Chance or Design (Evolution or Creation)

[The Barbarian]

A perfectly designed genome that has been subjected to a few thousand years of irreversibly increasing genetic load." Genetics provides EVIDENCE that the Biblical creation model is correct.

People who actually understand genetics overwhelmingly reject your unsupported assertion. Here's why:

In 1950, the late H. J. Muller produced a provocative paper entitled " Our load of mutations ", in which he quite correctly pointed out the burden imposed by mutation on the viability of human, and other, populations. The trouble started when others attempted further to generalize and quantify his statements. Genetic load came to be defined as the proportional decrease in the average fitness of a population relative to that of the fittest genotype: L=Wmax -W/Wmax and it was supposed to be directly related to the survival ability of the population. The latter conclusion was based on the misapprehension that W (the average of the relative selective values) necessarily has an absolute biological meaning. It was often stated, for instance, that when W is equal to 1, the population size remains constant. Literally hundreds of papers have been rendered logically invalid by this simple mistake.
At last, the voice of sanity, personified by Professor Bruce Wallace, is making itself heard. His book is a clear, logical and intelligible account of the pitfalls of the load argument. In places, of course, it is less than perfect. Some of the figures and tables are well nigh unintelligible because of inadequate captions (notably Table 5, p. 15). In his discussion of " hard " selection (which necessarily causes mortality or reduced fertility) and " soft" selection (which does not) he relates them, in passing, to the density-independent and density-dependent factors of the ecologists. His argument would have been clearer and more forceful had he extended this comparison by means of a few simple algebraic models. Nevertheless, the book represents the most comprehensive and accurate summary of the subject yet produced.

https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19700104466

 

[The Barbarian]

Biologos is an organization that has published articles challenging the Divinity of Christ, and claiming that scripture has errors.

And the Discovery Institute has a fellow who claims that Myung Son Moon is an improvement on Jesus Christ.

""Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." Matthew 7:15

Indeed.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sounds like you just responded sensibly to me Barbarian. Looks like you have a false accuser in the house.

Yes. Note back in the thread where Lon manages to come up with thoughtful and respectful comments supporting creationism. He's apparently not happy with the direction other creationists have taken here. In these conversations,there's sort of a Gresham's law affecting creationist participation. The informed and sincere creationists are usually driven out by the trolls among them.

 

[6days]

And the Discovery Institute has a fellow who claims that Myung Son Moon is an improvement on Jesus Christ.

""Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." Matthew 7:15

Indeed.

Who is the Discovery Institute and what does that have to do with heretical articles pushed by Biologos? Are you suggesting heresy is ok because it exists in two different organizations?

 

[6days]

A perfectly designed genome that has been subjected to a few thousand years of irreversibly increasing genetic load." Genetics provides EVIDENCE that the Biblical creation model is correct.

People who actually understand genetics overwhelmingly reject your unsupported assertion

People who understand genetics likely wouldn't post a nonsense book review like you just did along with a link that goes nowhere.

BTW... https://www.bing.com/search?q=no+tr...a0bf648fddd5b4fef24a93dd5&cc=CA&setlang=en-US

 

[The Barbarian]

You've confused "no true Scotsman" with "people who actually know what they're talking about overwhelmingly disagree with you."

As you just learned, your misunderstanding of genetic load is mathematically and scientifically impossible.

Genetic load is the difference between the fitness of an average genotype in a population and the fitness of some reference genotype, which may be either the best present in a population, or may be the theoretically optimal genotype. The average individual taken from a population with a low genetic load will generally, when grown in the same conditions, have more surviving offspring than the average individual from a population with a high genetic load.[1][2] Genetic load can also be seen as reduced fitness at the population level compared to what the population would have if all individuals had the reference high-fitness genotype.[3] High genetic load may put a population in danger of extinction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_load

Remember the part in red. It's going to be important.

All of us have lots of unfavorable alleles. But they are almost always recessives. Because if they were dominant, then natural selection would ensue, and begin removing them. It's why inbreeding is such a bad idea. Because that's a mystery to you, you're easy prey for anyone with a story to tell.

And yes, there are a number of species that inbreed routinely. They have remarkably few harmful recessives. It can be a successful strategy even for haploid organisms. Can you guess why? Here's a hint:

Heredity (Edinb). 2015 Mar; 114(3): 327–332.
Inbreeding depression and purging in a haplodiploid: gender-related effects
N S H Tien

Abstract:
Compared with diploid species, haplodiploids suffer less inbreeding depression because male haploidy imposes purifying selection on recessive deleterious alleles. However, alleles of genes only expressed in the diploid females are protected in heterozygous individuals. This leads to the prediction that haplodiploids suffer more from inbreeding effects on life-history traits controlled by genes with female-limited expression. To test this, we used a wild population of the haplodiploid mite Tetranychus urticae. First, negative effects of inbreeding were investigated by comparing maturation rate, juvenile survival, oviposition rate and longevity between lines created by three generations of either outbreeding or mother–son inbreeding. Second, purging through inbreeding was investigated by comparing the intensity of inbreeding depression between outbred families with known inbreeding/outbreeding mating histories. Negative effects of inbreeding and evidence for purging were found for the female trait oviposition rate, but not for juvenile survival and longevity.

