Rapid Adaptation

[Stripe]

Trash talking and claiming lying behavior isn't really helpful, nor necessarily true. I've read some of this vitriolic posturing on both sides and have not been impressed with either. I don't think you a 'liar.' I do think you a bit duped-able.

To be fair, she will never honestly represent the ideas proposed by a YEC that contradict the evolutionary model. Also, she asks for a definition and when given it demands that it meet the standard of a classification system. If it's not dishonesty, it is a willful blindness to the requirements of rational dialogue.

And as for others, that they are liars is without doubt.

To say that one side is as bad as the other is completely unfair.

 

[Lon]

To be fair, she will never honestly represent the ideas proposed by a YEC that contradict the evolutionary model. Also, she asks for a definition and when given it demands that it meet the standard of a classification system. If it's not dishonesty, it is a willful blindness to the requirements of rational dialogue.

Every academic discipline demands use of terminology and expressions for its understandings. I have no problem with that, but it does create frictions when such crosses disciplines.

And as for others, that they are liars is without doubt.

I think, though, that secular science hasn't been kind to Christians in its field. Shoot, look at how marginalized they get if any one of them disagrees with the majority. It ain't pretty. That however, doesn't take away my compassion for a Christian, even if I think him/her wrong but I don't tend to try and judge their motives. I may question them, certainly. It is this kind of talk, specifically between Christians, that always troubles me. I try to think a person saying they are a Christian, is one until they claim or prove otherwise. The Grace of God is far reaching, even if we are inept.

To say that one side is as bad as the other is completely unfair.

That implication wasn't my intention. Rather, I'm saying that Christians, disagreeing over this matter, I tend to try to steer away from the accusatory and judgmental.

Advocates have to choose sides early, but that becomes a political concern. I try to be open and listen. I surely hold to fundamental concerns regarding Christianity, but I can appreciate a person who isn't, if they can show how their view and understanding honors both God and scriptures. On this particular, it is more about Christians self-professed, talking with one another. Paul opposed Peter to his face. I'm not sure if Paul said, "Peter, you are saying gentiles must be Judaized! That's a flat-out lie!" He may have, but I'd think it was more: "Peter, what are you doing!? You know we are through faith by grace alone! You may feel you need to observe Jewish heritage and tradition, but a gentile doesn't have that baggage. We do. You need to stop this."

Peter was correctable. If he wasn't, and said "Gentiles must become Jews!" Paul might have said "That's a lie."

The vitriol should be left until parting and discussion is no longer possible. We should always be trying to reconcile. That is the goal of all friction between Christians. It isn't always possible. Paul and Barnabas parted ways over Mark's ministry faux pas (Acts 15:36-41).

That story always encourages me because the situation was irreconcilable and demanded a parting of ways. Sometimes these rifts are mended (Paul talks about John Mark 'having no one like him to help me' later on in prison.

So, I take your correction appreciatively and never want to compromise truth, yet, 'as far as it depends on me, to live in harmony.' I may not always discern when it is time to stand strong and firm in endeavoring to live at peace with all men.

I've heard it is best, if one errs, to err on the side of love, which covers a multitude of err and sin. I know there are some scriptural truths there, but it is blended from different scriptures.

If I am ever out of balance, I welcome correction, and thank you.


-Lon

 

[Stripe]

Every academic discipline demands use of terminology and expressions for its understandings. I have no problem with that, but it does create frictions when such crosses disciplines.

There is no conflict created by defining "kind." It can be used by either side according to their different assumptions, with evolutionists forced to say there is only one kind, while the Bible teaches many kinds.

They asked for the definition, were given it, and then asked for it again. When they finally accepted that a definition had been given, they began demanding that it fill the role of a classification system.

I think, though, that secular science hasn't been kind to Christians in its field.

I don't want kindness; I want rationality and honesty.

Shoot, look at how marginalized they get if any one of them disagrees with the majority. It ain't pretty. That however, doesn't take away my compassion for a Christian, even if I think him/her wrong but I don't tend to try and judge their motives.

I judge their words and actions. It took Alate about three iterations of this discussion to get to the stage where she was mocking the definition instead of denying it existed. Check the tags at the bottom of the thread; this particular debate has an extensive history.

