Do we have the same animals today that there were in the distant past?
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
Do we have the same animals today that there were in the distant past?
Feel free to show us where anyone was found to have 100 harmful mutations, slightly, or otherwise.
(Barbarian notes that anatomically modern humans have been around about 100,000 years at least)
That is what the evidence shows.
Since we have in the Bible, two contradictory genealogies for Christ, you're making a huge leap in assuming that they are literal histories.
You still don't get it. Recessives only manifest themselves when one is homozygous for them. This is why we can have all those harmful recessives and still rarely see any consequences, unless we marry close relatives.
It's also why inbreeding species have so few harmful recessives; they show up, just as they do in humans, but natural selection cleans them out because they so often produce phenotypic change.
Well, You're still stuck well before the 1960s:
Mutation Load: The Fitness of Individuals in Populations Where Deleterious Alleles Are Abundant
Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics Vol. 43:115-135
Abstract
Many multicellular eukaryotes have reasonably high per-generation mutation rates. Consequently, most populations harbor an abundance of segregating deleterious alleles. These alleles, most of which are of small effect individually, collectively can reduce substantially the fitness of individuals relative to what it would be otherwise; this is mutation load. Mutation load can be lessened by any factor that causes more mutations to be removed per selective death, such as inbreeding, synergistic epistasis, population structure, or harsh environments. The ecological effects of load are not clear-cut because some conditions (such as selection early in life, sexual selection, reproductive compensation, and intraspecific competition) reduce the effects of load on population size and persistence, but other conditions (such as interspecific competition and load on resource use efficiency) can cause small amounts of load to have strong effects on the population, even extinction. We suggest a series of studies to improve our understanding of the effects of mutation load.
Show me one that went or is going extinct due to "genetic load." In fact, the one species I know of that's likely doomed, is doing out because of the lack of gentic variation. Want to learn about that?
Normally, when genetic load becomes high, a species has a reduction in numbers and range, as well as shorter lifetimes. And yet we don't see that. For decades, things like IQ, average life span, and human physical performance has been going up.
So there's a huge disconnect between your belief and reality. All the more so, since the genetic research in the last few decades has not supported the "genetic load" issue.
But it refutes YE creationism, which is quite a different thing.
Show us a harmful consequence of the Milano mutation.
Show us a harmful consequence of the CCR5-delta32 allele that provides resistance to HIV.
"Harmful" meaning that it does something to hurt the individual having it so as to make it less likely that the individual lives long enough to reproduce.
Let's see what you have, Stipe.
Cheetahs have very little genetic variation...
This event caused an extreme reduction of the cheetah’s genetic diversity, known as a population bottleneck, resulting in the physical homogeneity of today’s cheetahs. Poor sperm quality, focal palatine erosion, susceptibility to the same infectious diseases, and kinked tails characteristic of the majority of the world’s cheetahs are all ramifications of the low genetic diversity within the global cheetah population.
https://cheetah.org/about-the-cheetah/genetic-diversity/
You just make up stuff as you go, don't you, Stipe?
Greg Jennings
New member
Give it a year here. I used to have the same view as you. I was naive
Greg Jennings
New member
Read it and weep, 6: Nurse sharks in the bikini atoll now have one dorsal fin instead of two (I got it backwards)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/455292001
My claim wasn't exactly extraordinary, but my evidence sure is:
"The research team is also examining the effects of radiation on other animals and plants both on the atoll and in the surrounding seas. Palumbi said nurse sharks with only one dorsal fin, instead of two, have been spotted, possible evidence of mutations caused by radiation exposure."
I don't lie, unlike you. I prove my claims, unlike you. I agree with science, unlike you. And I won't be dragged into the mud with you.
Now would you kindly (and finally) give me an answer to my question that you've dodged 4 times now: How does one dorsal fin help or hurt the nurse shark population?
Greg Jennings
New member
It's not about the genome. Fitness refers to how the phenotypic expression of the genes helps or hinders an individual relative to others in its population. It's not the genes themselves (which you guys seem to think), but their expression
Greg Jennings
New member
Gonna channel my inner Clete again and predict Stipey will say something like this:
":mock: Blahbarbarian "
And go figuratively high-five 6, bc that's about as good of an argument as those two can put up recently
SUTG
New member
0 for 2.
Which is a useless concept. How do we measure it? This population survived, that one didn't. Wow, it must have been more able to survive.
:duh:
That might be true in some very local or controlled situations, but it is no counter to what I said.
For a start, I'm not using the useless term of "fitness"; I used "integrity."
A population's genome is more likely to have greater integrity with less diversity.
Thanks for that, Cobra.
Luckily, they are not the sum total of their kind's genome.