The other thing that's got you confused about this, is that many "harmful" alleles are only very slightly harmful at most, and when an environment changes, can become favorable. This is why a species with very little genetic variation (low genetic load) is at such risk. Remember what "low genetic load" means; go back and read it again, if you're unsure. If the environment changes in a harmful way, that species is likely to go extinct.

And because harmful alleles frequently have a high negative epistasis with other harmful alleles, the purging effect is much higher than a simplistic counting would suggest even for diploid or haplodipolid populations:

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Aug 5; 94(16): 8380–8386.
The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk?
James F. Crow
Abstract

The human mutation rate for base substitutions is much higher in males than in females and increases with paternal age. This effect is mainly, if not entirely, due to the large number of cell divisions in the male germ line. The mutation-rate increase is considerably greater than expected if the mutation rate were simply proportional to the number of cell divisions. In contrast, those mutations that are small deletions or rearrangements do not show the paternal age effect. The observed increase with the age of the father in the incidence of children with different dominant mutations is variable, presumably the result of different mixtures of base substitutions and deletions. In Drosophila, the rate of mutations causing minor deleterious effects is estimated to be about one new mutation per zygote. Because of a larger number of genes and a much larger amount of DNA, the human rate is presumably higher. Recently, the Drosophila data have been reanalyzed and the mutation-rate estimate questioned, but I believe that the totality of evidence supports the original conclusion. The most reasonable way in which a species can cope with a high mutation rate is by quasi-truncation selection, whereby a number of mutant genes are eliminated by one “genetic death.”

And because of gene groups, Different individuals in a population may have different sets of alleles that together make them both very fit in different ways. If this becomes strongly selected for, speciation may result. (disruptive selection).

Again, all of this is deep mystery to you, and it's why you keep falling for the stories told by people who know no more than you do.

 

[6days]

You've confused "no true Scotsman" with "people who actually know what they're talking about overwhelmingly disagree with you."

Fortunately for both of us, science is not about public opinion and majority. Fortunately, there are Christian geneticists, biologists microbiologists, physicists, astronomers Etc who understand evidence from the world around us is consistent with God's Word. Pain, suffering and death to nepesh creatures entered our world after Adam and Eve sins

As you just learned, your misunderstanding of genetic load is mathematically and scientifically impossible.

Fortunately (again) modern genetics helps prove that you are wrong, and the Bible is correct.

All of us have lots of unfavorable alleles. But they are almost always recessives.

That is what evolutionists in the 1960's believed. They were also called 'silent', 'neutral' or 'near neutral'.

Modern geneticists now are concerned about mutations that were dismissed in the past as recessives. These mutations are slightly deleterious, and act as a "time bomb with a long fuse" causing increasing genetic problems in future generations.

...very slightly harmful (alleles).. when an environment changes, can become favorable.

That is the unrealistic hope of evolutionism. However science does not support your belief. VSDM'S accumulate and cause problems to future generations... Increasing problems with eyesight, bad backs, and various genetic diseases and disorders. (

And because harmful alleles frequently have a high negative epistasis with other harmful alleles...

Ok... so do you think synergistic epistasis is your savior? Or are you going to claim antagonistic epistasis solves the "paradox" (data inconsistent with your beliefs).

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Aug 5; 94(16): 8380–8386.
The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk?
James F. Crow
Abstract....

Although Crow is totally secular, he lays out the data that is consistent with the biblical model and tries to dismiss it with a highly unrealistic model of quasi truncation.

Although some of his article is very out of date ('97), let's look at some of his statements. Re gene mutation "if they have an observable effect they are almost always harmful.True... But the problem is worse than he thought.

"the typical mutation is very mild. It usually has no overt effect, but shows up as a small decrease in viability or fertility" Later in the article He suggests a possible decrease of 2% viability with each successive generation

Crow tries to diminish the problem of mutation accumulation by stating "most of the changes are not in the genes, but in the great bulk of so-called “junk” DNA, most of which has no known function."
Modern science has shown the problem is much worse than Crow could imagine. Science is in the process of discovering that much of a non-coding DNA has purpose and function.

