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
    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.
    You've already admitted that geneticists say that genetic load has to be mitigated or it will lead to a loss in fitness. By definition, a loss in fitness is devolution.

    Devolution is a process of decline. Loss of fitness is a process of decline. It's what the word means if scientists want to admit it or not.

    But what is most interesting is your line of argument. Instead of discussing the topic, you would prefer to argue whether geneticists literally say a word or infer it. This is typical of common descentists to talk about anything except the evidence.

    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.
    Again, this is another example of discussing anything but the challenge to the theory. Since there is no reason to discuss evolution because its definition is vague, it was necessary to use the term "common descent" to refer to "the belief that every living thing we find on earth today was originally a single common ancestor that reproduced and changed by means of random mutation plus natural selection". That was OK until Barbarian was smart enough to realize that he couldn't defend common descent, so he has to change "common descent" to mean the same as "evolution" so he can go back to talking about anything except the evidence.

    So the question we have for Barbarian now is, when referring to "the belief that every living thing we find on earth today was originally a single common ancestor that reproduced and changed by means of random mutation plus natural selection" what is that called?

    I guaranty Barbarian won't answer with what the belief is called because that would lead him down a path of a losing argument. And winning an argument is the most important thing to Barbarian because he abandoned pursuing truth long before he got on TOL.

    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.


    "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?

    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.
    So you agree that genetic load leads to a loss of fitness unless mitigated, and you agree that de novo genes are produced by lucky mutations. How many lucky mutations does it take?
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

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

    Comment


    • Barbarian observes:
      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.

      Originally posted by Yorzhik View Post
      You've already admitted that geneticists say that genetic load has to be mitigated or it will lead to a loss in fitness.
      I showed you that, several times. I'm pleased you learned it.

      By definition, a loss in fitness is devolution.
      We checked on that belief, but as you learned, you couldn't find even one geneticist who thought so. And that's pretty much all there is for that idea.

      But what is most interesting is your line of argument. Instead of discussing the topic, you would prefer to argue whether geneticists literally say a word or infer it.
      It was your claim; if you didn't want to talk about your new term "devolution", you shouldn't have brought it up. I asked you to show me even one geneticist who agreed with you; you couldn't find even one. This is typical of common creationists to talk about anything except the evidence.

      Again, this is another example of discussing anything but the challenge to the theory. Since there is no reason to discuss evolution because its definition is vague
      You've forgotten again. Remember, the scientific definition is "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time."

      it was necessary to use the term "common descent" to refer to "the belief that every living thing we find on earth today was originally a single common ancestor
      And you've once more confused evolution with a consequence of evolution. And as you learned, even honest creationists admit that common descent is true for species, genera, and often families. They just don't want to allow it for all living things. Would you like me to show you that, again?

      That was OK until Barbarian was smart enough to realize that he couldn't defend common descent,
      As you now realize, even your fellow creationists accept a limited form of common descent. Do we need to show it to you again. But "common descent" is not evolution. It's merely a consequence of evolution. Remember, the scientific term is very specific; "change in allele frequency in a population over time."

      so he has to change "common descent" to mean the same as "evolution"
      I just showed you that it's not the same as evolution.

      So the question we have for Barbarian now is, when referring to "the belief that every living thing we find on earth today was originally a single common ancestor that reproduced and changed by means of random mutation plus natural selection" what is that called?
      Your somewhat odd redefinition of common descent, which as you surely must know by now, is a consequence of a change in allele frequencies, not evolution itself.

      I guaranty Barbarian won't answer with what the belief is called because that would lead him down a path of a losing argument. And winning an argument is the most important thing to Barbarian because he abandoned pursuing truth long before he got on TOL.
      Getting angry and abusive won't help you now. It merely shows that you're out of arguments.

      I showed you that genetic load leads to a loss of fitness unless mitigated, and that de novo genes are produced mostly by mutations of non-coding DNA.

      How many lucky mutations does it take?
      How many lucky rolls of the dice does it take to get a win while gambling? When you figure out that, you'll be close to understanding. But remember natural selection intervenes.
      This message is hidden because ...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
        As you now realize, even your fellow creationists accept a limited form of common descent.


        Of course we believe in "a limited form of common descent".... from the MULTIPLE originally created KINDS.

        What we disagree with is the belief that ALL life that ever lived was descended from a single universal common ancestor.
        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 Right Divider View Post


          Of course we believe in "a limited form of common descent".... from the MULTIPLE originally created KINDS.

