Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!

[Yorzhik]

The change in allele frequencies across generations means a pathway to success is forged over time. Organisms are better and better able to contend with environmental changes.

The allele frequency changes with every birth or death in a population. It doesn't mean anything to the improvement of a population in a particular environment.

 

[Skeeter]

The allele frequency changes with every birth or death in a population. It doesn't mean anything to the improvement of a population in a particular environment.

There would only be marginal fluctuations. We see large upswings more frequently than probability would allow.

 

[Skeeter]

No, it adds noise. If adding noise added information, then the more static you add to a message the more information it would have. What you don't seem to understand is that the amount of information from a source is determined by the receiver, not the sender. The question you need to ask is what processes those repeats? Was it modified to understand the static?

The use of the word message (and code even) are only metaphors to help us understand. There are no senders or receivers per se.

Gene changes effect structures directly. A protein with different properties is created. Like in creating curly hair instead of straight. Curly hair lets the head cool off faster. Depending on the climate, one trait is favored more over another. In a novel future environment curly hair helps receive radiowaves more efficiently (in conjunction with other mutations) so a rudimentary antennae develops. New function, new environment new species.

If you understand what I just said above, you'll understand why all improvements, bar none, cannot contain too much noise. Which is why all improvements we see so far are subsets of the information that was already there.

DNA includes so much static and nonsense, dude. You should know that. Only a discrete portion of the DNA is even expressed. Noise exists along side improvements. The noise is ignored until it is becomes a word. Deleterious mutations are removed from the population right quick. In humans mutations last a bit longer because we compensate for them through medicine.

Ah, yes, the common descentists new black box. This is what you are saying: "since DNA has not been able to make a novel feature, we'll start claiming it's epigenetics that makes magical improvements since it is not well understood how epigenetics works yet."

Epigenetics will be understood some day. It won't save you.

Epigenetics help explain how the noise is ignored.

What the experiment means is exactly what I said, even in context. Both the Harvard experiment and the Lenski experiment show, as in every other similar experiment, that the information in the resulting organisms are subsets of the information their parents had.

If you think otherwise, you'll have to show the context.

To effect the changes of speciation that would satisfy you, the experimenter must endure many years of dead ends. Ecosystems would need to be created and controlled. Different species of lobster, alligator, and fly have existed for millions of years. Finding a specialized niche reduces the rate of and kind of change. Early forms were of a different species and have a very different genetic make up than the forms of today, but you would still call them the same kind because you are basic.

 

[Right Divider]

DNA includes so much static and nonsense, dude. You should know that. Only a discrete portion of the DNA is even expressed.

Again the gross arrogance of the evolutionist is shown so clearly.

Noise exists along side improvements. The noise is ignored until it is becomes a word.

Hugely funny ... again.

Deleterious mutations are removed from the population right quick.

Most mutations are removed from the population right quick. DNA tends to repair the damage.

 

[Skeeter]

Most mutations are removed from the population right quick. DNA tends to repair the damage.

Nope. DNA does not just reset. Harmful mutations are removed from the population when individual member's fecundity is drastically reduced.

 

[Right Divider]

Nope. DNA does not just reset.

Nobody said that "DNA just resets". But it does have repair mechanisms that fix many problems.

Harmful mutations are removed from the population when individual member's fecundity is drastically reduced.

True, but that's not the only way that mutations are removed.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dna...liAFlkgEDMC4xmAEAoAECoAEBsAEK&sclient=gws-wiz

 

[Skeeter]

Nobody said that "DNA just resets". But it does have repair mechanisms that fix many problems.

True, but that's not the only way that mutations are removed.

Do you want to just trade google searches? Please expound on this yourself.

 

[Skeeter]

Please note the difference between mutation and DNA damage. In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and thus a mutation cannot be repaired.

 

[Right Divider]

Do you want to just trade google searches? Please expound on this yourself.

I already did.... DNA has repair mechanisms that fix many errors.

 

[Skeeter]

I already did.... DNA has repair mechanisms that fix many errors.

Please note the difference between mutation and DNA damage. In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and thus a mutation cannot be repaired.

 

[Right Divider]

Please note the difference between mutation and DNA damage. In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and thus a mutation cannot be repaired.

Nobody said that ALL DNA damage gets repaired.

 

[Skeeter]

Nobody said that ALL DNA damage gets repaired.

You said mutations get repaired. They do not.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You said mutations get repaired. They do not.

There was a study done that suggests that an egg may decide which sperm cell will fertilize it based on whether or not it has mutated genes in certain places.

New study finds the egg may actually 'choose' the sperm

Here's the first evidence to challenge the "fastest sperm" narrative.

bigthink.com

One more error correction mechanism to add to the list.

 

[Skeeter]

There was a study done that suggests that an egg may decide which sperm cell will fertilize it based on whether or not it has mutated genes in certain places.

New study finds the egg may actually 'choose' the sperm

Here's the first evidence to challenge the "fastest sperm" narrative.

bigthink.com

One more error correction mechanism to add to the list.

Actually, it is the first proposal for the list, and it is questionable.

 

[Skeeter]

Actually, it is the first proposal for the list, and it is questionable.

The study you link does not indicate that the sperm was rejected because the egg detected a mutation. There is some other basis. Show me a study that supports your notion.

 

[Yorzhik]

There would only be marginal fluctuations. We see large upswings more frequently than probability would allow.

