genetic information. Remember what you learned about information in a population. Think back and you'll realize why.

    And yes, AIG messed up a bit there. Natural selection is not evolution. Remember again what evolution is. It's a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Natural selection is an agency of evolution; it's not evolution.

    Way back when I suggested you get a good science text and learn the fundamentals of biological evolution, it would have been a huge benefit to you, if you had taken that advice. You're still thrashing around in the dark because you don't even know the basic terms in population biology.

    So here is a curious question for Barbarian: Even if devolution doesn't occur according to you
    Contrary to your false claim, geneticists don't say it occurs.

    what is the definition of devolution?
    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
      Natural selection does increase fitness ... YE creationists admit that.
      Nope. None of them. Every time you cite a page, it says the exact opposite.

      If you're willing to be dishonest about what geneticists say, it's not surprising that you'll be dishonest about what creationists say.

      Unfavorable mutations increase genetic load.
      Lookee here, Barbarian finally admits there is devolution.

      Natural selection ... reduces harmful mutations.
      Nope. At best it kills off those that get them, which decreases genetic information, ie, devolution. Remember what you learned about information in a population? Think back and you'll realize why.

      Evolution is ... a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.
      Nope. This is a stupid definition. The fact that it can be shortened to "a change in allele frequencies in a population" exposes this. What use is the "over time"? You could go further: "A change in allele frequencies." Where else do they happen but in populations? Heck, why not just "change." Who in their right mind would argue that things don't change?

      Natural selection is an agency of evolution; it's not evolution.
      Evolution is the theory that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection. When you learn to deal with your insecurities and admit that this is what we disagree with — not "change" — then you'll be a potential addition to a sensible discussion. Until then, you're just a troll.

      Way back when we told you what we believe the first time, it would have been a huge benefit to you if you had listened. Instead, you're still thrashing around in the dark because you don't even know the basic terms of evolution.

      Contrary to your false claim, geneticists do indeed say that genetic load increases.
      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
        But you can't show where I actually said that? Not suprising. You kept telling me that geneticists say "devolution" is a problem, and you finally admitted that wasn't true. So now you're going to try it with me? In fact, genetic load does decrease fitness, and natural selection does increase fitness. As you just learned, even many honest YE creationists admit that fact.

        It's a dynamic equilibrium. Unfavorable mutations increase genetic load. Natural selection tends to remove them from a population. I thought you realized that. As usual, ignorance is your enemy. But if you're willing to be dishonest about what geneticists say, it's not surprising that you'll be dishonest about what creationists say.

        That's what natural selection does. It reduces harmful mutations, which decreases genetic information. Remember what you learned about information in a population. Think back and you'll realize why.

        And yes, AIG messed up a bit there. Natural selection is not evolution. Remember again what evolution is. It's a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Natural selection is an agency of evolution; it's not evolution.

        Way back when I suggested you get a good science text and learn the fundamentals of biological evolution, it would have been a huge benefit to you, if you had taken that advice. You're still thrashing around in the dark because you don't even know the basic terms in population biology.

        Contrary to your false claim, geneticists don't say it occurs.

        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/
        You could have just admitted I was right to begin with and we could have continued with the conversation. But that would require a common descentist like yourself to use dialectic instead of rhetoric. And as everyone knows, the worst thing a common descentist can do is stay on topic.

        But since I'm nice I'll try anyway. Now that you've admitted that geneticists claim mutational load and genetic load has to be mitigated or a population will lose fitness and devolution is defined as losing fitness, you are saying now that the mitigation comes in the form of natural selection. But that would assume that all mutational load/genetic load can be filtered out by natural selection. But since most mutational load/genetic load will become fixed in a population before it is bad enough for natural selection to filter it out, any population will carry that mutational load/genetic load even if it does get a favorable mutation that improves its fitness.

        And lets not forget that the best science we have shows that improved fitness from mutation usually comes from breaking something, not repairing deleterious mutations. I'm sure you'll admit to that eventually, too.
        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
          You could have just admitted I was right to begin with and...
          ...you wouldn't be in this fix. But although you declared that geneticists said "devolution" was a problem, you couldn't find even one case where that happened. I asked several times, and you declined each time. You could have just admitted that you were wrong.

          But that would require a creationist like yourself to use dialectic instead of rhetoric. And as everyone knows, the worst thing a YE creationist can do is stay on topic.

