Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds

[Jonahdog]

That's a bunch of nonsense.
Get cancer and tell me more about how the universe came from a magic bean

Where did cancer come from? A result of The Fall?

 

[chair]

Nope.

Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutation and natural selection. That never happened and the idea is dead in the water.

Webster:
a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny
b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

 

[6days]

Where did cancer come from?

Mutations - evolutionists magic bean that transformed brachiopods into brain surgeons.*

 

[6days]

Could you reproduce the part of the paper that most supports your contention, please?

GC.... it isn't just my contention. Its something every geneticist would agree with. I'm sure you must agree also.

Natural selection is incapable of removing most deleterious mutations. We carry thousands of deleterious mutations.*


The article I quoted from Kondrashov admits the problem in the title. No, I don't have more than the abstract. Kondrahov is an evolutionist and has wrote other similar articles. He tries to understand the high rate of accumulating mutations within his belief system.*


GC....do you believe natural selection removes most deleterious mutations? *I'm guessing you know more than enough to know NS is incapable of detecting most mutations. With the Kondrashov title that you responded to, he was only discussing slightly deletwrious mutations. If we have only 100 of those per generation added to our genome, and natural selection removes them ...what would the birth rate need to be so that humanity survives?


One more thing.... I sarcastically asked Greg if he wanted to learn about deleterious mutations. You sarcastically replied 'yes'. *However, maybe we could dicuss things. Would you agree that we have at least 2 (possibly many more) harmful mutations that are added to our genome with each successive generation. IOW deleterious as opposed to slightly deleterious.*

 

[User Name]

Viruses (such as the flu virus) constantly mutate and change over time. If it were true that mutations come at a cost, shouldn't such viruses have mutated themselves out of existence?

Are what evolutionists call "mutations" actually random changes, or are they design features?

Are what creationists call "mutations" actually random changes, or are they design features?

 

[Jose Fly]

Don't be so concerned with the arrogance of atheists and their evolution

I love it when fundamentalists basically walk away from the sciences. :thumb:

 

[Jose Fly]

Do you concede that your question has been asked and answered numerous times?

Not in any meaningful way, unless you seriously expect anyone to count ":idunno:" as an "answer".

But I suppose an idunno smiley does serve as a good icon for the state of creationism today.

Don't be daft. I have plenty of ideas of how to do that. However, such methods are well beyond scientists because they have almost no understanding of how DNA is written.

Sure...let us know when you get around to figuring it out.

No.

So you say natural selection never happens, 6days says it does and is part of the "Biblical model of creation", and now you say he's not wrong.

Way to go Stripe.

Did you have something of relevance to contribute, because this silly tactic of yours is nothing but a red herring.

I'm sure you think of it that way.

 

[gcthomas]

GC.... it isn't just my contention. Its something every geneticist would agree with. I'm sure you must agree also.
Natural selection is incapable of removing most deleterious mutations. We carry thousands of deleterious mutations.*

Slightly deleterious mutations do not need removing, since even if they become fixed in the genome rather than just drift to higher frequencies, they may well become fixed in concert with other beneficial mutations. So no real relative harm done. Seriously deleterious mutations cause genetic deaths in a significant proportion of individuals, so I would expect that removal rates of 10 - 100 per generation with the aid of synergistic epistasis for the individually less lethal mutations.

GC....do you believe natural selection removes most deleterious mutations? *I'm guessing you know more than enough to know NS is incapable of detecting most mutations. With the Kondrashov title that you responded to, he was only discussing slightly deletwrious mutations. If we have only 100 of those per generation added to our genome, and natural selection removes them ...what would the birth rate need to be so that humanity survives?

You are mixing several different questions here. First, if a mutation doesn't affect the survival rate of carriers, then it cannot be considered seriously deleterious. Slightly deleterious ones I have dealt with already. Large-effect mutations also tend to be partially recessive and so only occasionally harmful.

Would you agree that we have at least 2 (possibly many more) harmful mutations that are added to our genome with each successive generation. IOW deleterious as opposed to slightly deleterious.*

The 2.2 mutations per generation refer to whole genome rates - a better figure would be the 0.35 per generation in protein coding regions. And yes - it is plausible that in today's restricted evolution environment these mild mutations are accumulating at a slow rate, but as long as current environmental conditions are maintained or improved I don't see them causing problems. With the 0.35 figure, fitness loss per mutation are calculated to be between 0.0015% and 0.02% depending on the population. Strongly deleterious mutations are very rare, and are removed rapidly by purifying selection.

If conditions reverted, then evolution would return to selecting out those individuals with several of these mutations at a rate higher than the mutation rate, and the population would carry on regardless.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Slightly deleterious mutations do not need removing, since even if they become fixed in the genome rather than just drift to higher frequencies, they may well become fixed in concert with other beneficial mutations. So no real relative harm done. Seriously deleterious mutations cause genetic deaths in a significant proportion of individuals, so I would expect that removal rates of 10 - 100 per generation with the aid of synergistic epistasis for the individually less lethal mutations.



You are mixing several different questions here. First, if a mutation doesn't affect the survival rate of carriers, then it cannot be considered seriously deleterious. Slightly deleterious ones I have dealt with already. Large-effect mutations also tend to be partially recessive and so only occasionally harmful.



The 2.2 mutations per generation refer to whole genome rates - a better figure would be the 0.35 per generation in protein coding regions. And yes - it is plausible that in today's restricted evolution environment these mild mutations are accumulating at a slow rate, but as long as current environmental conditions are maintained or improved I don't see them causing problems. With the 0.35 figure, fitness loss per mutation are calculated to be between 0.0015% and 0.02% depending on the population. Strongly deleterious mutations are very rare, and are removed rapidly by purifying selection.