I may question them, certainly. It is this kind of talk, specifically between Christians, that always troubles me. I try to think a person saying they are a Christian, is one until they claim or prove otherwise. The Grace of God is far reaching, even if we are inept.

This has nothing to do with whether Alate is a Christian. Evolutionists use this as emotional blackmail. They assert that we deny their membership in the body of Christ because of their evolutionism. Another lie.

That implication wasn't my intention.

OK. It is inherent in what you said though.

Rather, I'm saying that Christians, disagreeing over this matter, I tend to try to steer away from the accusatory and judgmental.

As do I. I judge when their conduct is dishonest.
I do not judge when their science is ludicrous. Well, not always. :chuckle:

Advocates have to choose sides early, but that becomes a political concern. I try to be open and listen. I surely hold to fundamental concerns regarding Christianity, but I can appreciate a person who isn't, if they can show how their view and understanding honors both God and scriptures.

That would be a breath of fresh air. For years I have been asking what good reason is there to reject the idea that the Bible teaches "six days" of creation and a global flood. There have been no sensible answers offered; certainly none that last more than a few posts of appeals to authority before they wind up being required by evolutionism.

On this particular, it is more about Christians self-professed, talking with one another. Paul opposed Peter to his face. I'm not sure if Paul said, "Peter, you are saying gentiles must be Judaized! That's a flat-out lie!" He may have, but I'd think it was more: "Peter, what are you doing!? You know we are through faith by grace alone! You may feel you need to observe Jewish heritage and tradition, but a gentile doesn't have that baggage. We do. You need to stop this."Peter was correctable. If he wasn't, and said "Gentiles must become Jews!" Paul might have said "That's a lie."

Well, I'm not Paul.

The vitriol should be left until parting and discussion is no longer possible. We should always be trying to reconcile. That is the goal of all friction between Christians. It isn't always possible. Paul and Barnabas parted ways over Mark's ministry faux pas (Acts 15:36-41).

I will reconcile when the evolutionists show good reason for their ideas. Until then, I will offer and correct mine, and oppose theirs. And when they lie, I will call them on it.

That story always encourages me because the situation was irreconcilable and demanded a parting of ways. Sometimes these rifts are mended (Paul talks about John Mark 'having no one like him to help me' later on in prison.

:up:

That would be fabulous.

However, Barbarian has said numerous times that the only value a creationist like me has is that I am a "useful idiot," providing example for what not to do.

Again, your words that put the two sides on a par are at odds with the truth.

So, I take your correction appreciatively and never want to compromise truth, yet, 'as far as it depends on me, to live in harmony.' I may not always discern when it is time to stand strong and firm in endeavoring to live at peace with all men.

I appreciate it.

I've heard it is best, if one errs, to err on the side of love, which covers a multitude of err and sin. I know there are some scriptural truths there, but it is blended from different scriptures. If I am ever out of balance, I welcome correction, and thank you. -Lon

It's difficult to express love within a disagreement and I too would greatly appreciate correction when I go too far with my opposition to evolutionists.

Thanks, buddy. :thumb:

 

[The Barbarian]

Rev. Spurgeon, touted as an expert on creation by creationists, writes:
But if you will look in the first chapter of Genesis, you will see there more particularly set forth that peculiar operation of power upon the universe which was put forth by the Holy Spirit; you will then discover what was his special work. In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God.

Spurgeon wasn't a YE creationist. He lived long before the Seventh-Day Adventists invented YE creationism.

You sure you want to go with his opinions?

He got this part right "it is not only deceptive, but it threatens to be mischievous in a high degree" but he's off on the age of Gods creation according to scripture. He did the same thing many of today's preachers do "they compromise" when there's no need to.

If you pick and chose what you want to believe in the Bible, I guess we shouldn't be surprised that you'd do that for Spurgeon. Cafeteria Christians do that sort of thing.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian demonstrates how useless Stipe's definition is:
So, I can say humans and chimps are a kind, because they have a common ancestor.

Or I could say that humans and chimps are two different kinds, because they don't have a common ancestor. Which also fits. They both fit. You just assume whatever you want, and the definition applies. Which is why it's useless.

Stipe objects:

You are only rationally justified in asserting one of those conclusions. Either chimps and people are the same kind or they aren't. Which is it?