And then as we come towards the end of the article, Crow suggests a way out of the dilemma (the data is not consistent with his secular beliefs). "This seems like a large mutation load, even for flies, and would surely be an excessive load for the human population. Furthermore, it is likely that our total mutation rate is greater than that of flies. So, we have a problem.There is a way out, however"
Crow then proposes a hypothetical and unrealistic solution of quasi-truncation. That isn't science. He is trying to shoehorn the data to fit his a priori beliefs.

If this becomes strongly selected for, speciation may result. (disruptive selection)

True....adaptation / speciation provide great evidence supporting the biblical model. The more highly adapted a population becomes... The less genetic variation.... And often closer to genetic meltdown. Island populations are often highly adapted but unable to survive environmental change. (Likewise with resistant bacteria, Coral populations, blind cave fish Etc)

Genetics help support the biblical model. We have a perfectly creative genome that has been subjected to several thousand years of mutations.

 

[The Barbarian]

Fortunately for both of us, science is not about public opinion and majority.

But geneticists know better than other people about genetics. Which is your problem here. You don't know anything about it, so you just cut-and-paste from things others have told you about it.

Fortunately, there are Christian geneticists, biologists microbiologists, physicists, astronomers Etc who understand evidence from the world around us is consistent with God's Word.

And that infuriates creationists. Those of us who are Christian and understand science, usually don't have any problem with it. Even YE creationists who are scientists, like Todd Wood, freely recognize the fact that evolutionary theory has a huge amount of evidence to support it. (as does genetics)

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

Todd's talking to you.

Pain, suffering and death to nepesh creatures entered our world after Adam and Eve sins

That's man's revision of scripture. Not God's word.

Fortunately (again) modern genetics helps prove that you are wrong, and the Bible is correct.
That is what evolutionists in the 1960's believed. They were also called 'silent', 'neutral' or 'near neutral'.

As you just learned, that's not what they said. Indeed, the "genetic load" issue came up when I was an undergraduate student. And as you also learned, it's not the problem you were told:

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Aug 5; 94(16): 8380–8386.
The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk?
James F. Crow
Abstract

The human mutation rate for base substitutions is much higher in males than in females and increases with paternal age. This effect is mainly, if not entirely, due to the large number of cell divisions in the male germ line. The mutation-rate increase is considerably greater than expected if the mutation rate were simply proportional to the number of cell divisions. In contrast, those mutations that are small deletions or rearrangements do not show the paternal age effect. The observed increase with the age of the father in the incidence of children with different dominant mutations is variable, presumably the result of different mixtures of base substitutions and deletions. In Drosophila, the rate of mutations causing minor deleterious effects is estimated to be about one new mutation per zygote. Because of a larger number of genes and a much larger amount of DNA, the human rate is presumably higher. Recently, the Drosophila data have been reanalyzed and the mutation-rate estimate questioned, but I believe that the totality of evidence supports the original conclusion. The most reasonable way in which a species can cope with a high mutation rate is by quasi-truncation selection, whereby a number of mutant genes are eliminated by one “genetic death.”

Ok... so do you think synergistic epistasis is your savior?

Calm yourself. It's just one of the effects that your creationist quote millers didn't realize existed. There's way more to it than that, as I just showed you. Why do you think the vast majority of geneticists see no problem for evolutionary theory in "genetic load?" As I showed you before, most of the studies failed to realize that W was assumed and often was a hypothetical value for an ideal genome.

Although Crow is totally secular, he lays out the data that is consistent with the biblical model and tries to dismiss it with a highly unrealistic model of quasi truncation.

See above. You were misled about that, too. He merely sees it as yet another flaw in the creationist misunderstanding of "genetic load."

Modern science has shown the problem is much worse than Crow could imagine. Science is in the process of discovering that much of a non-coding DNA has purpose and function.

You were take on that, too. A half-century ago, when I was an undergraduate, there were articles in the literature about the functions of non-coding DNA. (creationists call it all "junk DNA"; some of it is, but much of it isn't)

Genetics help support the biblical model.

The Bible doesn't discuss genetics, but as you now see, genetics is incompatible with your new doctrines of YE creationism.

As you have seen, there are many, many observed useful mutations that have made organisms more fit for their environment. YE creationists are uncomfortable with a God powerful and wise enough to create a world like that.

We have a perfectly creative genome that has been subjected to several thousand years of mutations.[/QUOTE]

 

[6days]

But geneticists know better than other people about genetics.

Correct... Secular geneticists understand the data does not fit their beliefs. As you say... they know better than you.

Those of us who are Christian and understand science, usually don't have any problem with it.

And... you are an exception? Why do you have a problem with the science?

Even YE creationists who are scientists, like Todd Wood, freely recognize the fact that evolutionary theory has a huge amount of evidence to support it. (as does genetics)
Todd Wood " It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective."

