Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[The Barbarian]

Originally Posted by 6days
You aren't being logical. Surely you aren't suggesting Kondrashov knew mutations in the 'junk' were actually deleterious?

You probably don't know it, but there were articles begin written about about the functions of non-coding DNA a half-century ago. Not that none of it is junk. Some things, like the GULO gene, the broken gene for making vitamin C in humans, is an example. But a lot of it has function, and this has been known for a very long time.

We now know 'junk' was a misnomer.

Now you do. You've got a lot of catching up to do.

Mutations can and do have a deleterious effect in non-coding regions of DNA, which previously was dismissed as non functional.

Dismissed by creationists. But scientists were well aware of the fact. Would you like to learn how they knew that, a half-century ago?

 

[6days]

You probably don't know it, but there were articles begin written about about the functions of non-coding DNA a half-century ago.

Yes Barbarian...I think we all know your failed, and often repeated arguments. A few short years evolutionists still were claiming that more than 90% of our DNA was junk biological remnants.

God's Word tells us that we are fearfully and wonderfully made... we are not junk.

 

[6days]

Still dodging.

And I think you are dodging. Neither you nor Greg have even attempted to answer the question that started this conversation on Kondrashov and VSDM's.

 

[6days]

Who cares what was once thought about genetics, our understanding has improved.

Yes... Genetics in recent years reveals the problem of fitness decline is even worse than Kondrashov thought, just 20 years ago.

 

[6days]

Maybe one of you could explain to me why 6days is grinding this axe, and beating this particular drum. Thanks.

Jose can likely explain it for you.

 

[6days]

My goodness, you've got a whole gaggle of Darwinists jumping up and down. :chuckle:

The weaker ones were removed by selection. The ones still jumping unfortunately seem to be having mutation meltdown.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Do you really think 6days is going to truthfully answer a question about the contents of a paper he posted to support his assertion(s) about VSDMs? All 6days is going do in any reply is misrepresent outdated information with canned quotes from creationist web sites. He will NEVER "quote from the paper".

Who cares what was once thought about genetics, our understanding has improved. He blames "evolutionists" but biologists and geneticists need not be "evolutionists" in order to draw incorrect conclusions based on insufficient information.

He often cites the appendix as a "useless" organ but it wasn't "evolutionists" who thought removal of the appendix wasn't detrimental to the patient... that honor belongs to medical doctors, based on experience with medicine, not evolution.

Yes... Genetics in recent years reveals the problem of fitness decline is even worse than Kondrashov thought, just 20 years ago.

I included my entire post instead of your quote mine...

You keep asserting "fitness decline" and VSDMs are a "problem" yet you can't provide even one quote from the article by Kondrashov you, yourself, provided as "evidence" to support your claim. Instead, you continue with your canned and refuted assertions. 6days, you have no "moral compass"; lying is your stock-and-trade.

 

[6days]

I included my entire post instead of your quote mine.

Yes, you threw in the appendix and everything else!

You keep asserting "fitness decline" and VSDMs are a "problem"

Yes, geneticists seem to agree. If you think that is wrong, then you should be able to answer the simple question both Greg and Jose have dodged. "How can natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person (and maybe 3 that are deleterious), per generation in a population with a birth rate of about 2? And... I asked if you could answer from science and not answer with beliefs."

yet you can't provide even one quote from the article by Kondrashov you, yourself, provided as "evidence" to support your claim.

Maybe you didn't read the comments given so far very carefully? Here is another for you "This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations..."

Instead, you continue with your canned and refuted assertions. 6days, you have no "moral compass"; lying is your stock-and-trade.

You sure know how to sweet talk, Mr Hunter. (Sorry if you are upset). But, as Christians, it is exciting to see how science helps confirm the truth of God's Word.

 

[Jose Fly]

Do you really think 6days is going to truthfully answer a question about the contents of a paper he posted to support his assertion(s) about VSDMs?

Of course not. He'll probably eventually start saying "I already answered" as is his pattern.

All 6days is going do in any reply is misrepresent outdated information with canned quotes from creationist web sites. He will NEVER "quote from the paper".

He clearly doesn't understand the material and as you note is just regurgitating what he read at some creationist website. That's why whenever he tries to say anything about the paper, he gets it very wrong.

It's funny to watch though.

 

[Jose Fly]

Maybe one of you could explain to me why 6days is grinding this axe, and beating this particular drum. Thanks.

As you see, he even dodges this question.

 

[Jose Fly]

And I think you are dodging. Neither you nor Greg have even attempted to answer the question that started this conversation on Kondrashov and VSDM's.

Because it's a nonsense question. The funny thing is, you don't even understand why.

 

[6days]

Because it's a nonsense question. The funny thing is, you don't even understand why.