You definition of "kind" won't tell us. It can be whatever you want it to be. In Genesis, "kind" is used for all birds, and all fish. On the other hand, in Leviticus, it's used for different breeds of cattle. Does that suggest to you why it's wrong to think it's a way to classify things?

 

[The Barbarian]

Tracer writes:

It's simple math.
A gram of water vapor that condenses to liquid releases 539 calories of heat.

A vapor canopy sufficient to form 40 feet of water would have around 6.0 x 10^21 grams of water vapor.
The mass of the atmosphere is about 5.0 x 10^21 grams. Add in the mass of your vapor canopy.
One calorie is the energy required to raise 1 gram of water on degree Celsius.
Multiply it all out and the water vapor condensing to water would raise the temperature 450 C or just over 800 F. now add that to the surface temperature that existed before the rain started...

Hadn't thought about that. But you are correct. All that thermal energy has to go somewhere. So the vapor canopy theory is in hot water, so to speak...

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian demonstrates how useless Stipe's definition is:So, I can say humans and chimps are a kind, because they have a common ancestor.Or I could say that humans and chimps are two different kinds, because they don't have a common ancestor. Which also fits. They both fit. You just assume whatever you want, and the definition applies. Which is why it's useless.Stipe objects:You definition of "kind" won't tell us. It can be whatever you want it to be.

Nope. If you look at the evidence, you might be able to determine that chimps and people do not have a common ancestor. Conversely, the evidence might show that they do. Either way, the definition specifies whether they are one kind or two.

We know why you don't want to concede this remarkably trivial point: Evolutionists hate evidence like a vampire hates sunlight.

In Genesis, "kind" is used for all birds, and all fish. On the other hand, in Leviticus, it's used for different breeds of cattle.

Well, "let's look, shall we." :chuckle:

Gen 1:11-13,20-26

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.​

Thus there were multiple kinds created, eliminating evolution as a possibility. That's two lines of evidence now, one from scripture and one from observation, that exclude evolution as a player. Prediction: The evolutionists will continue to ignore that challenges even exist.

As for your bizarre assertion about "Leviticus," which does specify further division of kinds — but not among "breeds of cattle," let alone cattle at all — Genesis also says:

Gen 7:14
They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.​

Nothing there about "breeds of cattle" being different kinds. There are different kinds of cattle of course; cows, sheep and pigs being obvious examples.

Prediction: You won't even concede that you got the book wrong, let alone retract your inane challenge.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No, it's an observation that (for example) Adam and Eve could have had no more than four alleles for each gene locus between them. And yet there are dozens of useful alleles for each today. The rest could only have evolved by mutation and natural selection. That's just the way it is. Rather than the genome deteriorating, it grew, became more diverse and robust.

Nope. The evidence shows that organisms respond rapidly to changes in their environment, eliminating evolution as a possibility.

As you learned, evolution is a change in allele frequency over time. And those rapid changes in frequency are exactly what Huxley proposed long before we had examples of rapid evolution. But as Darwin pointed out, the pacing of evolution changes as selective pressure changes.

And you've made the classic evolutionist's mistake of thinking diversity is equivalent to robustness.

Well, that's a testable claim. Let's look at the evidence...

Genetic diversity plays an important role in the survival and adaptability of a species.[6] When a population's habitat changes, the population may have to adapt to survive; the ability of the population to adapt to the changing environment will determine their ability to cope with an environmental challenge.[7] Variation in the population's gene pool provides variable traits among the individuals of that population. These variable traits can be selected for, via natural selection, ultimately leading to an adaptive change in the population, allowing it to survive in the changed environment. If a population of a species has a very diverse gene pool then there will be more variety in the traits of individuals of that population and consequently more traits for natural selection to act upon to select the fittest individuals to survive.

Genetic diversity is essential for a species to evolve. With very little gene variation within the species, healthy reproduction becomes increasingly difficult, and offspring are more likely to have problems resulting from inbreeding.[8] The vulnerability of a population to certain types of diseases can also increase with reduction in genetic diversity. Concerns about genetic diversity are especially important with large mammals due to their small population size and high levels of human-caused population effects.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_diversity

The advent of diversity degrades a genome's ability to allow organisms to adapt.

