|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution falsifies God/s? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
Once again:Message 75
quote: Why are you still arguing that humans would have gone extinct through genetic meltdown shortly after the flood?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
faceman writes: Mutations do not create new information, side-by-side with the old information. Once the old information mutates, it is no longer present as old information. There can be no net gain. It's kind of you to teach the world about genetics, but it might be a good idea if you actually learned something about the subject before attempting to do so.
Interesting reading More interesting reading Now that you know about duplication and neofunctionalization, you can retract the comment I quoted, can't you? You could also explain why you made it in the first place. Edited by bluegenes, : corrected link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
How about your favorite, Dr. John Sanford? Let's look at what really happens when we can watch it happening. Here's how it works. You take one bacterium, and let it breed, producing what is known as a clonal line. Any changes in the genetic composition of the bacteria from now on must be produced by mutation, rather than mere selection from a range of genetic diversity, because you started with one bacterium. So, you introduce your bacteria into a new environment, you let them breed, you see if they mutate and adapt to the new environment. You watch them for years and years. Now, here's the clever bit. You can freeze bacteria, keep them literally on ice until you need them again. So every now and then you can take a sample of the bacteria and freeze them. So this means that if you want you can take the old bacteria out of the fridge, thaw them, let them breed a bit (so you know you have bacteria that aren't weakened by the freezing process) and then put them in direct competition with their descendants. Now, if Sanford was right, then the old bacteria would win. The first generation of bacteria would be stronger and fitter than their descendants 10,000 generations down the line, weighed down by the burden of their accumulated detrimental mutations. But if non-crazy people are right, then the more recent generations of bacteria will be better fitted to the environment, and will wipe the floor with bacteria having the genes of their ancestors. Which do you suppose happens? Yeah, the newer bacteria kick the ass of the older bacteria. Now if Sanford has a computer model saying that the opposite should happen, then his "model" does not in fact model reality. To which I would add, I've written lots of computer programs to model evolution. They never give the same results as Sanford claims he's got. What's more, they contradict him very robustly --- that is, I can fiddle with the parameters however much I like, the mutation rate, the strength of selection, whatever, and they still show that evolution works. The only way I've ever got my simulated bacteria to collapse under a genetic load was by supposing that their environment was so constrained that there'd never be more than 10 bacteria on my simulated Petri dish. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
faceman writes:
And in 1492, America rose up out of the ocean. Genetic disorders are on the rise. Or maybe our ability to detect genetic dsorders is on the rise. Maybe before Darwin people died from genetic disorders (i.e. natural selection) but nobody knew they were genetic disorders.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
ringo writes: faceman writes: Genetic disorders are on the rise. Or maybe our ability to detect genetic disorders is on the rise. Both. A higher average age of parents (particularly fathers) leads to an increased mutation rate, so there has been a rise in disorders in industrialised countries.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Thanks bluegenes. I read some article at a stage where the occurrence of Down Syndrome also increases exponentially with the age of the mother.
This whole thing got me reading up on it a bit, and I got this Interesting site . It seems as if some polygenetic diseases such as type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, autism, asthma, and celiac disease (gluten sensitivity) are on the increase, not for the reasons faceman provided, but rather due to the increasing mobility of populations (they call it "population mixing).
In a nutshell, when a specific population has undergone selection against one or more of several disease susceptibility genes - the very genes required for a polygenic disease to occur - that population will, as a result of this selection, have a reduced incidence of the disease. However, when individuals from this population mix with populations that have selected against a different set of susceptibility genes, then their offspring will have a more complete set of these susceptibility genes than either parent. A higher incidence of polygenic diseases is the result.
However, for the same reason diseases associated with single genes (cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, and Tay-Sachs Disease) are on the decrease .
This is counter-intuitive and the opposite of the concept of "hybrid vigor" which results in a reduction in incidence of recessive diseases caused by single genes. Diseases of this type include cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, and Tay-Sachs Disease. Reduction in the incidence of these conditions is a positive aspect of genetic mixing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3412 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
If atheism is a beleif system then so in is not beleiving in alien abductions. If you organize a movement around not believing in alien abductions, then I suppose it would be a belief system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3412 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
Neutral, deleterious and beneficial are all just mutations from a previously "normal" (non-mutated) gene. Many of the useful mutations are actually a net loss of the original useful code.
Most mutations are neutral. The more neutral mutations there are, the less original useful material the organism has left to work with. Neutral is not useful - it's just in the way. The only way the ToE could work, is if a majority of the mutations were beneficial, but that's not the case.
Deleterious mutations are selected out. Natural selection works at the molecular level now? Weeding out only the bad mutations?
Genetic Load Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix link. Don't use a " at the beginning or end of the address.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3412 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined:
|
you must be not getting all sorts of pussy Not all sorts, no. I'm not into the sampler platter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3412 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
asdfqweb trhbkjgnhkfgzsdcasdgfczdsfgc
How's that for information? Not too informative, eh? But when I arrange the letters in a proper order and in a manner that you and I agree upon (in terms of a language), then suddenly we have communication.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The only way the ToE could work, is if a majority of the mutations were beneficial, but that's not the case. And yet we see it working. Therefore the reasoning (which you do not supply) which led you to make this bizarre assertion must be flawed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3412 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
Here's better evidence (unless you think advocating communism is a step in the right direction):
Rep. Joe Garcia (Democrat):
"Two of the safest cities in America are on the border with Mexico. Of course, the reason is we’ve proved that communism works. If you give everybody a good government job, there is no crime,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3412 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well done, you said something true about genetics. I'm not sure why you said it, but you did.
You made up for your brief moment of accuracy by having a broken link. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
faceman writes: Neutral, deleterious and beneficial are all just mutations from a previously "normal" (non-mutated) gene. Au contraire. All genes ever investigated are mutations from other mutated genes. Your link doesn't work, but anyway, when you Google it, you get on Wiki ( I take it that it's the reference you intended):
One problem with calculating genetic load is that in order to do so you have to a have a perfect or optimal genotype with which to compare the population to; this kind of genotype simply does not exist. This is problem because it means that it is harder for scientists to gauge with accuracy how much load a population has, and how much load it can bear without being in danger. This means that all perceptions of genetic load should be taken with a grain of salt. My bold. Edited by Pressie, : Spelling and added sentence
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024