Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Greg Jennings]

Define "like-minded."

Well based on your last post to me I would like to back off my statement, but I referred to those who are also YECs

Apologies for grouping you in with non-thinkers

 

[6days]

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

No... you are peeved because you are attempting to discuss something you don't understand. Your attempts at diverting to AIG or hiring a non Biblical pastor is an attempt to divert away from your incorrect beliefs regarding genetics.

How is a mutation that neither helps nor hurts NOT neutral?

There is no such mutation that we are certain of. There are mutations though that are near neutral that have no immediate effect. These mutations which are undectable by mutation accumulate in our genome causing future genetic problems. Geneticist,Crow in PNAS 94 (1997) said " I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem. It is something like the the population bomb but with a much longer fuse." http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.full

It doesn't have to do with the individual genes, but their expression

Not true, since it is often the accumulation of VSDM's that expresses itself as a disorder.

Tell me how a nurse shark with two dorsal fins is helped or hindered?

Sure.... for one thing, any appendage you haul around that isn't helpful is necessarily a hindrance. Perhaps link a study on this showing the extra fin has no 'cost to the shark.

On AiG: If you find 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?

What does that have to do with genetics, other than you wanting to move the goalposts?

 

[Greg Jennings]

No... you are peeved because you are attempting to discuss something you don't understand. Your attempts at diverting to AIG or hiring a non Biblical pastor is an attempt to divert away from your incorrect beliefs regarding genetics.

There is no such mutation that we are certain of. There are mutations though that are near neutral that have no immediate effect. These mutations which are undectable by mutation accumulate in our genome causing future genetic problems. Geneticist,Crow in PNAS 94 (1997) said " I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem. It is something like the the population bomb but with a much longer fuse." http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.full

Not true, since it is often the accumulation of VSDM's that expresses itself as a disorder.

Sure.... for one thing, any appendage you haul around that isn't helpful is necessarily a hindrance. Perhaps link a study on this showing the extra fin has no 'cost to the shark.

What does that have to do with genetics, other than you wanting to move the goalposts?

6, it is clear that you have less of an understanding of genetics than I give you credit for. You can't even grasp the concepts I'm relating to you. It's sad to anyone watching on who is familiar with genetics, or biology, or paleontology, and yes even geology.

You feigning expertise doesn't fool us, you fool.

And you confirmed my prediction by once again simultaneously lying and dodging all questions asked. Tbh, this is getting pathetic.

 

[6days]

6, it is clear that you have less of an understanding of genetics than I give you credit for. You can't even grasp the concepts I'm relating to you.

The concepts you are relating have been proven false by science. You are relying on concepts evolutionists of the past relied on.

 

[6days]

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.

You are partially correct. I phrased that poorly. But, whatever knowledge Greg's teachers had re genetics was incorrect and out of date. (Even a person with a degree in theology can speak knowledgeably about geology.. correct? )

You most likely have a couple of dozen mutations that were not present in either of your parents.

Estimates are usually over 100 new slightly deleterious added to our genome each generation, of which at least 3 would actually be considered deleterious. (kondrashov 2002 says 10% might be deleterious). Each of us has a few thousand deleterious mutations. The genome has about 6,000 years of accumulated VSDM's.

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.

No...that is only partly correct. Of course selection is incapable of detecting and removing 100 plus new mutations each generation in any population with extremely low birth rate like humans. Evolutionists of the past used to think that favorable mutations would win out. I don't think any geneticist within the last 10 or possibly 20 years believe that anymore. A mutation that gives a favorable outcome maybe one in a few hundred thousand.... it is not logical to think that the one mutation out of hundreds of thousands will overcome the accumulative effect of the deleterious mutations. (But, that is the hope evolutionists cling to)

 

[Greg Jennings]

The concepts you are relating have been proven false by science. You are relying on concepts evolutionists of the past relied on.

Is that a joke?

Where did you learn your "science" again, 6? What esteemed university gave you your info? What scientist did your info come from? I demand answers, sir


Can you tell me how a nurse shark with two dorsal fins is helped or hurt by its design? Until you can, I've proven that neutral mutations exist. No amount of "nuh-uh" will fix that.