You have it backwards. Adam and Eve have only two chomosomes each. So four alleles for any particular gene locus. Now consider that modern humans have dozens of them, which have evolved since then.

And a large number of them, such as the gene for high-altitude adaption, or the gene for resistance to bubonic plague and HIV, and many, many others, has made the human population far more robust than it would be if they had not evolved.

This is why a population of animals is usually doomed if it becomes small enough; there isn't enough diversity for survival.

One reason this confuses you, is you are thinking of individuals, not populations. Individuals can only have as many alleles as they have sets of chromosomes. Usually, that's just two. Which is why Adam and Eve could only have four alleles. (if a developing human embryo becomes polyploid, he dies)

What you're trying to justify is necessary to justify creationism. But it's demonstrably false.

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian observes:No, it's an observation that (for example) Adam and Eve could have had no more than four alleles for each gene locus between them. And yet there are dozens of useful alleles for each today. The rest could only have evolved by mutation and natural selection. That's just the way it is. Rather than the genome deteriorating, it grew, became more diverse and robust.As you learned, evolution is a change in allele frequency over time. And those rapid changes in frequency are exactly what Huxley proposed long before we had examples of rapid evolution. But as Darwin pointed out, the pacing of evolution changes as selective pressure changes.

Nope. This is just the tactic favored among evolutionists of defining the debate out of existence. Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection. Pretending that we disagree with the idea that "things change" is the fallacy of equivocation.

We prefer a rational debate. :up:

Well, that's a testable claim. Let's look at the evidence...Genetic diversity plays an important role in the survival and adaptability of a species.[6] When a population's habitat changes, the population may have to adapt to survive; the ability of the population to adapt to the changing environment will determine their ability to cope with an environmental challenge.[7] Variation in the population's gene pool provides variable traits among the individuals of that population. These variable traits can be selected for, via natural selection, ultimately leading to an adaptive change in the population, allowing it to survive in the changed environment. If a population of a species has a very diverse gene pool then there will be more variety in the traits of individuals of that population and consequently more traits for natural selection to act upon to select the fittest individuals to survive.Genetic diversity is essential for a species to evolve. With very little gene variation within the species, healthy reproduction becomes increasingly difficult, and offspring are more likely to have problems resulting from inbreeding.[8] The vulnerability of a population to certain types of diseases can also increase with reduction in genetic diversity. Concerns about genetic diversity are especially important with large mammals due to their small population size and high levels of human-caused population effects.

Begging the question is another logical fallacy. We prefer a rational discussion.

This response also shows you have not understood the disagreement I raised. Would you like to try again?

You have it backwards. Adam and Eve have only two chomosomes each. So four alleles for any particular gene locus. Now consider that modern humans have dozens of them, which have evolved since then.

Begging the question is a fallacy no matter how popular you try to make it.

This is why a population of animals is usually doomed if it becomes small enough; there isn't enough diversity for survival.

Talking about the genome of a small group when the discussion is about the genome of a kind is an example of moving the goalposts — another logical fallacy. Are you going for the complete set in a single post?

One reason this confuses you, is you are thinking of individuals, not populations.

Evidenced by that fact that I specified "organisms" in my post.

 

[Stripe]

Tracer writes:Hadn't thought about that. But you are correct. All that thermal energy has to go somewhere. So the vapor canopy theory is in hot water, so to speak...

Hey, Barbarian is being accidentally helpful again. :chuckle:

:think:

He usually drops the subject after doing that. lain:

 

[The Barbarian]

As for your bizarre assertion about "Leviticus," which does specify further division of kinds — but not among "breeds of cattle," let alone cattle at all —

Well, let's take a look:

Leviticus 19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind:

Genesis also says:

Gen 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind,

So clearly, "kind" being used in different Biblical contexts, means different things; it's not a way to classify living things. In one use, it's about cattle as one kind. In another, it's about "kinds" of cattle.

cat·tle (kăt′l)
pl.n.
1. Any of various domesticated ruminant mammals of the genus Bos, including cows, steers, bulls, and oxen, often raised for meat and dairy products.

Any of various similar wild or domesticated bovine mammals, such as the anoa or the gaur.