          What we disagree with is the belief that ALL life that ever lived was descended from a single universal common ancestor.
          Darwinists will say anything to pretend that people are part of their religion.
          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
            Barbarianobserves:
            I'mgladyou've droppedyourclaimthatgeneticistssayit's "devolution."We'remakingprogress.Andasyou learned,theypointoutthatnaturalselectionreduces geneticload.
            Ishowedyouthat,severaltimes.I'm pleasedyoulearnedit.
            Wecheckedonthatbelief,but asyoulearned,youcouldn'tfindevenonegeneticist whothoughtso.Andthat'sprettymuchallthereisfor thatidea.
            Itwasyourclaim;ifyoudidn'twanttotalk aboutyournewterm"devolution",youshouldn't havebroughtitup.Iaskedyoutoshowmeevenone geneticistwhoagreedwithyou;youcouldn'tfind evenone.Thisistypicalofcommoncreationiststo talkaboutanythingexcepttheevidence.
            You've forgottenagain.Remember,thescientific definitionis"achangeinallelefrequenciesina populationovertime."Andyou'veoncemore confusedevolutionwithaconsequenceofevolution. Andasyoulearned,evenhonestcreationistsadmit thatcommondescentistrueforspecies,genera,and oftenfamilies.Theyjustdon'twanttoallowitforall livingthings.Wouldyoulikemetoshowyouthat, again?
            Asyounowrealize,evenyourfellow creationistsacceptalimitedformofcommon descent.Doweneedtoshowittoyouagain.But "commondescent"isnotevolution.It'smerelya consequenceofevolution.Remember,thescientific termisveryspecific;"changeinallelefrequencyina populationovertime."
            Ijustshowedyouthatit'snot thesameasevolution.
            Yoursomewhatodd redefinitionofcommondescent,whichasyousurely mustknowbynow,isaconsequenceofachangein allelefrequencies,notevolutionitself.

            Ishowedyou thatgeneticloadleadstoalossoffitnessunless mitigated,andthatdenovogenesareproduced mostlybymutationsofnon-codingDNA.Howmany luckyrollsofthedicedoesittaketogetawinwhile gambling?Whenyoufigureoutthat,you'llbecloseto understanding.Butremembernaturalselection intervenes.
            Getting angry and abusive won't help you now. It merely shows that you're out of sensible arguments.
            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
              How many lucky rolls of the dice does it take to get a win while gambling? When you figure out that, you'll be close to understanding. But remember natural selection intervenes.
              Yeah, let's tear this nonsense "argument" to pieces first. The passive-aggressive Darwinist Barbarian thinks the answer is one.

              Here's how his argument goes:

              Wheeeeeeee. I won $200 with a single dime into this machine (ignore the 7,064 earlier attempts that yielded nothing).

              When your "arguments" are this simple to expose for the nonsense they are, that should be a big clue to you.
              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


              • It's actually worse than that:

                Hooray! The quarter I gambled with was broken and its sharp edges were cutting me. So even though I didn't win with that one, or the 44,646 previous ones, I'm not getting injured by it any more.

                EVOLUTION!!!
                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
                  Barbarian observes:
                  genetic load leads to a loss of fitness unless mitigated, and that de novo genes are produced mostly by mutations of non-coding DNA.
                  Because the mitigating factors of genetic load don't work, and random mutation+natural selection cannot make de novo genes, it is rational to be skeptical of the claim that all living things we see on earth today evolved from a single common ancestor.

                  The claimed solution to the loss of fitness from genetic load is natural selection. But natural selection cannot act on a loss of fitness until it appears. However, genetic load occurs before the loss of fitness affects an organism because genetic load is added every generation, even in the most fit examples of a population.

                  The claimed solution to creating de novo genes is lucky mutations to existing genes. But that ignores both the required changes to make the new function from whatever function the old gene had, and random mutations that are lucky enough to integrate the de novo gene into working code.

                  Trying to make changes from random mutations, and then hoping those random mutations will integrate the changes into working code is the reason Ev failed. But perhaps you know of a new attempt 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
                    Because the mitigating factors of genetic load don't work,
                    Even many creationist realize they do, and admit as much. Would you like me to show you, again"

                    random mutation+natural selection cannot make de novo genes
                    I just showed you an example. Do you think everyone forgot?

                    it is rational to be skeptical of the claim that all living things we see on earth today evolved from a single common ancestor.
                    Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise admits that there is a very large body of evidence for common descent. Would you like me to show you that, again?

                    The claimed solution to the loss of fitness from genetic load is natural selection. But natural selection cannot act on a loss of fitness until it appears.
                    So your argument is that natural selection can only work on reduced fitness if there is any. Which is like saying that a snow shovel is useless unless it snows.


                    However, genetic load occurs before the loss of fitness affects an organism
                    Genetic load is a loss in fitness. I thought you knew.