You can read other posts of his... He accepts adaptation (As do all Biblical creationists)...He rejects common ancestry. We all have the exact same data / evidence. There are interpretations that are consistent with God's Word... There are interpretations that reject what Scripture says

Todd's talking to you.

But not to you...obviously?

That's man's revision of scripture. Not God's word.(Pain, suffering and death to nepesh creatures entered our world after Adam and Eve sinned)

Read Genesis 3
Also 1 Cor. 15:21 "So you see, just as death came into the world through a man". Or, Rom. 5:12"When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death

Indeed, the "genetic load" issue came up when I was an undergraduate student. And as you also learned, it's not the problem you were told:

What you learned in the 60's has been proven false by science. Geneticists understand load is a problem. That is why so many geneticists continue proposing hypothetical solutions trying to shoehorn data with their beliefs.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Aug 5; 94(16): 8380–8386.
The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk?
James F. Crow
…......The most reasonable way in which a species can cope with a high mutation rate is by quasi-truncation selection, whereby a number of mutant genes are eliminated by one “genetic death.”

You either did not read Crow's article, or don't understand it. Although Crow is totally secular, he lays out the data that is consistent with the biblical model and tries to dismiss it with a highly unrealistic model of quasi truncation.
Although some of his article is very out of date ('97), let's look at some of his statements. Re gene mutation "if they have an observable effect they are almost always harmful."True... But the problem is worse than he thought.

"the typical mutation is very mild. It usually has no overt effect, but shows up as a small decrease in viability or fertility" Later in the article He suggests a possible decrease of 2% viability with each successive generation

Crow tries to diminish the problem of mutation accumulation by stating "most of the changes are not in the genes, but in the great bulk of so-called “junk” DNA, most of which has no known function."
Modern science has shown the problem is much worse than Crow could imagine. Science is in the process of discovering that much of a non-coding DNA has purpose and function.

And then as we come towards the end of the article, Crow suggests a way out of the dilemma (the data is not consistent with his secular beliefs). "This seems like a large mutation load, even for flies, and would surely be an excessive load for the human population. Furthermore, it is likely that our total mutation rate is greater than that of flies. So, we have a problem.There is a way out, however"
Crow then proposes a hypothetical and unrealistic solution of quasi-truncation. That isn't science. He is trying to shoehorn the data to fit his a priori beliefs.

It's (Synergistic epistasis)just one of the effects that your creationist quote millers didn't realize existed.

You are swinging the bat but missing the ball. Synergistic epistasis is one of a variety of hypothetical solutions offered that oppose other hypothetical solutions. Although you seem to hope it solves your problem, many geneticists recognize Synergistic epistasis is not the savior.
"Unfortunately, the experimental evidence on the prevalence and strength of epistasis is mixed and inconclusive".... "The measurements that exist show no general patterns"...."This suggests that we should not expect synergistic epistasis to be widespread in nature"
http://www.genetics.org/content/177/2/1001

A half-century ago, when I was an undergraduate, there were articles in the literature about the functions of non-coding DNA.

I don't usually "DUH" someone..... but DUH!! You should read the article YOU posted. OK.. For the THIRD time... from YOUR article... Crow tries to diminish the problem of mutation accumulation by stating "most of the changes are not in the genes, but in the great bulk of so-called “junk” DNA, most of which has no known function."

The Bible doesn't discuss genetics...

Of course...But, genetics helps support the biblical model. For example...we understand why The OT Patriarchs lived longer lives... We understand why our genomes have a few thousand years of genetic load.

As you have seen, there are many, many observed useful mutations that have made organisms more fit for their environment.

Uh...yes and no. For example a mutation might cause a bacteria to become antibiotic resistant. All is well until the antibiotic is removed and the bacteria is now less fit than parent populations.

In any case... the argument is silly in that it is a belief selection can eliminate 100,000 or more VSDM's but recognize and save your 'hopeful savior' mutation. Geneticists no longer use your failed 'useful mutation' argument as a solution to their "paradox' problem.

 

[Stripe]

From your article... Crow tries to diminish the problem of mutation accumulation by stating "most of the changes are not in the genes, but in the great bulk of so-called “junk” DNA, most of which has no known function."

Barbarian has a habit of not reading his own sources. :chuckle:

 

[Right Divider]

Barbarian has a habit of not reading his own sources. :chuckle:

He's a "true believer".

 

[The Barbarian]

Correct... Secular geneticists understand the data does not fit their beliefs.

As you learned just now, even Dr. Crow admits the data does fit evolutionary theory. You just don't want to accept what he says.

The Discovery Institute keeps a list of scientists who don't agree with evolutionary theory. The statement:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”This waslast publicly updated February2019. Scientists listed by doctoral degree orcurrent position.


