Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Greg Jennings]

Funny how evolutionists think bacteria can evolve into biologists yet don't believe a lion can evolve a new diet.
Simple... God brought them to the ark. If you think there wasn't enough room, you are wrong. We can discuss this if you wish, but there was plenty of room for all the various kinds along with room for food storage.
How the water got on earth? Or how there was enough water to flood the earth? Everyone knows the earth has been under water. The only difference between my beliefs and yours is time frame. Evidence is consistent with God's Word.
It is about 6,000 years old.
We both agree what the current one way speed of light is. But, even secular physicists don't know what the two way speed is... nor what the speed was in the past.... Trillions of times faster than now?? https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/was-the-speed-of-light-faster-at-the-beginning-of-the-universe
Well, the evidence discovered is consistent with God's Word. It depends which world view you wish to interpret evidence from. 60 years ago there was only 2 known scientists willing to go against the consensus on common ancestry beliefs. Today, there are likely tens of thousands of scientists world wide who reject the common ancestry belief system (Fortunately science is not determined by popular opinion)
Of course evidence can be explained and is explained...and helps support the truth of God's Word.

If only AiG was reliable and employed scientists, then your above points might stand. As it stands, their best evolutionary expert is a professional mid-wife.

It's sad that you think that's good enough. Would you accept a pastor who had never studied Christianity? No. But a "scientist" (trust me I am using that word very very loosely here) who never studied evolution? You're all in. Hypocritical

 

[Greg Jennings]

They're full of religious trash talk. They're obsessed with Saul of Tarsus, and lap up stuff like this in Corinthians: For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, so the unwritten social contract that professional scientists have with the public to provide robust and high-quality information means nothing to them. They feel no responsibility for anything, except perhaps preaching to their choir of thankers. How little do they realise that Saul's later metaphors in Corinthians apply to them: they have no love and are as a clanging bell, failing to put away childish things.

Stuart

The Jesus quote where he says he put away childish things when he quit being a child I like very much. Couldn't apply better here

 

[JudgeRightly]

6, there are most certainly neutral mutations. I don't care what the obstetrician at AiG told you. Geologists and paleontologist and biologists taught me. Not an obstetrician

Geologists and paleontologists taught you that there are neutral mutations?

No wonder your "science" is all messed up.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Geologists and paleontologists taught you that there are neutral mutations?

No wonder your "science" is all messed up.

Did you miss the biologist there, genius?

More likely, you didn't even know that genetics is under the biology umbrella. You know, bc you're completely uneducated in this stuff, as you continue to demonstrate .

Bravo. Truly :rotfl:

 

[chair]

Your content urges readers to not question evolution.

My content points out that attacking the mechanism of evolution is pointless, if the fact of evolution remains in place. It sounds like there isn't a solid argument about whether evolution occurs, so creationists are playing around attacking scientists for not understanding the mechanism well enough. But it is just playing around- it doesn't take care of the religious problem.

 

[User Name]

The Jesus quote where he says he put away childish things when he quit being a child I like very much. Couldn't apply better here

Actually, it was Paul who said that in 1 Corinthians 13:11. Jesus, by contrast, stated something quite the opposite in Matthew 18:3, although any apparent contradiction may be reconciled by Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 14:20.

 

[6days]

Hi all,

I'm here to try my best to answer all questions that creationists have about evolution.
There shouldn't be any reason for believers to reject established science.

Creationists agree with you. Science helps support the truth of God's Word.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Creationists agree with you. Science helps support the truth of God's Word.

*figuratively

 

[JudgeRightly]

Did you miss the biologist there, genius?

More likely, you didn't even know that genetics is under the biology umbrella. You know, bc you're completely uneducated in this stuff, as you continue to demonstrate .

Bravo. Truly :rotfl:

I noticed it, but didn't include it on purpose.

Still, the fact that you're learning biology from geologists and paleontologists seems to explain why, as I said above, your "science" is messed up.

You clearly cannot understand when someone is mocking you.

 

[6days]

6, there are most certainly neutral mutations. I don't care what the obstetrician at AiG told you. Geologists and paleontologist and biologists taught me. Not an obstetrician

The reason you don't understand genetics is obvious. Geologists and paleontologists know very little about genetics. And, if a biologist taught you that some mutations are absolutely neutral, then he or she is not up to speed on genetics. I can explain further if you wish.