Nothing there about "breeds of cattle" being different kinds. There are different kinds of cattle of course; cows, sheep and pigs being obvious examples.

See the definition. Not what you've suddenly changed it to be. And that dodge doesn't help you; both references say "cattle", Stipe.

And now, you're arguing that pigs and cows are the same "kind?" Seriously?

You're just making this up as you go, aren't you?

 

[The Barbarian]

(Stipe argues that genetic diversity is bad)

Barbarian observes:
No, it's an observation that (for example) Adam and Eve could have had no more than four alleles for each gene locus between them.

And yet there are dozens of useful alleles for each today. The rest could only have evolved by mutation and natural selection. That's just the way it is. Rather than the genome deteriorating, it grew, became more diverse and robust.

Barbarian observes::
Genetic diversity plays an important role in the survival and adaptability of a species.[6] When a population's habitat changes, the population may have to adapt to survive; the ability of the population to adapt to the changing environment will determine their ability to cope with an environmental challenge.[7] Variation in the population's gene pool provides variable traits among the individuals of that population. These variable traits can be selected for, via natural selection, ultimately leading to an adaptive change in the population, allowing it to survive in the changed environment. If a population of a species has a very diverse gene pool then there will be more variety in the traits of individuals of that population and consequently more traits for natural selection to act upon to select the fittest individuals to survive.Genetic diversity is essential for a species to evolve. With very little gene variation within the species, healthy reproduction becomes increasingly difficult, and offspring are more likely to have problems resulting from inbreeding.[8] The vulnerability of a population to certain types of diseases can also increase with reduction in genetic diversity. Concerns about genetic diversity are especially important with large mammals due to their small population size and high levels of human-caused population effects.
(wikipedia)

Barbarian continues:
You have it backwards. Adam and Eve have only two chomosomes each. So four alleles for any particular gene locus. Now consider that modern humans have dozens of them, which have evolved since then.

The large number of useful alleles shows that the human genome is far more robust now, than it was then.

This is why a population of animals is usually doomed if it becomes small enough; there isn't enough diversity for survival.

Talking about the genome of a small group when the discussion is about the genome of a kind is an example of moving the goalposts — another logical fallacy.

If you wanted a huge group with very little genetic diversity, it would work the same way. The reason it happens so often in small groups, is that a reduced group almost always has less genetic variability.

One reason this confuses you, is you are thinking of individuals, not populations.

Evidenced by that fact that I specified "organisms" in my post.

Yep. You're thinking that a single individual could have all the genetic variability of a large population. But of course, it can't. This is why you keep tripping over the same mistake.

Populations, if they are healthy, have a large genetic variability. A high level of genetic variability, as you now see, is a healthy thing, and aids population survival. A low level of genetic variability often dooms a population.

If this puzzles you, then you might want to learn something about genetics.

 

[Stripe]

Well, let's take a look:

Leviticus 19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind:

Yes, let's take a look.

In Leviticus, the word used is kilayim, which is in reference to regulations regarding the mixture of different sorts, including fabric. Clearly a distinct concept from the word used in Genesis — miym.

You've made the mistake of thinking a word must mean only one thing and not checked your source material.

Genesis also says:Gen 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, So clearly, "kind" being used in different Biblical contexts, means different things; it's not a way to classify living things. In one use, it's about cattle as one kind. In another, it's about "kinds" of cattle.

As you've learned: Nope.

Surprise!

And now, you're arguing that pigs and cows are the same "kind?" Seriously?

One can understand your confusion given that I said the exact opposite. :chuckle:

You're just making this up as you go, aren't you?

 

[Stripe]

(Stipe argues that genetic diversity is bad)

Yep. And if you were at all interested in accurately representing what I say, you might learn even more. :chuckle:

And yet there are dozens of useful alleles for each today. The rest could only have evolved by mutation and natural selection. That's just the way it is. Rather than the genome deteriorating, it grew, became more diverse and robust.

The large number of useful alleles shows that the human genome is far more robust now, than it was then.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy.

This is why a population of animals is usually doomed if it becomes small enough; there isn't enough diversity for survival.

Straw man argument; another logical fallacy. We are discussing the genome of a complete kind.

If you wanted a huge group with very little genetic diversity, it would work the same way.

That which you assert without evidence, we are justified in rejecting without reason.

