Creation vs. Evolution II

[redfern]

So everything is evolving all day long right?

--Dave

In a microscopic way yes, since every time a cell divides within your body it may introduce changes into the daughter cell's DNA. But for the changes to be important in evolution it has to occur in a germ-line cell. Simple question then – which is likely to be the major contributor to unique changes in a child’s DNA – a young mother, an older mother, a young father, or an older father?

 

[Greg Jennings]

So everything is evolving all day long right?

--Dave

Not exactly. Evolution occurs when a new organism (with its newly recombinant chromosomes) is created. The reshuffling of the chromosomes is the cause of diversity and change.

That's why your son isn't just a clone of you

 

[DFT_Dave]

In a microscopic way yes, since every time a cell divides within your body it may introduce changes into the daughter cell's DNA. But for the changes to be important in evolution it has to occur in a germ-line cell. Simple question then – which is likely to be the major contributor to unique changes in a child’s DNA – a young mother, an older mother, a young father, or an older father?

"Originally posted by Greg Jennings
Not exactly. Evolution occurs when a new organism (with its newly recombinant chromosomes) is created. The reshuffling of the chromosomes is the cause of diversity and change.

So cell replication and cell division don't always produce mutations then, right?

Are cells formed at birth considered mutations?

--Dave

 

[Greg Jennings]

So cell replication and cell division don't always produce mutations then, right?

Not usually on an individual scale, no. But when reproduction occurs then cellular division is occurring billions of times. There are going to be some errors

Are cells formed at birth considered mutations?

A cell itself cannot be a mutation. Mutations are errors in the genetic code of the cell, most of which are neutral or negative but sometimes can be positive.

If the mutation hinders the cell's ability to survive, that cell will die quickly and not produce many daughter cells, if any at all. If the mutation is neutral, it has no effect on the cell's survivability. If a mutation increases the cell's ability to survive and produce more cells, then it is positive.

 

[redfern]

So cell replication and cell division don't always produce mutations then, right?

Are cells formed at birth considered mutations?

--Dave

From the fact that you have apparently been a participant at TOL for over a decade, your questions classify you either as a troll, or as someone who is abysmally ignorant of biology. Since mutations have been discussed repeatedly in this thread, and many other TOL threads, why are you asking elementary-school level questions about it?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Not usually on an individual scale, no. But when reproduction occurs then cellular division is occurring billions of times. There are going to be some errors


A cell itself cannot be a mutation. Mutations are errors in the genetic code of the cell, most of which are neutral or negative but sometimes can be positive.

If the mutation hinders the cell's ability to survive, that cell will die quickly and not produce many daughter cells, if any at all. If the mutation is neutral, it has no effect on the cell's survivability. If a mutation increases the cell's ability to survive and produce more cells, then it is positive.

So, then not everything is evolving.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

From the fact that you have apparently been a participant at TOL for over a decade, your questions classify you either as a troll, or as someone who is abysmally ignorant of biology. Since mutations have been discussed repeatedly in this thread, and many other TOL threads, why are you asking elementary-school level questions about it?

So, then not everything is evolving.

--Dave

 

[redfern]

So, then not everything is evolving.

--Dave

QED

 

[Greg Jennings]

So, then not everything is evolving.

--Dave

I don't think you followed....

 

[redfern]

I don't think you followed....

I don’t think DFT_Dave ever had any intention of following. If he sent out gold embossed invitation cards saying “Who can I sucker with my inane arguments” it couldn’t be more clear. Notice a day or so ago when he was on a rant about natural selection, and you gave the very simple example about the rabbits, in his response he instantly dropped any pretense of acknowledging natural selection and turned to a question about creation - where did the white rabbit come from – and 6days came in supporting him. I haven’t seen him respond to a single post with anything other than trivial questions and put-downs.

I certainly have better things to do than respond to his childish taunts.

 

[DFT_Dave]

For the evolution of a species to take place there must be an error (mutation) which is a departure from the normal function of cell replication and reproduction of offspring. Children do not evolve from us. Normal offspring will never produce a new species. Children who are not exact copies of their parents are not the result of mutations, they are a result of more than one option in the human genetic code.