And seeing as biologists used that very example when teaching me about neutral mutations, how do you think you are more right than they?

Are you really this deluded?

If you do not answer (at the very least) which school taught you your knowledge, then you're about as useless as AiG to me and every other scientist (aspiring or otherwise) out there.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You've got the claims part down but you betch (replace the e with an i) whenever asked for evidence you rube

 

[Stuu]

:blabla:

Exactly.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Your belief that there is "an evolutionary history" from theropod dinosaurs to chickens is pure speculation based on a preconceived idea and NOT on actual science.

You're skiing a bit off-piste here, aren't you.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Of course you can have it both ways. People have been murdering other people for all of history. That doesn't make us non-social creatures. Indeed, the word murder has no meaning outside of a social structure.

Good, so that's cleared up then. Society functions for the good of the collective, but murders are perpetrated by some in certain circumstances. It is not a principle that killing improves survival or reproductive opportunity, actually it makes it worse.

Ever heard of Nazi Germany? They performed experiments on humans to further the 'master race' on an industrial scale.

Well yes. But this is what you claimed:

then who am I to argue with the experiments performed on my dead body designed to further your race by cleansing the world of mine?

The Nazis had all sorts of objectives with their medical torture, not much of which was to do with ethnic cleansing, although I grant you that was a part of it.

As I said, the distinction is primarily a rhetorical one. The only substantive difference is that the later is a non-directed process as apposed to the former being purposeful and directed.

When you say non-directed, you mean of course not directed with any intent or goals 'in mind'. But that's the difference between murder and death by misadventure. Hardly a rhetorical distinction.

The motive and/or skill of such direction is only relevant to the potential outcome, which you, as an evolutionist, have no rational way of condemning because your own worldview tells you that it was evolution that gave us the ability to perform such directed selection. That is to say that since, according to you, both we and our social nature are products of Darwinian natural selection, then, by extension, what you call social Darwinism is too.

Yes, I think that is an interesting semantic point, and it's an argument I've used myself before, on the topic of what 'natural' means.

The problem with this way of arguing is that I can then tell you that gods are invented by humans, and they are natural too, so we are left at a stalemate that can only be resolved by saying that natural selection enables things that we both agree are wrong. Well, that's pretty obviously true. And I'm sure it's true that crackpots have looked at Darwinian natural selection and thought they could improve human stocks by meddling, but you could equally call modern medicine an exercise in eugenics by that criterion as well.

The fact that we have evolved an ethical capacity for revulsion at taking on the job of deciding what is fit, shows us that natural selection produces morals against Social Darwinism.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

You're skiing a bit off-piste here, aren't you.

Stuart

No

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You most likely have a couple of dozen mutations that were not present in either of your parents.

Estimates are usually over 100 new slightly deleterious added to our genome each generation,

No. That would be added to the population gene pool. You don't personally get 100 bad ones. So even in a population of just one billion humans, the likelihood of you getting one is about one in ten million.

of which at least 3 would actually be considered deleterious. (kondrashov 2002 says 10% might be deleterious). Each of us has a few thousand deleterious mutations.

The genome has about 6,000 years of accumulated VSDM's.

More like three billion years. Even if you only want to count our species, we have evidence of anatomically modern humans hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Barbarian regarding the dozen or so new mutations in each of us:
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.

No...that is only partly correct.

Even by your guy's estimation,it's about one in ten million. That's highly unlikely, by any measure.

Of course selection is incapable of detecting and removing 100 plus new mutations each generation in any population with extremely low birth rate like humans.

If they are recessive, that's true. There are countless harmful recessives in our genome. This is why you don't marry close relatives. If you do that, there's really not much of a problem. Suppose, for some reason, a harmful recessive increases in frequency to the point that there's a significant likelihood of marrying someone with the same allele. If that happened, there'd be a major culling event, in which frequency would drop rapidly as the children of such people died.

There are species with a very low frequency of harmful recessives. These species exhibit a high rate of inbreeding, which rapidly removes harmful recessives.

Evolutionists of the past used to think that favorable mutations would win out.

So far, that's what we observe. Fitness tends to increase in populations until stasis (optimal fitness) ensues. If the environment changes, we see more evolution, and fitness increasing. Would you like to see some examples?

