Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

In bacteria, a wide range of mutations can be shown to provide a beneficial phenotype to the cell. These benefits are often of sufficient phenotypic affect that they can undergo strong positive selection.

Does the "Biblical model of creation" include natural selection or not? You and AiG say it does, Stripe says natural selection never happens. Which is it? Kinda hard to discuss this if you guys can't even agree on the basics.

Its also kinda hard to discuss when you keep trying to move the goalposts.

[
Also, I really don't feel like playing your little creationist game where you post a link to a creationist site

Then don't ask for citations to back up what I said.

No exactly correct. In the past, it was believed the vast majority of mutations were neutral or silent.


However, part of the reason for that belief was the false belief in "junk DNA". If 97% of our DNA was garbage, then it made sense that mutations in that region were neutral. However, ENCODE is changing the way geneticists look at our DNA, as well as how they look at mutations.



BUT..... even before ENCODE results were released, geneticists usually would not consider a mutation completely neutral. For example Kimura famously showed that with mutations there is a "zone of near-neutrality". In his graph, he shows no mutations that are absolutely neutral.

Your biggest mistake, or misrepresentation though is in saying "the rest of the mutations are deleterious or beneficial". You say that as if they are on a equal playing playing field. But, mutations that have a beneficial outcome, are so rare that geneticists such as Kimura do not even factor them in on a graph. (Crow agrees) Everything he shows is to the left of the absolute zero. (beneficial would be to the right) Geneticists have pegged beneficial mutations at 1 in 1 million (Lenski and Gerrish).

You know, it's pointless to cite things without providing the name and date of the papers, and the journal in which they were published. Are you intentionally hiding those things so I won't look them up, or did you just forget?

As to Encode results... google, although I can provide links to you if you wish.

As to geneticists not considering a mutation completely neutral. Its impossible to prove any mutation has zero effect, and most geneticists like Kimura refer to them with term such as near neutral, or effectively neutral.

As to Kimura and near neutral mutations... (none as totally neutral) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC383841/?page=2

As to Gerrish and Lenski...http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...0UrmeApqpRj7_aFg9CKzDg&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

 

[DavisBJ]

Good question! I don't know the answer. But there are different ideas as to how God created...just as there are numerous ideas about the Big Bang.

And when there are differing ideas about the big bang, then scientists try to identify ways to tell which idea is correct. – You know, things like COBE and WMAP.

As to differing ideas about how God created, a) Specifically what are the primary competing ideas? And b) What specific experiments would you propose to see which idea is best supported by the evidence?

Could God cause space to expand faster than the speed of light? Is the one way speed of light different than the round-trip speed? Did God create light in transit?

None of those suggestions will solve issues like the observed fluctuating levels of Cepheid Variables. And there are several similar observed situations in astronomy that “spreading out the heavens” does not address (I mentioned another one several months ago which also went unanswered, dealing with 1987A). Then there’s also quasar 3C273 that flies in the face of creationist claims.

But by far the simplest answer - the one that you can’t stomach without admitting your nomadic creation myth is wrong - is that astronomers are actually seeing fluctuating light levels that have been in transit for millions of years. Trying to explain it by saying God “spread out the heavens” as an answer is not even a just-so story, it is simply not compatible with a recent creation, unless your God is deceitful. Science is against a literal reading of Genesis.

If you are right, and the universe is 6000 years old, then the most distant starlight that was emitted naturally and has reached the earth without some supernatural speed boost comes from just our local corner of our own galaxy. Starlight even from the center of our own Milky Way galaxy won’t reach us for a few thousand more years, and none of the tens of billions of other galaxies, galactic voids, HDF stars, UHDF stars, etc. will have light reach us for millions of years. 99.999% of the observable universe might just be a movie projected on a 7000 LY radius dome similar to the dome the ancients believed in before telescopes were invented.

 

[DavisBJ]

Creationists only have ONE source of magic; God !!