          Now that you've admitted that geneticists claim mutational load and genetic load has to be mitigated or a population will lose fitness
          I'm the one who showed you that. And I showed you how they learned that it is mitigated. Would you like me to show you again?

          and devolution is defined as losing fitness,
          You're still having trouble with that concept. Let's take a look...

          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/

          you are saying now that the mitigation comes in the form of natural selection.
          Yes. As you learned, even "Answers in Genesis" admits that's a fact. Would you like me to show you that, again?

          But that would assume that all mutational load/genetic load can be filtered out by natural selection.
          Or at least enough of it to increase fitness in the population. You see, you and I have many harmful recessives, but unless we marry a close relative, it's unlikely to reduce fitness of our offspring. Do you understand why?

          But since most mutational load/genetic load will become fixed in a population before it is bad enough for natural selection to filter it out
          Perhaps you don't know what "fixed" means in this context. What do you think it means?

          any population will carry that mutational load/genetic load even if it does get a favorable mutation that improves its fitness.
          Observations has shown otherwise. Harmful alleles tend to be reduced in frequency in a population, or disappear entirely. Would you like to see some examples?

          And lets not forget that the best science we have shows that improved fitness from mutation usually comes from breaking something,
          Normally, "breaking" would mean "making it inoperative." But as you learned, favorable mutations make the allele more functional in the specific environment. So you assumption is wrong.

          not repairing deleterious mutations.
          You've got that wrong, too. You see, we know that most useful new genes come about by duplication followed by mutation. But it turns out, that damaged genes, even non-functional ones, can be repaired and used to improve fitness.

          Some cod species have a newly minted gene involved in preventing freezing.
          In the depths of winter, water temperatures in the ice-covered Arctic Ocean can sink below zero. That’s cold enough to freeze many fish, but the conditions don’t trouble the cod. A protein in its blood and tissues binds to tiny ice crystals and stops them from growing.

          Where codfish got this talent was a puzzle that evolutionary biologist Helle Tessand Baalsrud wanted to solve. She and her team at the University of Oslo searched the genomes of the Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) and several of its closest relatives, thinking they would track down the cousins of the antifreeze gene. None showed up. Baalsrud, who at the time was a new parent, worried that her lack of sleep was causing her to miss something obvious.

          But then she stumbled on studies suggesting that genes do not always evolve from existing ones, as biologists long supposed. Instead, some are fashioned from desolate stretches of the genome that do not code for any functional molecules. When she looked back at the fish genomes, she saw hints this might be the case: the antifreeze protein — essential to the cod’s survival — had seemingly been built from scratch1.

          The cod is in good company. In the past five years, researchers have found numerous signs of these newly minted ‘de novo’ genes in every lineage they have surveyed. These include model organisms such as fruit flies and mice, important crop plants and humans; some of the genes are expressed in brain and testicular tissue, others in various cancers.

          De novo genes are even prompting a rethink of some portions of evolutionary theory. Conventional wisdom was that new genes tended to arise when existing ones are accidentally duplicated, blended with others or broken up, but some researchers now think that de novo genes could be quite common: some studies suggest at least one-tenth of genes could be made in this way; others estimate that more genes could emerge de novo than from gene duplication. Their existence blurs the boundaries of what constitutes a gene, revealing that the starting material for some new genes is non-coding DNA (see ‘Birth of a gene’).


          https://www.nature.com/articles/d415...=pocket-newtab

          So while you've now admitted that you were wrong in your claim that geneticists say "devolution" is a problem for populations, you're still resisting the idea that mutations can produce useful new alleles.

          I'm sure you'll admit to that eventually, too.
          Last edited by The Barbarian; October 20th, 2019, 06:49 AM. Reason: eror
          This message is hidden because ...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
            Answers in Genesis" admits that's a fact.
            No, it doesn't. Would you like me to show you that again?

            Favorable mutation[s]...
            is a contradiction in terms.

            more functional in the specific environment.
            Which boils down to "less functional."

            So you[r] assumption is wrong.
            It's unlikely you have even the slightest comprehension of what it is you are up against.

            Most useful new genes come about by duplication followed by mutation.
            Nothing of value ever arises without design.


            Desolate stretches of the genome that do not code for any functional molecules.



            Except antifreeze.