And your ad hominem of AIG is meaningless. I don't know which obstetrician you are referring to and it is a site I don't often use to obtain information. Rather than attempt to address the argument with intelligence and logic you instead attack somebody or something you perceive as the source.

 

[Greg Jennings]

I noticed it, but didn't include it on purpose.

Still, the fact that you're learning biology from geologists and paleontologists seems to explain why, as I said above, your "science" is messed up.

You clearly cannot understand when someone is mocking you.

I don't think you get it: the biologists taught me genetics. The paleontologist showed me how those genetics applied to creatures changing over time. And the geologists showed me how the world changed over time, and forced the creatures to change with it.

I understood you were attempting to mock me. It's just funny, bc you're too unfamiliar with this stuff to realize there's nothing to mock.

Again, great work, genius

 

[Greg Jennings]

The reason you don't understand genetics is obvious. Geologists and paleontologists know very little about genetics. And, if a biologist taught you that some mutations are absolutely neutral, then he or she is not up to speed on genetics. I can explain further if you wish.


And your ad hominem of AIG is meaningless. I don't know which obstetrician you are referring to and it is a site I don't often use to obtain information. Rather than attempt to address the argument with intelligence and logic you instead attack somebody or something you perceive as the source.

What the hell does "absolutely neutral" mean? Sounds like you're backtracking off your claim that there are no neutral mutations to me. If you can't understand that some mutations (for example, a second dorsal fin on the nurse shark population in the Bikini Atoll caused by H-bomb tests) don't negatively or positively affect an organism, then we are done here

AiG is a useless piece of crap, 6. That's not just my opinion. The head of geology at my school literally said that word for word. And I dare you to find anyone affiliated with a university outside of Liberty who disagrees.


And you didn't answer me: would you accept, as your pastor, a man who had never studied the Bible? Because you're asking me to accept, as an evolutionary expert, someone who has never studied evolution. See the problem?

 

[zzub]

I'm hoping that there is an evolutionist here on TOL who would be willing to give a reasonably brief while still conceptually detailed explanation of how legs evolved....
Thanks,
Clete

Buy this book "The Gene" by Siddhartha Mukherjee. A world leading expert explains evolution and shows the mis-conception trumpeted in popular media.

Very briefly: Change requires two things:-
1. A non harmful mutation in a gene.
2. An environment where the life form with a mutation has an advantage and so survives in larger numbers.

Evolution is a quick process, nothing like the popular version put out in the mainstream.

Siddhartha Mukherjee's book is excellent: Informative to the non-expert; Authorative; At times, heart breaking.

 

[6days]

You are, of course, quite wrong on most counts.

(3 articles)

1.Prevalence of positive selection among nearly neutral amino acid replacements in Drosophila

2.A Catalog of Neutral and Deleterious Polymorphism in Yeast

3.Evaluating plague and smallpox as historical selective pressures for the CCR5-Δ32 HIV-resistance allele

If I am wrong, you need explain why you think so, because your links don't seem to support you.

1. Perhaps explain the point you think this article makes. I mentioned populations that have low reproductive rates and high mutation rates. Specifically I mentioned humans and all primates. Your article is about flies.

2. I believe the point you are trying to make with this article is that plant geneticists do you think there is such a thing as an absolute neutral mutation? As they admit in their article it is very hard to determine and they are cross-referencing genomes from plants that they believe are distantly related.

3. I am not sure what your point is regarding CCR5?

 

[Greg Jennings]

If I am wrong, you need explain why you think so, because your links don't seem to support you.

1. Perhaps explain the point you think this article makes. I mentioned populations that have low reproductive rates and high mutation rates. Specifically I mentioned humans and all primates. Your article is about flies.

2. I believe the point you are trying to make with this article is that plant geneticists do you think there is such a thing as an absolute neutral mutation? As they admit in their article it is very hard to determine and they are cross-referencing genomes from plants that they believe are distantly related.