The only large upswings we see come at the cost of less potential variation.

 

[Yorzhik]

The use of the word message (and code even) are only metaphors to help us understand. There are no senders or receivers per se.

It's not a metaphor. It's an example.

Who told you the message system in the body, especially DNA from one generation to the next, wasn't a message system?

The only way that could happen is to redefine "message system". So tell us your definition.

Gene changes effect structures directly. A protein with different properties is created. Like in creating curly hair instead of straight. Curly hair lets the head cool off faster. Depending on the climate, one trait is favored more over another. In a novel future environment curly hair helps receive radiowaves more efficiently (in conjunction with other mutations) so a rudimentary antennae develops. New function, new environment new species.

LOL. What?

DNA includes so much static and nonsense, dude. You should know that. Only a discrete portion of the DNA is even expressed. Noise exists along side improvements. The noise is ignored until it is becomes a word. Deleterious mutations are removed from the population right quick. In humans mutations last a bit longer because we compensate for them through medicine.

Just how much of DNA did you think was functional? Over or under 50%?

Epigenetics help explain how the noise is ignored.

Really? How does that work?

To effect the changes of speciation that would satisfy you, the experimenter must endure many years of dead ends. Ecosystems would need to be created and controlled. Different species of lobster, alligator, and fly have existed for millions of years. Finding a specialized niche reduces the rate of and kind of change. Early forms were of a different species and have a very different genetic make up than the forms of today, but you would still call them the same kind because you are basic.

If course not. I'd be happy with just a new function that wasn't traced directly back to something being broken. So far, bar none, all improvements in fitness come at a cost of lower overall fitness.

Show us one that hasn't.

 

[marke]

The change in allele frequencies across generations means a pathway to success is forged over time. Organisms are better and better able to contend with environmental changes.

Evolution is creative story-telling, not science. Consider what evolutionists mistakenly imagine science proves about fish evolution:

10 Steps of Animal Evolution, From Fish to Primates

Learn about the evolution of vertebrate animals, from tiny proto-fish 500 million years ago to the birds, mammals, and reptiles of today.

www.thoughtco.com

It's difficult to pin down the exact moment when the first true prehistoric birds evolved from their feathered dinosaur forebears.

Of course. Dating assumptions are not facts and the speculation that prehistoric birds evolved from feathered dinosaurs is not a scientific fact. It is speculation falsely labeled as science. Those evolutionists who believe the speculations have been proven are not wise.

Most paleontologists point to the late Jurassic period, about 150 million years ago, on the evidence of distinctly bird-like dinosaurs like Archaeopteryx and Epidexipteryx.

The fossil record does not prove evolution. The lack of fossil evidence to support evolutionist assertions is a big problem for the dedicated evolutionist zealot determined to believe the speculations are facts in spite of their lack of scientific support. The reason archaeoraptor was invented was that evolutionists desperately needed some fossil evidence to support their speculation about bird evolution.

However, it's possible that birds evolved multiple times during the Mesozoic Era, most recently from the small, feathered theropods (sometimes called "dino-birds") of the middle to late Cretaceous period. By the way, following the evolutionary classification system known as "cladistics," it's perfectly legitimate to refer to modern birds as dinosaurs!

Anything is possible because nothing has been settled. The whole record of bird evolution is currently a fictionary tale still lacking the scientific evidence to give it wings to fly, so to speak.

 

[Skeeter]

It's not a metaphor. It's an example.

Who told you the message system in the body, especially DNA from one generation to the next, wasn't a message system?

The only way that could happen is to redefine "message system". So tell us your definition.

I am trying to get away from metaphorical language or what Divider called language of intelligence. The cellular signaling system has no intentional sender, so I am not using that language even though it is standard. So, no, no one is telling me anything. I am using my own judgment. I am trying not to just repeat what others say. You are the one parroting creationist apology.

LOL. What?

Just how much of DNA did you think was functional? Over or under 50%?

I would guess about 80 % is functional for sure, another 5% is functional but we do not know the function. The remaining 15% is not functional currently but could become so but may never be.

How do you understand the fact that every individual human has 70 to 200 mutations each?

If course not. I'd be happy with just a new function that wasn't traced directly back to something being broken. So far, bar none, all improvements in fitness come at a cost of lower overall fitness.

You should realize that most mutations are neutral and make no significant difference but contribute to variability and are available to combine with other mutations. If the new attribute improves fecundity, there is a net increase, so there is no net loss.

 

[Right Divider]

I am trying to get away from metaphorical language or what Divider called language of intelligence.

The problem is... that you can't.

The cellular signaling system has no intentional sender, so I am not using that language even though it is standard.

Another claim without support.

So, no, no one is telling me anything. I am using my own judgment.

Which is not good.

I am trying not to just repeat what others say. You are the one parroting creationist apology.

Nonsense.

I would guess about 80 % is functional for sure, another 5% is functional but we do not know the function. The remaining 15% is not functional currently but could become so but may never be.

A lot of speculation.

How do you understand the fact that every individual human has 70 to 200 mutations each?

Time takes its toll in a world that is under a curse.

You should realize that most mutations are neutral and make no significant difference but contribute to variability and are available to combine with other mutations.

Again, those mutations that do CHANGE things... change things that ALREADY exist. They are NOT a creative force that can turn an amoeba into a man.

If the new attribute improves fecundity, there is a net increase, so there is no net loss.