There are 24 pages of people, including degrees in "reliability engineering" "nutrition", and so on. Lots of engineers. But not so many geneticists. Here they are:
Giuseppe Sermonti Professor of Genetics, Ret. (Editor, Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum)University of Perugia(Italy)
Richard Gunasekera Ph.D. Biochemical Genetics Baylor University
Martin LaBar Ph.D. Genetics & Zoology University of Wisconsin, Madison
Seyyed Imran Husnain Ph.D. Bacterial Genetics University of Sheffield (UK)
Jeff Tomkins Ph.D. Genetics Clemson University
Linda Walkup Ph.D. Molecular Genetics University of New Mexico Medical School
Chad Dechow Assistant Professor of Dairy Genetics Penn State University


That's it. Seven is it. Notice that even here, they don't assert what you do. They don't even deny evolution.

As you should know, there are tens of thousands of geneticists in the United States. Hard say how many in the world.

So there you are. A tiny fraction of 1% of geneticists don't accept evolutionary theory. As I said, they know better than you. As do other biologists. Those of us who are Christian and understand science, usually don't have any problem with it.

And... you are an exception?

No. I don't even have enough courses in genetics for a minor in the subject, but I know enough to realize that they overwhelmingly reject your new doctrines.

As I just showed you. Guess how I know you've never taken a college-level course in genetics.

BTW, here's a list of geneticists who are on record as accepting evolutionary theory.

Steven C. Bakker***Ph.D., Molecular Genetics, Utrecht University
Steven K. Beckendorf Professor of Genetics and Development, University of California, Berkeley
Steven S. Branda***Ph.D., Genetics, Yale University School of Medicine
Steven M. Carr Ph.D., Genetics, University of California, Berkeley
Stephen F. Chenoweth******School of Integrative Biology,Ph.D., Physics, Genetics, Griffith University
J. Steven de Belle** Ph.D., Genetics, York University
Stephen P. DiFazio* Ph.D., Forest Genetics, Oregon State University
Steven F. Dowdy**** Ph.D, Molecular Genetics, University of California, Irvine
Stephen Freeland Ph.D., Genetics, Cambridge University
Stephen Gasior******Ph.D., Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, University of Chicago
Stephen Gregory Ph.D., Genetics, Adelaide University
Steve Haase******Ph.D., Genetics, Stanford University
Steve Haber*******Ph.D., Plant Pathology, University of Illinois, Urbana
Coauthor, "Epigenetics serves Genetics: Furarium Head Blight (FHB) resistance in elite wheat germplasm," Americas
Stephen M. Hedrick Ph.D., Molecular Genetics, University of California, Irvine
Steve E. Humphries Ph.D., Molecular Genetics of Human Disease, University of Glasgow
Senior Editor of The Annals of Human Genetics
Stephen A. Karl* Ph.D., Genetics, University of Georgia
Stephen Kearsey******D. Phil., Molecular Genetics, Oxford University
Steven J. A. Kimble******* Ph.D., Conservation Genetics, Purdue University
Steven C. King***** Ph.D., Animal Genetics, Cornell University
Steven T. Kosak******Ph.D., Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, University of Chicago

There's 20. To save space, I only included those named "Steve" or some variant of that name, and I stopped at the "K"s. So you can compare, about 1% of Americans are named "steve."

So, assuming there are no geneticists named "Steve" with last names starting with letters after "K", you've got less than 4% of geneticists even slightly skeptical of evolutionary theory. Does that help you understand why your argument is such a loser? Why do you have a problem with the science?

Barbarian observes:
Indeed, the "genetic load" issue came up when I was an undergraduate student. And as you also learned, it's not the problem you were told:

What you learned in the 60's

Hmmm..
functions of noncoding DNA (that's what creationists call "junk DNA")
epigenetic effects
epistasis
Observed increases in fitness as a result of changes in population genomes
(lots of other things creationists don't get)

has been proven false by science.

As you just learned, all of those are observed facts. Would it be asking too much for you to read an intro text on genetics so you had at least an idea of what it's about?

Creationists understand that modern genetics is a problem for their new beiefs. That is why so many creatioinists continue trying to quote-mine real scientists, trying to shoehorn data with their beliefs. You either did not read Crow's article, or don't understand it. Which is why you are trying to find a way to cite his work, but to change his findings. It's very obvious; why not find someone whose work actually agrees with your revision of Genesis?

Although some of his article is very out of date ('97), let's look at some of his statements. Re gene mutation "if they have an observable effect they are almost always harmful."True... But the problem is worse than he thought.