But that is one more source of magic than scientists have. Scientists have to figure out natural laws and work with them. Every single time I have asked creationists to show me that magic they lay claim to, I get reprimanded. Guess when I travel to the orient I will just have to keep relying on aeronautical engineers and such, while you guys can be whisked wherever you need to be on divine flying chariots.

 

[DavisBJ]

... The worst part is that there seems to be nothing we can say to help them on deck. By the way, I mean the 'boat to Heaven.' Longer boats are coming to win us!!

Much Love, In Christ, patrick,

Michael

Hi, Mike. I do have just a tad of reluctance to put much credibility in someone who has proven himself to be a false prophet, and who adamantly refuses to educate himself on science yet vehemently attacks science with the epitome of his logic being “I just don’t believe it”, and who says he plays canasta with angels, who is in awe of Uri Geller, who laughs in God’s face when given the answer to prayer, who flips-flops on doctrine, who acts like an infant with crayons, …

 

[alwight]

Creationists only have ONE source of magic; God !!

Any supposed magic for an explanation seems highly unsatisfactory to me, even if it makes you content to stop looking for natural answers.

 

[Yorzhik]

Citation needed,

Sure. I'll quote Tyrathca:

that is how communication of information is modelled in with Shannon.

If communication doesn't fit that model then it is inappropriate to apply Shannon information theory, it does not necessarily mean you can't call it communication (depending on how you define communication)

That's the definition I'm using for communication: encode->transmission->decode.

With regards to DNA can you at least describe when, where and how the encoding, transmission and decoding occurs? Is the DNA in a constant state of transmission by your view or not? Why? A bit more detail regarding how you are applying Shannon information would be useful, it's not like the math can't be used but to be meaningful you need to have a context and it seems any use of Shannon would require an arbitrary demarcation of transmission time (thus results are of little significance)

A simple example: DNA is not a protein, but it is encoded with what proteins are. Somehow, when a protein is needed, the cell gets the encoded information and decodes it to make a protein. Sometimes the protein isn't made right even if the information from the DNA is correct because of errors that enter the transmission of the information from DNA to protein.

 

[gcthomas]

Sure. I'll quote Tyrathca:

that is how communication of information is modelled in with Shannon.

That's the definition I'm using for communication: encode->transmission->decode.


A simple example: DNA is not a protein, but it is encoded with what proteins are. Somehow, when a protein is needed, the cell gets the encoded information and decodes it to make a protein. Sometimes the protein isn't made right even if the information from the DNA is correct because of errors that enter the transmission of the information from DNA to protein.

The errors in transcription from DNA to RNA are essential for evolution, as they provide the variability in alleles for evolution to work with. There are, of course, error correction mechanisms.

Yorz, this thread within the thread has been going on for days now - are you going to bring up anything substantive, or will you just keep on like this? Why don't you present your conclusions from your application of Shannon's theories, then we'll have something to look at. Give us some results!

 

[alwight]

That's the definition I'm using for communication: encode->transmission->decode.

Since telecoms used to be my profession I'm finding your idea of "transmission" a little difficult to quantify mainly because it seems to involve effectively no actual transmission at all.
Shannon's world (and mine) involved transmission over long distances and different mediums, rectification, loading, regenerators, inductance, resistance (ohms), conductance (mhos), noise, capacitance ...You know, real world stuff. lain:

 

[TheDuke]

Ad hominem...
An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence. (Urban dictionary)


Thats what evolutionists used to call it..."junk"..."flotsam".* Fortunately science is dispelling that belief.



No... its valuable because it performs regulatory functions which we are just beginning to understand. Non coding DNA is important because it seems to have design and purpose.

In the beginning, God created

You say that as if you are.*

Oh, how disappointing. And there I was complimenting you..
What a shame - nothing but repeating the same mantra over and over, denying evident scientific facts and ignoring all the relevant points in my post.