One reason this confuses you, is you are thinking of individuals, not populations.

When you've learned to respond honestly to what I say, we might be able to engage in a rational discussion.

You're thinking that a single individual could have all the genetic variability of a large population.

Nope. I'm saying diversity in a genome indicates weakness; the more variation in the genome of a kind, the more degraded it is.

Populations, if they are healthy, have a large genetic variability.

Nope. This is your evolutionism talking.

If this puzzles you, then you might want to learn something about genetics, but first, you need to honestly represent the challenges you face.

 

[Alate_One]

]Does evidence point to millions? Billions? Trillions? Further than that? We are 'best guessing.' I'm not particularly hung up about "How long" something took, but telling me a figure like "8 billion years" is a little too cocky for my science book. Teaching is about passing along knowledge and readily admitting best guesses.

Well in scientific literature the uncertainty is stated clearly. 8 billion years plus or minus 1 billion or some such. That might be a little difficult for readers that aren't familiar with statistics (especially younger readers) to get their heads around, though.

Who did you hear this from? This is my field of study and you didn't hear it from me. Example:

So you are the authority of all scriptural interpretation? That's a little arrogant don't you think?

Some scriptures are more straightforward than others. Also our understanding of scripture has changed over time and even with scientific understanding.

Geocentrists interpreted the story of the sun standing still literally. Today even most creationists don't interpret it that way.

It doesn't matter if that is the answer. If you ask how pipes fit into a house and I say: "The plumber did it." It may not be all you are asking for, but it an acceptable answer. In fact, in some cases, it explains everything because a general contractor has to have a license and pay for expert inspectors. On bigger projects, they have to be done by those experts. That means 'The electrician did it,' is the correct answer, because you can't do a thing about it. The only reason a scientist 'needs' to know is because some other human is making it his or her business to know.

Science isn't done just because we are curious, it helps us solve problems like how to make the aforementioned pipes so that they will function correctly, how to use electricity and how to diagnose and treat disease.

We are talking about the gospel and truth of our Lord God.
If you as a scientist say 'Billions' and a theologian, who has knowledge in language and interpretation, says 'thousands,' one of them is wrong.

Other theologians disagree with the "thousands" theologian, but hardly any scientists disagree with the "billions".

Several Theologians on Genesis

Calling that a lie is shallow and seems to completely miss the point. There is a debate and it is an important one. Trash talking and claiming lying behavior isn't really helpful, nor necessarily true. I've read some of this vitriolic posturing on both sides and have not been impressed with either. I don't think you a 'liar.' I do think you a bit duped-able. I was skeptical of science findings and claims. When I repeatedly asked, in geology class, how we 'know this' the professor said 'because the text says so.'

Then you had a bad geology professor. I never answer that when a student asks. I tell them about the scientific papers and experiments on which the text is based. That's what I ask for on my exams, not as much the conclusions as the reasoning and evidence for the conclusions.

We can all read. The learning curve isn't beyond any of us. "Because the book says so" or "Because science says so" sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it?

Except that isn't correct. A professor that gives you that answer isn't giving you the full answer. Textbooks and science aren't some atheist analog to scripture. Science can be tested and confirmed by experiment.

A kid goes to high school and hears one thing from a teacher, and goes to Sunday School and church and hears another thing that doesn't jive, about the same subjects.

That's assuming the sunday school teacher feels the need to tell them the YEC story about the earth.

To not realize they do cross paths is a bit odd to me. Is that your true perception? That evolution doesn't cross existential, moral, and spiritual matters?

It *can* have those implications, but it depends. It depends on the other beliefs one already has. The process that created us, doesn't necessarily tell us what we are supposed to be, it's where we are going that's more important than where we've been.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Stipe argues that genetic diversity is bad)

Yep.

Genetic diversity plays an important role in the survival and adaptability of a species.[6] When a population's habitat changes, the population may have to adapt to survive; the ability of the population to adapt to the changing environment will determine their ability to cope with an environmental challenge.[7] Variation in the population's gene pool provides variable traits among the individuals of that population. These variable traits can be selected for, via natural selection, ultimately leading to an adaptive change in the population, allowing it to survive in the changed environment. If a population of a species has a very diverse gene pool then there will be more variety in the traits of individuals of that population and consequently more traits for natural selection to act upon to select the fittest individuals to survive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_diversity

Maybe you should learn a little bit about genetics, Stipe.