"the typical mutation is very mild. It usually has no overt effect, but shows up as a small decrease in viability or fertility" Later in the article He suggests a possible decrease of 2% viability with each successive generation[/quote]

The problem for creationists is twofold:
1. Fitness only counts in terms of environment. So alleles that are very slightly harmful in one environment, may be useful in others. The HbC allele, for example, causes very mild symptoms of anemia, but is rapidly spreading in some areas, because it provides very good immunity to malaria. (We're not talking here of the HbS allele)

2. Epistasis is often positive:
We found that negative epistasis occurs mainly between nonessential reactions with overlapping functions, whereas positive epistasis usually involves essential reactions, is highly abundant and, unexpectedly, often occurs between reactions without overlapping functions. We offer mechanistic explanations of these findings and experimentally validate them for 61 S. cerevisiae gene pairs.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.524

And epistasis between two mildly harmful alleles can increase fitness.

I]"most of the changes are not in the genes, but in the great bulk of so-called “junk” DNA, most of which has no known function."[/I]

This is true, but as you learned, science has long known that non-coding DNA is not junk DNA. Much of it actually has function. Crow is referring to the DNA that is truly non-functional, not all non-coding DNA.

The creationists call all of it "junk DNA", but that's wrong.

I can see your confusion in reading the Crow article. Read it again, remembering that not all non-coding DNA is "junk DNA."

And please get a basic text in genetics and read it so you aren't further confused.

 

[6days]

As you learned just now, even Dr. Crow admits the data does fit evolutionary theory.

So... You did not even read the article you linked.

Notice that even here,(geneticists such as Jeff Tomkins on Discovery Institute list) they don't assert what you do. They don't even deny evolution.

Jeff Tomkins "The Genesis account of creation, the global flood, and the dispersion of people groups at Babel are fully supported by hard scientific data. I quickly realized that evolutionary ideas (including eons of deep time) are part of a failed paradigm that exists only in the minds of deceived men, not scientific reality."https://creation.com/geneticist-praises-creator

I don't even have enough courses in genetics for a minor in the subject

No kidding!

..functions of noncoding DNA (that's what creationists call "junk DNA")

Oops... You are back to your old habits of dishonesty. We were discussing so called 'junk DNA' in the article YOU posted.

Creationists understand that modern genetics is a problem for their new beiefs.

Let me guess...you also do not have a minor in church history, nor in theology?

This is true, but as you learned, science has long known that non-coding DNA is not junk DNA.

It's a good thing you only have two sides of your mouth to argue from or you would be even more illogical. It was YOU who posted the article by Crow which said "most of the changes are not in the genes, but in the great bulk of so-called “junk” DNA, most of which has no known function."

Much of it (non coding DNA)actually has function.

That is what you were taught in the 60's. Science is continuing to discover purpose and function...exactly as we should expect

Crow is referring to the DNA that is truly non-functional, not all non-coding DNA.

Uh...no. Genetics has progressed a lot in the last 22 years.

It is an exciting time for Bible believing Christians as science helps reveal the handiwork of our Creator... And as science helps dispel many of the false evolutionary beliefs of the past.

 

[Stripe]

As you learned just now, Dr. Crow shows that the data does not fit evolutionary theory. You just don't want to accept what he says.

Not so many geneticists. That's it. Seven is itthere are tens of thousands of geneticists in the United States. Hard say how many in the world.

Darwinist love it when the discussion is over how many people believe something. They think it's evidence.

As you should know.

So there you are. As I said, they know better than you. As do other biologists. Those of us who are Christian and understand science have plenty of problems with Darwinism.

So, assuming there are no geneticists named "Steve" with last names starting with letters after "K", you've got less than 4% of geneticists even slightly skeptical of evolutionary theory. Does that help you understand why your argument is such a loser?

Nope. We prefer evidence, not counting fellow believers.

Why do you have a problem with science? It's not done by counting the number of people who agree with you.

Barbarian observes:

It's a pity he never contributes anything of value.

The genetic load issue, as you also learned, is a bigger problem than you are willing to admit.

As you just learned, none of those are observed facts. It's just a theory.

Would it be asking too much for you to read an intro text on genetics so you had at least an idea of what it's about?

Darwinists understand that modern genetics is a problem for their religion. That is why so many Darwinists avoid evidence, preferring to count how many are on their side.

You either did not read Crow's article, or don't understand it, which is why you are trying to find a way to cite his work, but to change his findings. It's very obvious; why not find someone whose work actually agrees with your revision of genetics?

The problem for Darwinists is twofold:
1. Changes to the genome are all but invisible to natural selection. When they are, it's usually a disease, like the HbC allele.

2. Random changes are never good for information. Would you like that explained to you all over again?

I can see your confusion in reading the Crow article. Read it again, remembering that he was looking for somewhere to hide genetic load, ie, in "junk DNA."