I don't think any geneticist within the last 10 or possibly 20 years believe that anymore.

All the geneticists I know of, think so. Hard to deny it, since that's what we observe happening.

A mutation that gives a favorable outcome maybe one in a few hundred thousand.... it is not logical to think that the one mutation out of hundreds of thousands will overcome the accumulative effect of the deleterious mutations.

Comes down to evidence. Your guy's estimate of harmful mutations is one in ten million or worse. Your estimate of favorable ones is 10,000 times greater. Something's obviously wrong with your math. But we observe fitness increasing in almost all populations, with the general exception of populations that fall below a certain number of individuals.

Fitness requires a lot of variation in a population. Just the opposite of what you're telling us.

 

[6days]

Can you tell me how a nurse shark with two dorsal fins is helped or hurt by its design? Until you can, I've proven that neutral mutations exist.

And seeing as biologists used that very example when teaching me about neutral mutations, how do you think you are more right than they?

Are you really this deluded?

Greg, you have not proven anything by making an unsubstantiated claim. You claimed that nurse sharks now have two dorsal fins from radiation at Bikini Atoll...and that the second dorsal fin neither helps nor hurts. You said your teachers taught this is evidence of neutral mutations. I asked for a link. As you said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." (I have time... no rush)

 

[6days]

That would be added to the population gene pool. You don't personally get 100 bad ones.

What I said is correct..."Estimates are usually over 100 new slightly deleterious added to our genome each generation, of which at least 3 would actually be considered deleterious. (kondrashov 2002 says 10% might be deleterious). Each of us has a few thousand deleterious mutations."

More like three billion years. (Of accumulated mutations).

That is your belief system. My belief is that the geaneaologies from first Adam to Last Adam was about 4,000 years.

There are countless harmful recessives in our genome.

That is what they taught in the 60's. The so called recessive sometimes manifest themselves into lethal diseases and genetic disorders.

allele

All the geneticists I know of, think so. (That favorable mutations beat out harmful mutations)

Then it would seem the geneticists you know must not have updated their knowledge since the 1960s. Geneticists in modern times do not believe that the rare favorable mutation can overcome the problem of genetic load.

...we observe fitness increasing in almost all populations....

What we observe is species going extinct on a daily basis. In humans we observe diseases and genetic problems caused by genetic load. And... if we look in journals, we find articles from geneticists who try to understand how humanity has survived the high mutation rate based on the old earth beliefs they hold.


Genetics helps confirm God's Word. We have a genome that was perfectly created, but now suffering the consequences of man's sin and the curse.

 

[Stripe]

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.

Darwinism is not a fact.
Evolution is just a theory.

 

[Stripe]

1. A non harmful mutation in a gene.

There is no such thing as a non-harmful mutation.

 

[Stripe]

Fitness requires a lot of variation in a population. Just the opposite of what you're telling us.

Nope. "Fitness" is a useless description for a genome.

Genetic integrity is more likely with little variation.

 

[ThisIsMyUserName]

You'll be shocked at their stubborn clinging to a Sumerian creation myth

Well, I don't think anyone is just stubborn.
Some ppl are simply misinformed and perhaps a bit insecure in their faith.

There's no reason to assume this cannot ever change !!!

 

[ThisIsMyUserName]

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

Indeed, wherever it can.
But judging by your posts, you don't quite agree with science.

What's up with that? I'm here to help

 

[The Barbarian]

Greg, you have not proven anything by making an unsubstantiated claim. You claimed that nurse sharks now have two dorsal fins from radiation at Bikini Atoll...and that the second dorsal fin neither helps nor hurts. You said your teachers taught this is evidence of neutral mutations. I asked for a link. As you said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." (I have time... no rush)

I missed your evidence that two dorsal fins are harmful to sharks. Could you point to where you showed that to us?

 

[ThisIsMyUserName]

Nope. "Fitness" is a useless description for a genome.

Genetic integrity is more likely with little variation.

"fitness" refers to survivability.
The more variation a population has, the more likely some individuals have suitable traits in order to cope with adverse changes in their environment or ecosystem.


And also, I'd recommend you google "scientific theory"