Barbarian observes:
Adam and Eve could have had no more than four alleles for each gene locus between them. And yet there are dozens of useful alleles for each today. The rest could only have evolved by mutation and natural selection. That's just the way it is. Rather than the genome deteriorating, it grew, became more diverse and robust.

The robustness of the human genome is demonstrated by populations which have evolved alleles for resistance to bubonic plague and HIV, and by the alleles found in Tibetans for survival at low oxygen tensions.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy.

(Stipe thinks evidence is "begging the question.")

Perhaps you don't know what "begging the question" means. It would be something like:

"A kind is a group of organisms with a common ancestor."

You've assumed what you intended to show. On the other hand, as you have seen, the genetic robustness of a population with much genetic diversity has been repeatedly demonstrated.

Barbarian chuckles:
One reason this confuses you, is you are thinking of individuals, not populations.

Stipe dodges:

When you've learned to respond honestly to what I say, we might be able to engage in a rational discussion.

Do you honestly think people won't notice?

Stipe writes:

Nope. I'm saying diversity in a genome indicates weakness; the more variation in the genome of a kind, the more degraded it is.

Which brings us back to the large diversity in humans, with all those alleles that allow us to live and thrive in places otherwise inaccessible.

And we know they evolved, since we came from a single set of parents, which means only four alleles at first.

I understand why you need to believe that diversity is a bad thing in a genome. But as you see, it's a false belief, even if it's a necessary one for your new religion.

Barbarian observes:
Populations, if they are healthy, have a large genetic variability.

Nope. This is your evolutionism talking.

Well, let's take a look...


Current Biology
Volume 3, Issue 6, 1 June 1993, Pages 340–350
The consequences of demographic reduction and genetic depletion in the endangered Florida panther
Abstract
The Florida panther has recently suffered severe range and demographic contraction, leaving a remarkably low level of genetic diversity. This exerts a severe fitness cost, manifested by spermatozoal defects, cryptorchidism, cardiac abnormalities and infectious diseases that threaten the survival of the subspecies.


And:


Correlation between Fitness and Genetic Diversity
Conservation Biology > Vol 17 Issue 1
Abstract: Genetic diversity is one of the three forms of biodiversity recognized by the World Conservation Union ( IUCN ) as deserving conservation. The need to conserve genetic diversity within populations is based on two arguments: the necessity of genetic diversity for evolution to occur, and the expected relationship between heterozygosity and population fitness. Because loss of genetic diversity is related to inbreeding, and inbreeding reduces reproductive fitness, a correlation is expected between heterozygosity and population fitness. Long-term effective population size, which determines rates of inbreeding, should also be correlated with fitness. However, other theoretical considerations and empirical observations suggest that the correlation between fitness and heterozygosity may be weak or nonexistent. We used all the data sets we could locate (34 ) to perform a meta-analysis and resolve the issue. Data sets were included in the study, provided that fitness, or a component of fitness, was measured for three or more populations along with heterozygosity, heritability, and/or population size. The mean weighted correlation between measures of genetic diversity, at the population level, and population fitness was 0.4323. The correlation was highly significant and explained 19% of the variation in fitness. Our study strengthens concerns that the loss of heterozygosity has a deleterious effect on population fitness and supports the IUCN designation of genetic diversity as worthy of conservation.

If this puzzles you, then you might want to learn something about genetics, but first, you need to honestly face your inability to accept evidence.

 

[Stripe]

Prediction: You won't even concede that you got the book wrong, let alone retract your inane challenge.

"A kind is a group of organisms with a common ancestor."

You can't even get the definition right. And you've put your perversion in quotation marks as if it is what I said.

Get back to us when you've learned to honestly represent that which you are determined to oppose. :up:

 

[everready]

(Stipe argues that genetic diversity is bad)



Genetic diversity plays an important role in the survival and adaptability of a species.[6] When a population's habitat changes, the population may have to adapt to survive; the ability of the population to adapt to the changing environment will determine their ability to cope with an environmental challenge.[7] Variation in the population's gene pool provides variable traits among the individuals of that population. These variable traits can be selected for, via natural selection, ultimately leading to an adaptive change in the population, allowing it to survive in the changed environment. If a population of a species has a very diverse gene pool then there will be more variety in the traits of individuals of that population and consequently more traits for natural selection to act upon to select the fittest individuals to survive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_diversity

Maybe you should learn a little bit about genetics, Stipe.