And please get a basic text in genetics and read it so you aren't further confused. :up:

 

[Stripe]

It's a good thing you only have two sides of your mouth to argue from or you would be even more illogical. It was YOU who posted the article by Crow which said: "Most of the changes are not in the genes, but in the great bulk of so-called “junk” DNA, most of which has no known function."

It would do great things for Barbarian's credibility if he would show a little humility and concede that he either did not read the article before posting it, or simply did not understand it.

There's no shame in admitting that you don't understand. Don't worry, we can guide you through the basics. :up:

 

[Stripe]

Science has long known that non-coding DNA is not junk DNA.

In science, [junk DNA is] called "non-coding DNA."

:think:

 

[Gary K]

It is impossible to ever convince barby of anything because of his irrational mind. He, at the basis of his beliefs, violates the laws of logic. How? He violates the law of non-contradiction in several ways. He says he is a Christian and yet says, by his arguments, that the Bible is non-authoritative. He, by being an evolutionist, takes the naturalism point of view. Yet the naturalists point of view is in constant conflict with the Christian viewpoint. They are mutually exclusive positions which is once again in violation of the law of non-contradiction. Thus barby's thinking is irrational by definition.

He constantly falls into the deception Satan set for Eve in the Garden of Eden. What was the deception Eve fell for? It was the trap of naturalism. It posits that there is no greater source of authority and knowledge than the human mind. Satan implied to Eve that God had deceived her when He told her that she would not surely die but become as a god knowing the difference between good and evil. Eve bought that argument and thus decided that she knew better than God. She became her own little god by adopting the idea that she was the one capable, rather than God, of deciding what was true and what was false, what was right and what was wrong, etc.... This is exactly what barby does. He long ago decided that humanity itself was far more knowledgeable and discerning than God is, thus he became his own little god just like Eve.

 

[7djengo7]

As you just learned, all of those are observed facts.

Would you "choose truth over facts" with your Uncle Joe?

 

[The Barbarian]

Quote Originally Posted by Barbarian
As you learned just now, even Dr. Crow admits the data does fit evolutionary theory.

So... You did not even read the article you linked.

We both read it. You just can't understand it.

Creationist writes:

Jeff Tomkins "The Genesis account of creation, the global flood, and the dispersion of people groups at Babel are fully supported by hard scientific data.

The Biblical account is certainly consistent with hard scientific data like observed speciation and common descent. However, it's not consistent with YE creationism, unless one trashes the "life ex nihilo" doctrine. Instead of showing any data, Jeffrey is merely chanting slogans. Notice the difference between his article and Crow's.

Barbarian observes:
I don't even have enough genetics to have a minor in the subject. Guess how I know you never took a college-level course in genetics.

No kidding!

what scientists learned in the 60s

Hmmm..
functions of noncoding DNA (that's what creationists call "junk DNA")
epigenetic effects
epistasis
Observed increases in fitness as a result of changes in population genomes
(lots of other things creationists don't get)

Oops... You are back to your old habits of dishonesty.

You changed the subject. If you didn't want me to mention what scientists learned in the 60s, you shouldn't have brought it up. I see you deleted that from your last post to make it look like I did. You're not smart enough to pull something like that off.

We were discussing so called 'junk DNA' in the article YOU posted.

And then you changed the subject and pretended I did. Do you think no one notices you doing that?

Let me guess...you also do not have a minor in church history, nor in theology?

Actually, I have enough history courses for a major. I was, in the AF stationed where the two primary diversions were drinking and taking college courses. So I took a lot of history. Never completed the hours for a degree from that college, though.

It's a good thing you only have two sides of your mouth to argue from or you would be even more illogical.

This time, at least, you're likely just confused, not dishonest.

It was YOU who posted the article by Crow which said "most of the changes are not in the genes, but in the great bulk of so-called “junk” DNA, most of which has no known function."

Because creationists call all of it "junk DNA", they usually don't realize that much of it does have other functions, even while there certainly is junk DNA. The GULO gene, for example. In one case it was recently noted that CRISPR editing often removes big chunks of DNA other than the target. And yet, so far, none of that shows any harmful effects, even though there's always a change that functional DNA could be affected.

Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR–Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements
Nature Biotechnology volume 36, pages 765–771 (2018)

And removal of huge amounts of genome in mice is tolerated well

Nature. 2004 Oct 21;431(7011):988-93.
Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice.
Nóbrega MA1, Zhu Y, Plajzer-Frick I, Afzal V, Rubin EM.