It isn't a nonsense question, but because I like you... here it is re-phrased 'Contamination of the Genome by Very Slightly Deleterious Mutations: Why Have We Not Died 100 Times Over?'
But, like the original question, try answer without inserting statements of faith.

The original question is asking... and saying that increasing genetic load is unavoidable. Humanity produces about 3 children for every two people. If deleterious mutations were to be removed by selection, you would have to have less than 1 new deleterious mutation in 3 children. And, as Kondrashov said in 2002, each person is born with about 10 DELETERIOUS mutations more than their parents had. (This is in addition to the many VSDM's. He says a normal person carries thousands of deleterious mutations.0

So.... increasing genetic load in all primates (possibly all vertebrates) is inconsistent with the uphill evolution Darwinists need and want. The downward trend / loss f fitness is however consistent with the Biblical model. It is exciting times for Christians as science helps confirm the truth of God's Word.

 

[Stripe]

I like you.

:flamer:

 

[Greg Jennings]

It isn't a nonsense question, but because I like you... here it is re-phrased 'Contamination of the Genome by Very Slightly Deleterious Mutations: Why Have We Not Died 100 Times Over?'
But, like the original question, try answer without inserting statements of faith.

The original question is asking... and saying that increasing genetic load is unavoidable. Humanity produces about 3 children for every two people. If deleterious mutations were to be removed by selection, you would have to have less than 1 new deleterious mutation in 3 children. And, as Kondrashov said in 2002, each person is born with about 10 DELETERIOUS mutations more than their parents had. (This is in addition to the many VSDM's. He says a normal person carries thousands of deleterious mutations.0

So.... increasing genetic load in all primates (possibly all vertebrates) is inconsistent with the uphill evolution Darwinists need and want. The downward trend / loss f fitness is however consistent with the Biblical model. It is exciting times for Christians as science helps confirm the truth of God's Word.

Just saw the whole paper.

It looks a bit mathy for me to be able to break down, without a lot of extra time spent refreshing other things. I don't really have anything to add.

I'll take it for what it says. There seems to be a legitimate question raised. Perhaps additional studies would shine some more light

 

[Jose Fly]

It isn't a nonsense question, but because I like you... here it is re-phrased 'Contamination of the Genome by Very Slightly Deleterious Mutations: Why Have We Not Died 100 Times Over?'
But, like the original question, try answer without inserting statements of faith.

LOL....all you've done is repeat the title of the paper.

The original question is asking... and saying that increasing genetic load is unavoidable.

No, it doesn't say that. This only becomes a potential issue under a specific set of circumstances. Remember me asking you over and over to describe those circumstances (and you dodging it every time)? Remember others here trying to explain that to you multiple times?

Humanity produces about 3 children for every two people. If deleterious mutations were to be removed by selection, you would have to have less than 1 new deleterious mutation in 3 children. And, as Kondrashov said in 2002, each person is born with about 10 DELETERIOUS mutations more than their parents had. (This is in addition to the many VSDM's. He says a normal person carries thousands of deleterious mutations.

What Kondrashov paper from 2002 are you referring to here?

 

[Jose Fly]

Just saw the whole paper.

It looks a bit mathy for me to be able to break down, without a lot of extra time spent refreshing other things. I don't really have anything to add.

Exactly. It's a mathematical exercise. It's basically a population geneticist saying that under certain circumstances the accumulation of VSDMs can become an issue. But 6days wants to ignore that part and pretend that the accumulation of VSDMs is an issue no matter what.

I'll take it for what it says. There seems to be a legitimate question raised. Perhaps additional studies would shine some more light

A good way to tell what this paper is about is to see how other scientists cite it and utilize it in their work. Take this paper for example (citation #54 is Kondrashov's paper):

The impact of recent population history on the deleterious mutation load in humans and close evolutionary relatives

Observing little or no differences in load among populations might seem at odds with theoretical predictions. Specifically, theory predicts that at demographic equilibrium, a considerable portion of deleterious alleles for which 2Nes ≤ 1 will be fixed, leading to a much greater load in smaller populations [19,22,54]. Consistent with the reduced efficacy of selection in smaller populations, lineages that tended to have smaller effective population sizes over long evolutionary timescales (e.g., since the split between rodents and primates) show evidence for relaxed constraint at coding and regulatory regions [55,56]. One might therefore expect a substantial increase in load, due to the additive mutations that the Out-of-Africa bottleneck turned from strongly to weakly selected. In fact, the duration of the bottleneck was too short to have led to many deleterious fixations, and therefore the increase is predicted to be minor (Fig. 1) [31]. A similar argument applies to the effects of explosive growth, which is much too recent to impact load [24,31,57]. More generally, the presumed duration of the demographic events that differ among human populations are much shorter than the timescales required for weakly selected variation to equilibrate (roughly on the order of one over the mutation rate; cf. [31]), which explains why the differences expected at equilibrium are not seen in data.​

I hope that helps. And if you're interested, CLICK HERE for a list of other papers that cite Kondrashov 1995. As you can see, his 1995 paper was hardly the final bit of work on the subject....but 6days doesn't want you to know that.