If conditions reverted, then evolution would return to selecting out those individuals with several of these mutations at a rate higher than the mutation rate, and the population would carry on regardless.

Are you a paid professional scientist or is science your hobby?

 

[gcthomas]

Are you a paid professional scientist or is science your hobby?

I am a physicist, so I don't research in biology. But I understand the principles well, especially the statistics aspects in this particular topic, so I can properly read the research papers.

 

[ClimateSanity]

I am a physicist, so I don't research in biology. But I understand the principles well, especially the statistics aspects in this particular topic, so I can properly read the research papers.

You learned the principles in undergraduate studies like i did I'm sure. Anyone who has knows the boatloads of evidence for evolution both micro and macro. The ones who oppose it on this board must have never been taught evolution beyond the high school level or took biology for non science majors in college.

 

[6days]

Slightly deleterious mutations do not need removing, since even if they become fixed in the genome rather than just drift to higher frequencies, they may well become fixed in concert with other beneficial mutations.

Slightly deleterious mutations really do contribute to a loss of fitness. Your suggestion that they don't need to be removed is an attempt to *shoehorn common ancestry beliefs fit the evidence.

Geneticist J.G.Crow: "the typical mutation is very mild. It usually has no overt effect, but shows up as a small decrease in viabilty or fertility"*

*He goes on to suggest that the decrease in viability from mutation is 1 to 2% per generation.*

Published in PNAS 1994 " THE High Spontaneous Mutation Rate:"

.... I would expect that removal rates of 10 - 100 per generation with the aid of synergistic epistasis for the individually less lethal mutations.

Synergistic epistasis is one of several different models proposed by evolutionists to try and explain away the evidence of a very high mutational load. *A more realistic outcome is*synthetic lethality.*

The 2.2 mutations per generation refer to whole genome rates - a better figure would be the 0.35 per generation in protein coding regions. And yes - it is plausible that in today's restricted evolution environment these mild mutations are accumulating at a slow rate....

2.2?

I had asked if you agree that at least 2 harmful mutations are added to our genome with each sucessive generation. The guesstimate numbers vary between different geneticists.

Kondrashov says that we have about 100 mutations per diploid human genome per generation and that " at least 10% of these are deleterious". That would mean about 10 harmful (not "slightly") mutations are added to our genome with each successive generation.*


Also.... it seems you are trying to downplaythe issue calling it a "slow rate". *Geneticists discuss the mutation rate with words such as "problematic...surprising...meltdown" etc.*

If conditions reverted, then evolution would return to selecting out those individuals with several of these mutations at a rate higher than the mutation rate, and the population would carry on regard

That is the logic the Nazi's used to elimate the unfit since natural selection wasn't keeping up.

In your scenario.....it seems you think that if modern medicine was eliminated that humans would eventually be more fit? Its also possible, it would rapidly lead to extinction.*

 

[gcthomas]

Thanks for playing 6 days, but you have ceased to contribute anything interesting.

 

[Stripe]

Are what creationists call "mutations" actually random changes, or are they design features?

Words have meaning. Look up a dictionary. Mutations are mutations, they are not by design.

Not in any meaningful way.

So you don't think the definition of kind is a meaningful response to a request for the definition of kind.

So you say natural selection never happens

Nope.

You're not very good at this whole conversation thing are you? You ask the same questions over and over, ignoring the clear answers, and you make up things for your opponents to say.

Let me guess: Evolutionist, right?

 

[chair]

...

That is the logic the Nazi's used to elimate the unfit since natural selection wasn't keeping up.

In your scenario.....it seems you think that if modern medicine was eliminated that humans would eventually be more fit? Its also possible, it would rapidly lead to extinction.*

The theory of evolution s about how nature works. It is not about morals. Your argument here is absurd- especially dragging the Nazi's into it.

 

[Stripe]

Evolutionist: What is the definition of kind?
Creationist: <gives definition>
Evolutionist: What is the definition of kind?

 

[alwight]

Evolutionist: What is the definition of kind?
Creationist: <gives definition>
Evolutionist: What is the definition of kind?

Evolutionist: What is the definition of kind?
Creationist: claims that a definition was given earlier
Evolutionist: What is the definition of kind?

 

[6days]

If conditions reverted, then evolution would return to selecting out those individuals with several of these mutations at a rate higher than the mutation rate, and the population would carry on regard

That is the logic the Nazi's used to elimate the unfit since natural selection wasn't keeping up.

Your argument here is absurd- especially dragging the Nazi's into it.

It isn't my argument. It's the argument that GC made which mirrors the logic Nazi's used to eliminate those they deemed unfit.


Words from a Nazi in one of their propoganda films...

"All that is unviable in nature invariably perishes. We humans have transgressed the law of natural selection... not only have we supported inferior life forms, we have encouraged their propagation. Sick people looks like this....(video of people who were likely destined for the gas chamber). ... Tens of thousands of drooling imbeciles have been fed and cared for... individual of lower than beasts."

 

[Stripe]

Evolutionist: What is the definition of kind?
Creationist: claims that a definition was given earlier
Evolutionist: What is the definition of kind?

Unfortunately for your false narrative, the definition has been given numerous times, making you a liar.

 

[gcthomas]

It isn't my argument. It's the argument that GC made which mirrors the logic Nazi's used to eliminate those they deemed unfit.

An outrageous slur, 6Days. Do you not have the cognitive power to see the difference between a description of nature and an expression of its moral desirability? To be honest, 6D, the fact of your existence is the single strongest argument you have made that argues against survival of the fittest …