                    The claimed solution to creating de novo genes is lucky mutations to existing genes.
                    As you learned earlier, de novo genes are those that arise from mutations in non-coding DNA. And as you also learned that's only one way it happens. Would you like me to show you that, again?

                    But that ignores both the required changes to make the new function from whatever function the old gene had,
                    Remember, a de novo gene had no old gene from which to mutate. It merely was formed by mutation from non-coding DNA.

                    Trying to make changes from random mutations, and then hoping those random mutations will integrate the changes into working code is the reason Ev failed.
                    I showed you several computer simulations that accurately demonstrate common descent. Do you think people forgot?

                    You were able to finally admit that no geneticist said that there is such a thing as devolution. Time to move on and shed some other misconceptions.
                    This message is hidden because ...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                      Even many creationist realize they do, and admit as much.
                      None of them.

                      Would you like me to show you again?

                      I just showed you an example. Do you think everyone forgot?

                      Kurt Wise does not say there is a large body of evidence for common descent. Would you like me to show you that, again?

                      So your argument is that natural selection can only work on reduced fitness if there is any. Which is like saying that a snow shovel is useless unless it snows.
                      Looks like you didn't think that through at all.

                      I thought you knew.

                      Do you think people forgot?

                      You were able to finally admit that geneticists admit devolution is a problem. Time to move on and shed some other misconceptions.
                      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
                        You were able to finally admit that geneticists admit devolution is a problem.

                        old trolls find it hard to learn

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                          Would you like me to show you, again
                          Do you think everyone forgot?
                          Would you like me to show you that, again?
                          I thought you knew.
                          As you learned earlier... And as you also learned... Would you like me to show you that, again?
                          Remember...
                          Do you think people forgot?
                          Time to move on and shed some other misconceptions.
                          Random mutation+natural selection cannot make de novo genes. As the vast majority of examples show, DNA must break something to improve fitness.

                          The claimed solution to the loss of fitness from genetic load is natural selection. But natural selection cannot act on a loss of fitness until it appears. But genetic load is not defined as a loss of fitness, but as a loss of function and redundency that will eventually lead to a loss of fitness. When the

                          The claimed solution to creating de novo genes is lucky mutations to existing DNA unrelated to the function of the de novo gene. But that ignores both the required changes to make the new function from whatever function the old code had, and random mutations that are lucky enough to integrate the de novo gene into working code.

                          Trying to make changes from random mutations, and then hoping those random mutations will integrate the changes into working code is the reason Ev failed. So far you haven't shown a new attempt at modeling universal common descent. Let us know the name of the program if you find it.
                          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
                            Random mutation+natural selection cannot make de novo genes.
                            I know you would like to think they cannot, but I showed you that it's a documented fact that they do. You want me to post that, again?

                            As the vast majority of examples show, DNA must break something to improve fitness.
                            Or, as you just learned, produce it from non-coding DNA, that is already non-functional.

                            The claimed solution to the loss of fitness from genetic load is natural selection.
                            Which even Answers in Genesis acknowledges.

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

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

                            Trying to make changes from random mutations, and then hoping those random mutations will integrate the changes into working code is the reason Ev failed. So far you haven't shown a new attempt at modeling universal common descent.
                            I showed you several. As you now realize, your assumptions about the nature of genetic load and how natural selection removes it, are completely wrong.
                            This message is hidden because ...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                              Which even Answers in Genesis acknowledges.
                              Well, let's take a look:


                              Natural selection results in a loss or reshuffling of genetic information, not the gain of information required for evolution.



                              https://answersingenesis.org/search/...ural+selection

                              As you now realize, your assumptions about the nature of genetic load and how natural selection removes it are completely 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


                              • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                                I know you would like to think they cannot... You want me to post that, again?

                                Or, as you just learned

                                Which even Answers in Genesis acknowledges.

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

                                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

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

                                As you now realize
                                Most any example of random mutation improving fitness follows the predicted burning bridge approach as outlined by Michael Behe in Darwin Devolves. Any example claimed to the contrary includes assumptions that have so far been reversed when those assumptions are able to be verified. So, the exmple you claim is just another brick in the wall showing universal common descent is wrong.

                                Mutations passed to the next generation include mutations to the most fit members of a population. Eventually, the mutations accumulate to a point where it reduces fitness perhaps multiple generations into the future. Those mutations cannot be taken back.

                                This is why computer models, like the ones you show, don't simulate common descent. Ev attempted to do this, but it failed and there hasn't been any attempt after Ev. Or perhaps there has been so let us know so we can take a look at it.
                                Good things come to those who shoot straight.

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X