 

[6days]

....all you've done is repeat the title of the paper.

I thought that might simplify it for you.

No, it doesn't say that. (Genetic load is unavoidable). This only becomes a potential issue under a specific set of circumstances. Remember me asking you over and over to describe those circumstances (and you dodging it every time)? Remember others here trying to explain that to you multiple times?

Haha... others here have tried to explain? Most of the others besides yourself are baffled by what the article says. All they seem to know is they have to argue against 6days, no matter what he says.


And.....YOUR QUESTION WAS ANSWERRD! Genetic load will increase when the mutatation rate is greater than selection removal rate...PERIOD. (Selection rate is also connected to birth rate. IE high mutation rate and low birthrate = increasing load)

What Kondrashov paper from 2002 are you referring to here?

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12497628/

 

[Jose Fly]

Haha... others here have tried to explain? Most of the others besides yourself are baffled by what the article says.

Seriously? Even though you dodge and dodge and dodge every attempt to get you to answer simple questions about, or even quote from, Kondrashov's 1995 paper....you think you're the only one here who understands it?

Unbelievable.

And.....YOUR QUESTION WAS ANSWERRD! Genetic load will increase when the mutatation rate is greater than selection removal rate...PERIOD. (Selection rate is also connected to birth rate. IE high mutation rate and low birthrate = increasing load)

As Kondrashov explained in the paper you cited, genetic load is only problematic when a species drops to very low numbers for a very long time. That's why the paper I linked to above cites Kondrashov (1995) in that context.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12497628/

Do you agree with Kondrashov's estimates and conclusions, including the ways he verifies his results?

Also, did you notice what he says just after he summarizes the mutation rate data?

"Genomic deleterious mutation rates in excess of 1 do not necessarily lead to prohibitively high genetic load, as long as selection against mutations involves synergistic epistasis [see Crow, 2000a]."

Sound familiar? Do you see the progression of knowledge?

Kondrashov writes a paper in 1995 wherein he asks questions about genetic load and gives a set of possible answers, one of which is synergistic epistasis. Kondrashov and others keep working and eventually conclude that synergistic epistasis is indeed a mechanism for offsetting genetic load. Then in 2002 Kondrashov writes another paper that reflects this conclusion.

Given that, it begs an obvious question...why did you try and cite Kondrashov's 1995 paper as if it were the only work that had been done and as if it presented a unresolved issue for evolutionary theory?

 

[6days]

Do you agree with Kondrashov's estimates and conclusions, including the ways he verifies his results?

Also, did you notice what he says just after he summarizes the mutation rate data?

"Genomic deleterious mutation rates in excess of 1 do not necessarily lead to prohibitively high genetic load, as long as selection against mutations involves synergistic epistasis [see Crow, 2000a]."

Oh my...yes knowledge progresses. Kondrashov carefully laid out the problem with data; but then tries brush the problem away with beliefs. He is suggesting a solution to trying to rationalize the data with his belief in millions of years. He suggests synergistic epistsis as a solution, which is the exact opposite of the multiplicative model other geneticists have suggested.

Given that, it begs an obvious question...why did you try and cite Kondrashov's 1995 paper as if it were the only work that had been done and as if it presented a unresolved issue for evolutionary theory?

Funny guy aren't you ...misrepresenting things. If you recall, I quoted a cite that gave the abstract only, to help Greg understand what a VSDM was.

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh my...yes knowledge progresses. Kondrashov carefully laid out the problem with data; but then tries brush the problem away with beliefs.

This is exactly what I was referring to when I said you simultaneously rely on and disparage his work.

He is suggesting a solution to trying to rationalize the data with his belief in millions of years.

Oh my goodness 6days. Genetic load only becomes even a possible issue in timeframes of "millions of years". So if you want to wave away everything associated with "millions of years" you have to wave away genetic load as well.

He suggests synergistic epistsis as a solution, which is the exact opposite of the multiplicative model other geneticists have suggested.

Therefore......?

Funny guy aren't you ...misrepresenting things. If you recall, I quoted a cite that gave the abstract only, to help Greg understand what a VSDM was.

Oh, so you're saying you've never referred to genetic load from VSDMs as problematic for evolutionary theory?

If so, one has to wonder why you ever referred to VSDMs in the first place.

Also, you ignored yet another question. Do you agree with Kondrashov's (2002) estimates and conclusions, including the ways he verifies his results?