I think this concludes the topic.

 

[TheDuke]

Kinda hard to discuss this if you guys can't even agree on the basics.

Also, I really don't feel like playing your little creationist game where you post a link, I respond, you ignore most of my response, and just post another copy/link to another creationist site. That's pretty dishonest of you.

Please do let me know once there's any improvement. I've just had to lower my expectations yet again!

 

[TheDuke]

The dinosaurs and reptiles, and bugs were created on the 6th day

ok, when were Emus created?

Your evolution "facts" are just conjecture. ... They have to keep inventing dinosaurs to give them work so that they have a job. Out of one bone, they form their idea of what the animal looked like.

Incredulity combined with a conspiracy theory, how marvelous. So you're the kind of persons who rationalises fossils by claiming they were laid down by the devil, eh?
On a more serious note, care to provide an example where paleontologists reconstruct an entire animal from 1 bone?

Duke, are you living in Great Britain? Just curious.

Nope, but close enough

Your idea of evolution is really God creating different animals and also changing them in the Earth as He wills. He is the one Who controls the genes, genomes, alleles, DNA, RNA, atoms, protons, etc.

Your idea of God, is one huge deceiver, who teams up with his enemy to sucker humanity for his own amusement.

You're gonna miss the boat!! ... The worst part is that there seems to be nothing we can say to help them on deck.

Yes there is - it's called: 'evidence'

They think NOTHING is the answer instead of saying God is the answer.

Where do you get this from, I wonder?
BTW, could it be that you're asking the wrong questions?

Creationists only have ONE source of magic; God !!

OK, beware from now on, I'm going to shamelessly quote-mine this ultimate confession. Never thought it'd be so easy to get that out of you guys.....
Remember, Michael, how long we wasted talking about miracle=magic?

 

[Jose Fly]

It was ad hominem in this case. Rather than attack the argument with reason and logic, he attacked the person / source.

So in another thread, you said that science is about knowledge and "following the evidence wherever it leads". Yet in this thread you cite AnswersinGenesis, an organization that declares up front that they absolutely will not follow the evidence wherever it leads, and any and all evidence that contradicts their religious beliefs is automatically rejected.

Thus, by your own criterion, AiG is indeed "anti-science", which means you have no business complaining when Duke refers to them as anti-science.

 

[DavisBJ]

So in another thread, you said that science is about knowledge and "following the evidence wherever it leads". Yet in this thread you cite AnswersinGenesis, an organization that declares up front that they absolutely will not follow the evidence wherever it leads, and any and all evidence that contradicts their religious beliefs is automatically rejected.

Thus, by your own criterion, AiG is indeed "anti-science", which means you have no business complaining when Duke refers to them as anti-science.

6days knows that science is committed to following the evidence, and one of his mantras is that science supports his iron-age nomadic creation myth. But he also has been very clear in affirming that his primary allegiance is to his literal rendition of the ancient nomadic account and not to science. He wants to be on both sides of the fence, but when pressed, he sides with his cult. He is, in effect, no different than AIG is.

 

[Jose Fly]

Its also kinda hard to discuss when you keep trying to move the goalposts.

You're not making any sense.

You linked to an AiG article that says mutations generate beneficial phenotypic effects that undergo strong positive selection. Stripe says natural selection never occurs, ever. Which is it?

Then don't ask for citations to back up what I said.

First, I didn't ask you to link to AiG, an organization that, by your own criterion, is anti-science. You provided that on your own.

But again, the point is you earlier linked to and copied from creation.com. I responded and you ignored pretty much all of my response, only to link to yet another creationist page.

Do you not see the problem?

As to Encode results... google, although I can provide links to you if you wish.

We've discussed them already. Did you forget?

As to geneticists not considering a mutation completely neutral. Its impossible to prove any mutation has zero effect, and most geneticists like Kimura refer to them with term such as near neutral, or effectively neutral.

Sure. What's your point?