It's obvious: The population that produced cheetahs and other large cats had far greater integrity to its genome than just the cheetahs do.
Give us back the original population and we would quickly see it adapt in different environment to produce something like the variety we see today. However, the cheetahs are headed nowhere but oblivion.
Hence, variety = bad. Sameness = good.
(Stipe claims that "Genetic integrity is more likely with little variation.")
Barbarian chuckles:
Cheetahs have very little genetic variation, and they have all sorts of genetic problems; they will likely go extinct soon.
(Stipe quickly changes his story)
They are. Cheetah variation is so reduced that they can serve as tissue donors for each other. But they are in exactly the opposite of what you claimed. As you now see, when there is little variation, then things are very grim for a population.
(And here comes the switch)
Stipe changes the story:
So you've now realized that lots of variation is more viable than a small amount of variation. But your pride won't let you admit that you don't know what you're talking about, so you're pretending that more variation is what you meant.
You just admitted the opposite, Stipe. You're not clever enough to pull of something like this.
Cheetahs have "sameness." And you see where that's going for them.
You just make up this stuff as you go, don't you?
Barbarian chuckles:
Cheetahs have very little genetic variation, and they have all sorts of genetic problems; they will likely go extinct soon.
(Stipe quickly changes his story)
They are. Cheetah variation is so reduced that they can serve as tissue donors for each other. But they are in exactly the opposite of what you claimed. As you now see, when there is little variation, then things are very grim for a population.
(And here comes the switch)
Stipe changes the story:
So you've now realized that lots of variation is more viable than a small amount of variation. But your pride won't let you admit that you don't know what you're talking about, so you're pretending that more variation is what you meant.
You just admitted the opposite, Stipe. You're not clever enough to pull of something like this.
Cheetahs have "sameness." And you see where that's going for them.
You just make up this stuff as you go, don't you?
Three Pieces of Evidence That Prove Evolution is a Fact:
https://futurism.com/three-main-pieces-of-evidence-supporting-evolution/
https://futurism.com/three-main-pieces-of-evidence-supporting-evolution/
6days
New member
?? We have THOUSANDS of harmful mutations. Geneticist Kondradhov says " a newborn human carries about 100 NEW mutations," https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Crumbli...leterious+Mutations+on+Humans-p-9781118952115Barbarian said:
He also said "The total number of new mutations per diploid human genome per generation is about 100...at least 10% of these are deleterious".
Barbarian said:
Your understandng of Scripture is as bad as your understanding of genetics. If you wish, I can give you a link from an atheist site claiming the geneaologies are a contradiction. I can also provide links from Chriistian theologians showing how the geneaologies are consistent and inerrant. We see where you come down on scripture.
The recessives do manifest themselves some times without close relative marriage. That is part of the reason VSDM's are called the population bomb by some geneticists.Barbarian said:
Even back in the 80's geneticists knew better than that.Barbarian said:
Twice I clarified that we were talking about populations with high mutation rate, and low reproductive rates. Do you think multicellular eukaryotes have low 'Birth' rates?Barbarian said:
We are discussing genetics...not diet. Geneticist Crow says that "It seems clear that for the past few centuries harmful mutations have been accumulating. Why don’t we notice this? If we are like Drosophila, the decrease in viability from mutation accumulation is some 1 or 2% per generation". Crow says for the time being, although genome is deteriorating, we are perhaps keeping up with genetic load by improving environment. (Interesting that even flies have a 2% loss of viability per generation) <PNAS 97>Barbarian said:
You don't seem to understand either topic.Barbarian said:
It isn't creationists who think the geneaologies of Jesus is inconsistent. Evolutionists reject the connection between first Adam (who had a wife made from his rib) to that of Last Adam, and the cross.
Nope. Evolution is not a fact, it's just a theory.
:darwinsm:
It's called a conversation, Blablaman. They're just words.
Try reading them sometime.
Cheetahs and other big cats came from a common ancestor population. You agree with this, remember?
That ancestor population was less varied than what we have today. Surely you agree with that.
Today's populations of — to use the subject of cheetahs, which you brought up — do not have the capacity to produce the same variety. The only place they are headed is extinction.
So long, cheetah. :wave2:
This is potentially a profound insight into biology and ideas that would be easily tested in the lab.
But as with any time the subject turns to evidence, the Darwinists run for the hills.
gcthomas
New member
The theory of biological evolution is both a theory and a fact. Get used to it.
(Fact: a hypothesis that is so overwhelmingly supported that you act as if it is true. And scientists do for evolution. You may want you define a private meaning of fact to avoid this conclusion for yourself.)
Then all those creation scientists at Answers in Genesis, Liberty U. etc should jump on that area of investigation.
The only profound insight here is your continued ignorance and fear of your particular deity.