            So while you've now admitted that you were wrong in your claim that geneticists say "devolution" is a problem for populations, you're still resisting the idea that mutations can produce useful new alleles.I'm sure you'll admit to that eventually, too.
            It's just your desperate need for approval.
            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
              ...you wouldn't be in this fix. But although you declared that geneticists said "devolution" was a problem, you couldn't find even one case where that happened. I asked several times, and you declined each time. You could have just admitted that you were wrong.

              But that would require a creationist like yourself to use dialectic instead of rhetoric. And as everyone knows, the worst thing a YE creationist can do is stay on topic.

              I'm the one who showed you that. And I showed you how they learned that it is mitigated. Would you like me to show you again?

              You're still having trouble with that concept. Let's take a look...

              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/

              Yes. As you learned, even "Answers in Genesis" admits that's a fact. Would you like me to show you that, again?

              Or at least enough of it to increase fitness in the population. You see, you and I have many harmful recessives, but unless we marry a close relative, it's unlikely to reduce fitness of our offspring. Do you understand why?

              Perhaps you don't know what "fixed" means in this context. What do you think it means?

              Observations has shown otherwise. Harmful alleles tend to be reduced in frequency in a population, or disappear entirely. Would you like to see some examples?

              Normally, "breaking" would mean "making it inoperative." But as you learned, favorable mutations make the allele more functional in the specific environment. So you assumption is wrong.

              You've got that wrong, too. You see, we know that most useful new genes come about by duplication followed by mutation. But it turns out, that damaged genes, even non-functional ones, can be repaired and used to improve fitness.

              Some cod species have a newly minted gene involved in preventing freezing.
              In the depths of winter, water temperatures in the ice-covered Arctic Ocean can sink below zero. That’s cold enough to freeze many fish, but the conditions don’t trouble the cod. A protein in its blood and tissues binds to tiny ice crystals and stops them from growing.

              Where codfish got this talent was a puzzle that evolutionary biologist Helle Tessand Baalsrud wanted to solve. She and her team at the University of Oslo searched the genomes of the Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) and several of its closest relatives, thinking they would track down the cousins of the antifreeze gene. None showed up. Baalsrud, who at the time was a new parent, worried that her lack of sleep was causing her to miss something obvious.

              But then she stumbled on studies suggesting that genes do not always evolve from existing ones, as biologists long supposed. Instead, some are fashioned from desolate stretches of the genome that do not code for any functional molecules. When she looked back at the fish genomes, she saw hints this might be the case: the antifreeze protein — essential to the cod’s survival — had seemingly been built from scratch1.

              The cod is in good company. In the past five years, researchers have found numerous signs of these newly minted ‘de novo’ genes in every lineage they have surveyed. These include model organisms such as fruit flies and mice, important crop plants and humans; some of the genes are expressed in brain and testicular tissue, others in various cancers.

              De novo genes are even prompting a rethink of some portions of evolutionary theory. Conventional wisdom was that new genes tended to arise when existing ones are accidentally duplicated, blended with others or broken up, but some researchers now think that de novo genes could be quite common: some studies suggest at least one-tenth of genes could be made in this way; others estimate that more genes could emerge de novo than from gene duplication. Their existence blurs the boundaries of what constitutes a gene, revealing that the starting material for some new genes is non-coding DNA (see ‘Birth of a gene’).


              https://www.nature.com/articles/d415...=pocket-newtab

              So while you've now admitted that you were wrong in your claim that geneticists say "devolution" is a problem for populations, you're still resisting the idea that mutations can produce useful new alleles.w
              i
              I'm sure you'll admit to that eventually, too.
              Mutational load/genetic load has to be mitigated or a population will lose fitness ... but in the end what it means is that common descent can't happen. Let's see if the mechanisms you support can do this mitigating.

              Your first mechanism was natural selection, and the second was de novo genes.

              The first doesn't work because natural selection cannot work on mutational load/genetic load until that load gets bad enough. And de novo genes won't mitigate mutational load/genetic load because de novo genes are the same as lucky mutations.
              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
                Mutational load/genetic load has to be mitigated or a population will lose fitness ...
                I'm glad you've dropped your claim that geneticists say it's "devolution." We're making progress. And as you learned, they point out that natural selection reduces genetic load.

                but in the end what it means is that common descent can't happen.
                Since we observe cases of common descent You and your cousins are such cases, and according to most creationists, all species, genera, and families of feliformes (for example) are a case of common descent. So that's not controversial; most creationists have retreated to admission of evolution to that degree, but not beyond the level of orders.