As to Kimura and near neutral mutations... (none as totally neutral) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC383841/?page=2

You stated earlier, "mutations that have a beneficial outcome, are so rare that geneticists such as Kimura do not even factor them in on a graph".

Well, the question here is going to be whether you deliberately misrepresented the paper, or did so out of ignorance.

First, I assume you're referring to Figure 1. Did you know that it's a representation of the selective disadvantage of mutants? IOW, the graph is about the range of mutants that go from effectively neutral to highly deleterious.

Why would you expect Kimura to plot beneficial mutations on a graph that represents a range of effectively neutral to highly deleterious? Did you not understand that, or were you lying?

Also, did you not read the entire paper, specifically the section entitled "Slightly Advantageous Mutations"? Or again were you misrepresenting his work?

Interestingly in that section he says that in very large populations, the presence of advantageous mutations can make the evolution rate become "enormously high". Now, I know you're probably tempted to say that's consistent with your post-flood beliefs about rapid evolution. But keep in mind, his statement about "enormously high" rates of evolution is predicated on the existence of advantageous mutations, whereas you've been claiming the opposite, i.e., that rapid evolution occurs only through loss of "genetic information" (whatever that is) and reductions in fitness (IOW, deleterious mutations).

Kinda makes me wonder why in the world you cited this paper. Not only does it not support anything you've claimed, it directly contradicts a lot of what you've posted here previously.

So tell me 6days, what creationist who cited Kimura did you copy from? Or are you going to tell me you actually have the paper and wrote that misrepresentation of his work yourself?

As to Gerrish and Lenski...http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...0UrmeApqpRj7_aFg9CKzDg&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

Oh my....same thing. Again it seems you've either greatly misunderstood, or deliberately misrepresented this paper. Do you even understand what this paper is about? Or did you just copy some material that cited Gerrish and Lenski from a creationist source?

And can I conclude that you have bailed on our previous topics?

 

[Jose Fly]

Please do let me know once there's any improvement. I've just had to lower my expectations yet again!

I've been doing this in one form or another for about 15 years, and I can say with a high degree of confidence that you will be forever waiting for creationists to change their tactics.

Specific to 6days' recent copy-paste-run approach, I used to refer to it as the "conveyor belt approach", where the creationist sends one copy-n-paste after another down the line, without any regard to their accuracy or validity, and if someone at the end of the line happens to pick one up, look at it, and refute it, the creationist shrugs, ignores the response, and just sends more copy-n-pastes down the line.

It's a pretty desperate, sad tactic that is indicative of the state of creationism.

 

[Hedshaker]

Creationists only have ONE source of magic; God !!

I'm so glad the real world isn't like that, and that supernatural magic, pixies, fairies, gods and hobgoblins are all just make believe.

No one would dare take a boat trip in case someone decided to part the the sea or something. No, you can keep your Alice in wonderland. I'll just stick with reality.

 

[Jose Fly]

6days knows that science is committed to following the evidence, and one of his mantras is that science supports his iron-age nomadic creation myth. But he also has been very clear in affirming that his primary allegiance is to his literal rendition of the ancient nomadic account and not to science. He wants to be on both sides of the fence, but when pressed, he sides with his cult. He is, in effect, no different than AIG is.

That's pretty much all creationists. They like to say "I like science", but what they really mean is "Only the science that doesn't threaten my theology....all the rest I'll flatly deny or dishonestly misrepresent".

 

[patrick jane]

Any supposed magic for an explanation seems highly unsatisfactory to me, even if it makes you content to stop looking for natural answers.

Evolutionists should be called illusionists for all the lack of evidence

 

[alwight]

Evolutionists should be called illusionists for all the lack of evidence

A bold assertion indeed, but perhaps more associated with the 6days version of reality than in any actual reality. lain:

 

[TheDuke]

Evolutionists should be called illusionists for all the lack of evidence

case in point.