Barbarian observes:
Adam and Eve could have had no more than four alleles for each gene locus between them. And yet there are dozens of useful alleles for each today. The rest could only have evolved by mutation and natural selection. That's just the way it is. Rather than the genome deteriorating, it grew, became more diverse and robust.

The robustness of the human genome is demonstrated by populations which have evolved alleles for resistance to bubonic plague and HIV, and by the alleles found in Tibetans for survival at low oxygen tensions.



(Stipe thinks evidence is "begging the question.")

Perhaps you don't know what "begging the question" means. It would be something like:

"A kind is a group of organisms with a common ancestor."

You've assumed what you intended to show. On the other hand, as you have seen, the genetic robustness of a population with much genetic diversity has been repeatedly demonstrated.

Barbarian chuckles:
One reason this confuses you, is you are thinking of individuals, not populations.

Stipe dodges:


Do you honestly think people won't notice?

Stipe writes:


Which brings us back to the large diversity in humans, with all those alleles that allow us to live and thrive in places otherwise inaccessible.

And we know they evolved, since we came from a single set of parents, which means only four alleles at first.

I understand why you need to believe that diversity is a bad thing in a genome. But as you see, it's a false belief, even if it's a necessary one for your new religion.

Barbarian observes:
Populations, if they are healthy, have a large genetic variability.



Well, let's take a look...


Current Biology
Volume 3, Issue 6, 1 June 1993, Pages 340–350
The consequences of demographic reduction and genetic depletion in the endangered Florida panther
Abstract
The Florida panther has recently suffered severe range and demographic contraction, leaving a remarkably low level of genetic diversity. This exerts a severe fitness cost, manifested by spermatozoal defects, cryptorchidism, cardiac abnormalities and infectious diseases that threaten the survival of the subspecies.


And:


Correlation between Fitness and Genetic Diversity
Conservation Biology > Vol 17 Issue 1
Abstract: Genetic diversity is one of the three forms of biodiversity recognized by the World Conservation Union ( IUCN ) as deserving conservation. The need to conserve genetic diversity within populations is based on two arguments: the necessity of genetic diversity for evolution to occur, and the expected relationship between heterozygosity and population fitness. Because loss of genetic diversity is related to inbreeding, and inbreeding reduces reproductive fitness, a correlation is expected between heterozygosity and population fitness. Long-term effective population size, which determines rates of inbreeding, should also be correlated with fitness. However, other theoretical considerations and empirical observations suggest that the correlation between fitness and heterozygosity may be weak or nonexistent. We used all the data sets we could locate (34 ) to perform a meta-analysis and resolve the issue. Data sets were included in the study, provided that fitness, or a component of fitness, was measured for three or more populations along with heterozygosity, heritability, and/or population size. The mean weighted correlation between measures of genetic diversity, at the population level, and population fitness was 0.4323. The correlation was highly significant and explained 19% of the variation in fitness. Our study strengthens concerns that the loss of heterozygosity has a deleterious effect on population fitness and supports the IUCN designation of genetic diversity as worthy of conservation.

If this puzzles you, then you might want to learn something about genetics, but first, you need to honestly face your inability to accept evidence.

All of these things you are saying about Stripe when all he wants to do is pry you loose from that humanistic doctrine of humanism you call evolution.

everready

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't think dodging the facts with semantic games will help you now, Stipe. Feel free to explain how your specific wording means other than mine. And if it does, I'll be pleased to show you how that's begging the question, too.

I can see you're starting to realize your beliefs about genetic diversity are completely wrong, and you're looking for a way out.

But we'll carry on with it for a bit, just the same.

 

[The Barbarian]

All of these things you are saying about Stripe when all he wants to do is pry you loose from that humanistic doctrine of humanism you call evolution.

I'm just pointing out that your new religion isn't consistent with the facts. Christians have no issue with evolution; it's God's creation, after all.