Abstract

The functional importance of the roughly 98% of mammalian genomes not corresponding to protein coding sequences remains largely undetermined. Here we show that some large-scale deletions of the non-coding DNA referred to as gene deserts can be well tolerated by an organism. We deleted two large non-coding intervals, 1,511 kilobases and 845 kilobases in length, from the mouse genome. Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis. Further detailed analysis of the expression of multiple genes bracketing the deletions revealed only minor expression differences in homozygous deletion and wild-type mice. Together, the two deleted segments harbour 1,243 non-coding sequences conserved between humans and rodents (more than 100 base pairs, 70% identity). Some of the deleted sequences might encode for functions unidentified in our screen; nonetheless, these studies further support the existence of potentially 'disposable DNA' in the genomes of mammals.

Because you don't understand any of this, you're constantly blindsided by the data. Even though much of non-coding DNA is functional, huge areas of it are not.

That is what you were taught in the 60's.

And as you now realize subsequent research has confirmed it.

Uh...no. Genetics has progressed a lot in the last 22 years.

See above. This isn't exactly a secret. Biologists are well aware of it. Notice the discovery that huge tracts of DNA could be removed and still produce viable mice, has been known for 14 years.

It is an exciting time for Bible believing Christians...

But a frustrating and disappointing time for YE creationists, as new genetic discoveries continue to erode their new doctrines and dispel many of the false creationist beliefs of the past.

When I was first learning biology, creationists were denying speciation, increased fitness by natural selection and common descent of any taxa. Now, they admit all of that, even limited common descent.

I expect further retreats as time goes on.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Quote Originally Posted by Barbarian
As you learned just now, even Dr. Crow admits the data does fit evolutionary theory.



We both read it. You just can't understand it.

Creationist writes:


The Biblical account is certainly consistent with hard scientific data like observed speciation and common descent. However, it's not consistent with YE creationism, unless one trashes the "life ex nihilo" doctrine. Instead of showing any data, Jeffrey is merely chanting slogans. Notice the difference between his article and Crow's.

Barbarian observes:
I don't even have enough genetics to have a minor in the subject. Guess how I know you never took a college-level course in genetics.





Hmmm..
functions of noncoding DNA (that's what creationists call "junk DNA")
epigenetic effects
epistasis
Observed increases in fitness as a result of changes in population genomes
(lots of other things creationists don't get)



You changed the subject. If you didn't want me to mention what scientists learned in the 60s, you shouldn't have brought it up. I see you deleted that from your last post to make it look like I did. You're not smart enough to pull something like that off.



And then you changed the subject and pretended I did. Do you think no one notices you doing that?



Actually, I have enough history courses for a major. I was, in the AF stationed where the two primary diversions were drinking and taking college courses. So I took a lot of history. Never completed the hours for a degree from that college, though.



This time, at least, you're likely just confused, not dishonest.



Because creationists call all of it "junk DNA", they usually don't realize that much of it does have other functions, even while there certainly is junk DNA. The GULO gene, for example. In one case it was recently noted that CRISPR editing often removes big chunks of DNA other than the target. And yet, so far, none of that shows any harmful effects, even though there's always a change that functional DNA could be affected.

Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR–Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements
Nature Biotechnology volume 36, pages 765–771 (2018)

And removal of huge amounts of genome in mice is tolerated well

Nature. 2004 Oct 21;431(7011):988-93.
Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice.
Nóbrega MA1, Zhu Y, Plajzer-Frick I, Afzal V, Rubin EM.

Abstract

The functional importance of the roughly 98% of mammalian genomes not corresponding to protein coding sequences remains largely undetermined. Here we show that some large-scale deletions of the non-coding DNA referred to as gene deserts can be well tolerated by an organism. We deleted two large non-coding intervals, 1,511 kilobases and 845 kilobases in length, from the mouse genome. Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis. Further detailed analysis of the expression of multiple genes bracketing the deletions revealed only minor expression differences in homozygous deletion and wild-type mice. Together, the two deleted segments harbour 1,243 non-coding sequences conserved between humans and rodents (more than 100 base pairs, 70% identity). Some of the deleted sequences might encode for functions unidentified in our screen; nonetheless, these studies further support the existence of potentially 'disposable DNA' in the genomes of mammals.

Because you don't understand any of this, you're constantly blindsided by the data. Even though much of non-coding DNA is functional, huge areas of it are not.



And as you now realize subsequent research has confirmed it.



See above. This isn't exactly a secret. Biologists are well aware of it. Notice the discovery that huge tracts of DNA could be removed and still produce viable mice, has been known for 14 years.



But a frustrating and disappointing time for YE creationists, as new genetic discoveries continue to erode their new doctrines and dispel many of the false creationist beliefs of the past.

When I was first learning biology, creationists were denying speciation, increased fitness by natural selection and common descent of any taxa. Now, they admit all of that, even limited common descent.

I expect further retreats as time goes on.

https://kgov.com/journal-nature-junk-dna-not-junk-bob-enyart-vs-eugenie-scott