3. I am not sure what your point is regarding CCR5?

This "absolutely neutral" term is made-up. You're trying to squeeze out of when you said there are not neutral mutations. I gave you a real world example of one from the last 50 years: nurse shark population in the Bikini Atoll now has two dorsal fins from radiation. Doesn't help, but doesn't hurt either

 

[6days]

What the hell does "absolutely neutral" mean?

When you are called out on faking knowledge you get angry.


THE term you object to is easy to understand. The reason geneticists now use terms like "near neutral" or "very slightly deleterious" is because they realize that they cannot determine if a nucleotide site is totally non functional. Previously it was assumed most mutations were neutral because it was assumed that most of the non-coding DNA was non-functional.

AiG is a useless piece of crap, 6.

I understand that is your opinion Greg. But it has nothing to do with genetics that we were talking about. Since they (AIG) were not referenced or sourced you are simply trying to move the goalpost because you are unable to address the actual argument.

 

[Greg Jennings]

When you are called out on faking knowledge you get angry.


THE term you object to is easy to understand. The reason geneticists now use terms like "near neutral" or "very slightly deleterious" is because they realize that they cannot determine if a nucleotide site is totally non functional. Previously it was assumed most mutations were neutral because it was assumed that most of the non-coding DNA was non-functional.

I understand that is your opinion Greg. But it has nothing to do with genetics that we were talking about. Since they (AIG) were not referenced or sourced you are simply trying to move the goalpost because you are unable to address the actual argument.

6, you are ignoring everything I give you. That's why I'm peeved. Bc no YEC ever answers a straight question. You dodge and dip and dive and duck and dodge

I'm not continuing until your answer my questions:
1. Would you accept a pastor who had never studied the Bible to lead you at your church?
2. How is a mutation that neither helps nor hurts NOT neutral? It doesn't have to do with the individual genes, but their expression
Tell me how a nurse shark with two dorsal fins is helped or hindered?

I predict (channeling my inner Clete here) you will dodge all questions for a third time, and lie about me some more.

I'll kindly ask you not to lie about me 6. That's beneath you. In Stripe territory. At least I thought so. Based on your Cuba trip perhaps I mistakenly assumed you were a moral person. Religion seems a strange place to let your morals loose

On AiG: If you find ne just one university-affiliated scientist (other than Liberty) who says AiG isn't garbage, then we can talk. If you can't, I wonder why?

Btw, the obstetrician I'm referring to is Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell. That's AiG's resident expert in evolution (and someone you've brought to your defense recently, you seem to forget), and she doesn't work with anything evolution-related and hasn't had any education in it since her undergrad (I assume she had some then) in the 70s

And clipping off my quote where the head of geology of my university (and every one not named Liberty) said AiG is crap, and directly attributing it to me, is more dishonesty from you

 

[Greg Jennings]

***

 

[The Barbarian]

The reason you don't understand genetics is obvious. Geologists and paleontologists know very little about genetics.

If you think so, you know very little of genetics or paleontology. I don't know any paleontologist who can't speak knowledgeably about genetics. If you read Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, you'll see more genetics than you will be able to comprehend. This is how we know you've never taken a course in genetics at all.

And, if a biologist taught you that some mutations are absolutely neutral, then he or she is not up to speed on genetics. I can explain further if you wish.

Your error is in thinking that any neutral mutation is inherently favorable or unfavorable. The part you missed is that "favorable" and "unfavorable" is determined by the environment. You most likely have a couple of dozen mutations that were not present in either of your parents. It's highly unlikely that any of them would be sufficiently affected by selection so as to have anyone identify them as favorable or unfavorable. Nevertheless, each of them, depending on the evironment, might have a favorable or unfavorable effect. And it could change, depending on which environment you in which you happen to be.

So neutral mutations will swing back and forth from "very slightly favorable" through "perfectly neutral", to "very slightly unfavorable" and back, depending on the way the environment changes.

The strawman that biologists (who are all trained in genetics) think that any neutral mutations are "absolutely neutral" shows a fundamental ignorance of genetics.

 

[JudgeRightly]

JR, what is the last post from a like-minded fellow you didn't thank? Are you a mindless sheep who blindly supports an agenda? Looks so

Define "like-minded."