Diversity of species and diversity within species is supposed by atheists to be "built up" gradually over millions of years, mutation by mutation. But the absence of transitional forms that were supposed to document this progression from simple to complex was never seen in the fossil record. So, rather than accepting that Darwin's whole theory of evolution was falsified, his theory was modified by simply declaring that all offspring are mutants instead of just some who become transitional forms.

Diversity is not a proof of evolution. Diversity is proof that God created everything to reproduce after is "kind" with limited diversity within each "kind".

You can't have "abnormal function" (mutations) unless you have normal function. The current revised theory of evolution has done away with the distinction between the two. Which is why we see today the absurdity of "gender identity" dysfunction.

--Dave

 

[gcthomas]

Diversity of species and diversity within species is supposed by atheists to be "built up" gradually over millions of years, mutation by mutation. But the absence of transitional forms that were supposed to document this progression from simple to complex was never seen in the fossil record. So, rather than accepting that Darwin's whole theory of evolution was falsified, his theory was modified by simply declaring that all offspring are mutants instead of just some who become transitional forms.
-Dave

http://transitionalfossils.com/

 

[Greg Jennings]

For the evolution of a species to take place there must be an error (mutation) which is a departure from the normal function of cell replication and reproduction of offspring. Children do not evolve from us. Normal offspring will never produce a new species. Children who are not exact copies of their parents are not the result of mutations, they are a result of more than one option in the human genetic code.

Diversity of species and diversity within species is supposed by atheists to be "built up" gradually over millions of years, mutation by mutation. But the absence of transitional forms that were supposed to document this progression from simple to complex was never seen in the fossil record. So, rather than accepting that Darwin's whole theory of evolution was falsified, his theory was modified by simply declaring that all offspring are mutants instead of just some who become transitional forms.

Diversity is not a proof of evolution. Diversity is proof that God created everything to reproduce after is "kind" with limited diversity within each "kind".

You can't have "abnormal function" (mutations) unless you have normal function. The current revised theory of evolution has done away with the distinction between the two. Which is why we see today the absurdity of "gender identity" dysfunction.

--Dave

I know better. Sorry

 

[gcthomas]

You can't have "abnormal function" (mutations) unless you have normal function.

This represends a real misunderstanding of the genetics of mutations. There is no normal function if there can be a variety of versions of a gene (alleles) that all work more or less the same. Some will be more useful in certain circumstances, so if circumstances change then that allele will be selected for, and be the best for that situation, but worse in the original circumstances. No normal, and no abnormal. Just different alternatives.

 

[DFT_Dave]

http://transitionalfossils.com/

All that the fossil record shows us is the diversity of extinct species, and a diversity with in each species. Which is no different then what we see in each species today.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I know better. Sorry

Prove it.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

This represends a real misunderstanding of the genetics of mutations. There is no normal function if there can be a variety of versions of a gene (alleles) that all work more or less the same. Some will be more useful in certain circumstances, so if circumstances change then that allele will be selected for, and be the best for that situation, but worse in the original circumstances. No normal, and no abnormal. Just different alternatives.

"No normal, and no abnormal"

This is an illogical phrase, a good example of irrational scientism.

--Dave

 

[Greg Jennings]

Prove it.

--Dave

Calculations of airplane travel times correlate with a flight path curved around a plane. The calculations do not support a straight line flight path, as would be the case in a flat Earth.

 

[Greg Jennings]

All that the fossil record shows us is the diversity of extinct species, and a diversity with in each species. Which is no different then what we see in each species today.

--Dave

Are you a believer in "kinds"?

 

[gcthomas]

"No normal, and no abnormal"

This is an illogical phrase, a good example of irrational scientism.

--Dave

How does the idea that there can be a variety of different forms of any particular gene in the gene pool from which you draw your genome actually confuse anyone?

You seem too tied up in a rigid framework even be able to comprehend simple concepts. You can't call something irrational simply because the idea is beyond you.