                Let's see if the mechanisms you support can do this mitigating. Your first mechanism was natural selection, and the second was de novo genes.
                Natural selection is observed to do that, according to "Answers in Genesis."
                https://answersingenesis.org/natural...-evolution-no/

                However, we don't see de novo genes; they are always derived from other DNA, as in gene duplication and mutation, or as is increasingly becoming apparent, the evolution of genes from non-coding DNA. (as you learned earlier)

                An example of mitigation of genetic load:

                Inbreeding Depression and Genetic Rescue in a Plant Metapopulation
                Christopher M. Richards*, and
                Department of Botany, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708
                Abstract:
                ...Significantly, data from experimental populations showed that gene flow into patches comprised of full sibs was higher than those observed into patches comprised of unrelated individuals and may serve to mitigate the effects of inbreeding depression. It is suggested that population connectivity through pollen‐mediated gene flow may have substantial effects on the persistence of isolated colonies and on the spatial structure of a metapopulation in general.


                The first doesn't work because natural selection cannot work on mutational load/genetic load until that load gets bad enough.
                "Bad enough" meaning that it produces at least a tiny disadvantage to the organism's chances of surviving long enough to reproduce. But of course, if it doesn't produce any disadvantage, by definition, it's not genetic load. Rock and a hard place, um?

                And de novo genes won't mitigate mutational load/genetic load because de novo genes are the same as lucky mutations.
                As you just learned, there are no "de novo" genes in that sense. They always are produced by mutation of something else. And of course, any favorable mutation in any gene produces an allele that tends to remove unfavorable alleles by natural selection, as even Answers in Genesis notes.

                We're making progress. Don't give up.
                This message is hidden because ...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                  Natural selection is observed to do that, according to "Answers in Genesis."
                  https://answersingenesis.org/natural...-evolution-no/


                  The URL itself denies your assertion.

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	Untitled.png
Views:	1
Size:	4.3 KB
ID:	2434999
                  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 Stripe View Post
                    The URL title itself denies your assertion.
                    Why do you suppose he keeps lying about that?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                      Why do you suppose he keeps lying about that?
                      It's because he's invested so much of his time into his beliefs that admitting that his beliefs are wrong would mean that, in his mind, all that time was wasted.

                      Nobody likes that idea, so they cling to their beliefs hoping that they're correct.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                        It's because he's invested so much of his time into his beliefs that admitting that his beliefs are wrong would mean that, in his mind, all that time was wasted.

                        Nobody likes that idea, so they cling to their beliefs hoping that they're correct.
                        Don't give up on him; we're making progress. He's let go of that "devolution" story, and he's working on the rest of it. Slow progress, but progress, nevertheless. I don't think he's actually lying; as you say, he's invested so much into a false belief that he has trouble letting go of it, even when he sees the evidence.
                        This message is hidden because ...

                        Comment


                        • Does anybody still believe in creationism, anymore? Not in the sense of YE creationism, as it was invented in the early 20th century. As we've discussed, even Answers in Genesis is slowly accommodating facts into their beliefs.

                          It's a dying doctrine; patience is called for.
                          This message is hidden because ...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                            Does anybody still believe in creationism, anymore? Not in the sense of YE creationism, as it was invented in the early 20th century. As we've discussed, even Answers in Genesis is slowly accommodating facts into their beliefs.

                            It's a dying doctrine; patience is called for.
                            Your's is a lying doctrine... and dying too.
                            All of my ancestors are human.
                            Originally posted by Squeaky
                            That explains why your an idiot.
                            Originally posted by God's Truth
                            Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                            Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                            (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                            1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                            (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                            Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                              Don't give up on him; we're making progress. He's let go of that "devolution" story, and he's working on the rest of it. Slow progress, but progress, nevertheless. I don't think he's actually lying; as you say, he's invested so much into a false belief that he has trouble letting go of it, even when he sees the evidence.
                              Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                              Does anybody still believe in creationism, anymore? Not in the sense of YE creationism, as it was invented in the early 20th century. As we've discussed, even Answers in Genesis is slowly accommodating facts into their beliefs.

                              It's a dying doctrine; patience is called for.
                              Desperation will get you nowhere.
                              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 Stripe View Post
                                Desperation will get you nowhere.
                                Neither will special pleading, lol.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X